Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At Phys.org: New study finds our ancient relatives were not so simple after all

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Researchers at the University of Nottingham have solved an important piece of the animal evolution puzzle as their new study reveals that our ancient ancestors were more complex than originally thought.

Way back in our distant evolutionary history, animals underwent a major innovation. They evolved to have a left and right side, and two gut openings. This brought about a plethora of significant advantages in terms of propelling themselves directly forward at increased speed through the early seas, finding food, extracting nutrients, and/or avoiding being eaten.

However, a research team, led by Dr. Mary O’Connell at the University of Nottingham has found that Xenacoelomorphs branch much later in time, they are not the earliest branch on the bilaterian family tree, and their closest relatives are far more complex animals like star fish. This means that Xenacoelomorphs have lost many of the complex features of their closest relatives, challenging the idea that evolution leads to ever more complex and intricate forms. Instead, the new study shows that loss of features is an important factor in driving evolution.

Note: Lacking a naturalistic mechanism for the generation of the new information of novel features, the idea of the “loss of features” is put forward as a driving factor for supposed evolutionary advance.

“There are many fundamental questions about the evolution of animals that need to be answered… many parts of this family tree that are not known or not resolved. But what an exciting time to be an evolutionary biologist with the availability of exquisite genome data from the beautiful diversity of species we currently have on our planet, allowing us to unlock secrets of our most distant past,” says Dr. Mary O’Connell, associate professor in life sciences.

The paper, titled “Filtering artifactual signal increases support for Xenacoelomorpha and Ambulacraria sister relationship in the animal tree of life” has been published in Current Biology. It details the application of a special phylogenetic technique to help in extracting signal from noise over deep time, showing increased support for Xenacoelomorphs being sister to ambulacraria (e.g. star fish) rather than being the deepest diverging of the bilateria.

The research team at the University of Nottingham will now explore other challenging family trees and other connections between genome changes and phenotypic diversity.

Full article at Phys.org.
Comments
14+ years? Seriously? Maybe 14 or so months. Talk about being wrong
ChuckDarwin cannot read. This explains a lot of his issues. I address a comment to Seversky and he thinks it is addressed to him. This might be the problem with Chuck. Maybe, ChuckDarwin is just ego centered. Aside: in the lecture on evolution from the genetics course I listed above, the lecturer’s examples of evolution are just trivial micro evolution ones. (Moths, finches, plant leaves) In other words the lecturer is using ID approved examples of change to illustrate evolution. In other words it’s not about Evolution. An extremely ID friendly course. ID approved. Aside2: let’s make a distinction between ID friendly science which includes most of the science done and speculative non proven science. They are often mixed in the same paragraph even in the same sentence. But they are different. People like ChuckDarwin who cannot distinguish truth from science fiction has trouble understanding this basic fact of human behavior.jerry
November 12, 2022
November
11
Nov
12
12
2022
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT
Jerry/47 14+ years? Seriously? Maybe 14 or so months. Talk about being wrong......chuckdarwin
November 12, 2022
November
11
Nov
12
12
2022
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT
Relatd/37 By the by, now that religion has "returned" to Russia, it is up to its old tricks of kowtowing to the tsar......... https://www.christianpost.com/voices/the-russian-orthodox-church-is-complicit-in-the-war-with-ukraine.htmlchuckdarwin
November 12, 2022
November
11
Nov
12
12
2022
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT
Where in the Great Course on Genetics is the section on ID? Whoops, they must have forgotten to put it in. How embarrassing–you might want to bring that to their attention
Doubling down on stupid. ID is science+ So ID includes all proven science. Nothing in the above course contradicts ID. How could it? ID is the best science interpretation in the world. In the above course, the author speculates in two places on unproven assumptions/speculation because of something called the reputational cascade. Such effects explain how individuals such as yourself who are always wrong arise and why many authors must bow to emperor and not talk about his lack of clothing.
on Behe’s “misunderstandings
What misunderstanding? There aren’t any. The misunderstanding is completely on Lents part as he distorts the book. And you fell for it. You have been around here for 14+ years and are almost 100% wrong. Why do you have to constantly misrepresent? It always undermines what you say.jerry
November 12, 2022
November
11
Nov
12
12
2022
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT
Chuckdarwin/38
I don’t think Lents’ discussion of Behe’s “misunderstanding” of natural selection, in particular, and evolutionary biology, in general, is confined to Behe. I think it pervades the Discovery Institute cognoscenti and the larger ID “movement.” Lents’ comments capture the point I made at Comment 1 in much greater detail. This weird obsession with “loss of information” and “broken genes,” I suppose, is a quick and dirty way to appeal to the folks sitting in the pews……
Your comment @1 neatly encapsulated that position. I came across Lents's piece when looking for further commentary on Behe's case and thought that, given the extent to which ID/creationists lean on Behe's "misunderstandings", it wouldn't hurt to belabor the point.Seversky
November 12, 2022
November
11
Nov
12
12
2022
04:47 AM
4
04
47
AM
PDT
Jerry/40 Where in the Great Course on Genetics is the section on ID? Whoops, they must have forgotten to put it in. How embarrassing--you might want to bring that to their attention.....chuckdarwin
November 12, 2022
November
11
Nov
12
12
2022
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PDT
Relatd/37
Atheism was the official religion in the Soviet Union.
To quote Penn Gillette, "Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby". Or, to put it another way, a thing cannot be both itself and its negation at one and the same time. The nearest thing the Communist Party of the Soviet Union had to a religion was the political ideology of Marxism-Leninism.
So what god were Russian soldiers dying for in World War II?
I would guess that, for the most part, they were dying to defend their country like the soldiers of other countries.
After the Soviet Union fell in the early 1990s, religion returned.
That's true, which strongly suggest that atheism did not replace other faiths - tens of millions did not suddenly "convert" to atheism because of Darwinism or anything else - those other faiths were simply suppressed by the atheist communist regime.Seversky
November 12, 2022
November
11
Nov
12
12
2022
04:37 AM
4
04
37
AM
PDT
PaV @36 as to Kimura’s ‘Neutral Theory’ this was published in 2018:
Theorists Debate How ‘Neutral’ Evolution Really Is For 50 years, evolutionary theory has emphasized the importance of neutral mutations over adaptive ones in DNA. Real genomic data challenge that assumption. https://www.quantamagazine.org/neutral-theory-of-evolution-challenged-by-evidence-for-dna-selection-20181108/
martin_r
November 11, 2022
November
11
Nov
11
11
2022
10:44 PM
10
10
44
PM
PDT
Relatd @37
Atheism was the official religion in the Soviet Union.
not only in the Soviet Union ... in the whole Eastern Europe (prior 1990) ... Religious people were persecuted by communists ... During that era, to go to church was a heroic act. Some priests got jailed ...martin_r
November 11, 2022
November
11
Nov
11
11
2022
10:26 PM
10
10
26
PM
PDT
BA77
For instance. from his book ‘Evidence for Christianity’ Josh McDowell, in giving examples of the influence of Jesus Christ on the world, cites many examples of Christianity’s positive influence. Here are just a few examples: 1. Hospitals 2. Universities 3. Literacy and education for the masses 4. Representative government 5. Separation of political powers 6. Civil liberties 7. Abolition of slavery 8. Modern science 9. The elevation of the common man 10. High regard for human life
let me add Charitymartin_r
November 11, 2022
November
11
Nov
11
11
2022
10:17 PM
10
10
17
PM
PDT
I have a Great Courses course on Genetics. Here are the various lectures. . Our Inheritance ................................... Mendel and Genes............................ Genes and Chromosomes............... The Search for the Gene—DNA..... DNA Structure and Replication ...... DNA Expression in Proteins ............ Genes, Enzymes, and Metabolism .... From DNA to Protein....................... Genomes ....................................... Manipulating Genes—Recombinant DNA .. Isolating Genes and DNA .......................... Biotechnology—Genetic Engineering ...... Biotechnology and the Environment.......... Manipulating DNA by PCR and Other Methods.................................. DNA in Identification—Forensics .......... DNA and Evolution ............................... Lecture Seventeen DNA and Human Evolution............. Molecular Medicine—Genetic Screening...... Molecular Medicine—The Immune System .............................. Molecular Medicine—Cancer.................. Molecular Medicine—Gene Therapy...... Molecular Medicine—Cloning and Stem Cells ....................................... Genetics and Agriculture ........................ Nothing mysterious, just changes in the genome over time due to variation, heritability and selection. Everything I said about genetics and Behe is true. All can be easily verified.jerry
November 11, 2022
November
11
Nov
11
11
2022
07:34 PM
7
07
34
PM
PDT
what do you mean by genetics
Genetics is a branch of biology concerned with the study of genes, genetic variation, and heredity in organisms
Or
Genetics is the study of genes—the units of heredity—and how the traits for which they carry coded information are transmitted from one generation to the next.
It’s as simple as that. ————-
This weird obsession with “loss of information” and “broken genes,” I suppose, is a quick and dirty way to appeal to the folks sitting in the pews
One of the more stupid comments ever made here. Just assume that ID writers know as much about changes in genomes over time as any evolutionary biologist in the world. Certainly Behe does. Lost of genetic information is just one of the ways genomes change. It’s ironic that this has produced more changes than the building up of new variations to genomes. What’s missing is any examples of the processes mentioned by Lents producing any significant change. If it did, we would hear nothing but it.jerry
November 11, 2022
November
11
Nov
11
11
2022
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT
Seversky/35 I don’t think Lents’ discussion of Behe’s “misunderstanding” of natural selection, in particular, and evolutionary biology, in general, is confined to Behe. I think it pervades the Discovery Institute cognoscenti and the larger ID “movement.” Lents’ comments capture the point I made at Comment 1 in much greater detail. This weird obsession with “loss of information” and “broken genes,” I suppose, is a quick and dirty way to appeal to the folks sitting in the pews……chuckdarwin
November 11, 2022
November
11
Nov
11
11
2022
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT
Atheism was the official religion in the Soviet Union. So what god were Russian soldiers dying for in World War II? After the Soviet Union fell in the early 1990s, religion returned.relatd
November 11, 2022
November
11
Nov
11
11
2022
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT
Jerry:
15 years ago it was pointed out that every truthful argument for Darwinian Evolution was based on micro evolution or genetics. So there is largely truth in what they claim. Does anyone here doubt genetics? Genetics is based on Darwinian processes.
Jerry, what do you mean by genetics? If you define "genetics" as what genes do in various kinds of cells, well, then, fine. If you mean what Mendel discovered, that genes segregate between generations, that's fine too. But if you mean "neo-Darwinian" theory, then, this is no longer "genetics." The clue here is this: contrary to what you wrote, "genetics" is NOT based on Darwinian processes; rather, 'neo-Darwinism' has 'co-opted' genetics and developed theories that suggest the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibria can be overcome via many generations and via changes in environments. This is, at the very least, disputed. Now, if your model of "genetics" is what Jacob and Monod found bacteria doing, then, fine, we can say that certain organisms adapt themselves through selective death. But these are simple organisms. They replicate quite proficiently and quickly. Their generation period is perhaps hours. And they have lots of nutrients (since they're so small and have limited needs). These, though, fails when we begin to deal with more complex organisms that have more complicated chromosomal structures together with more specialized structures within their cells. Kimura's 'Neutral Theory' is a DIRECT consequence of the fact that if you take two things: 1) the notion that "selective death" is the driving force for evolution and 2) long generation times--i.e., not the hours that bacteria take, but, in the case of mammals, sometimes twenty years, these two realities simply don't "mix." They're like 'water and oil.' In his book on Neutral Theory, Kimura specifically uses the example of the amount of geological/deep time it would take for an elephant to incorporate a simply base substitution. The history of evolutionary theory since Darwin's time till present is one of amalgamation. I call it the "Blob." Just like the "Blob" from movie fame, Darwinism has the ability to incorporate anything into its theory, thus making it unfalsifiable and hence, despite debate about unfalsifiability, unscientific. This last paragraph is a preamble to the fact that somehow, some way, Neutral Theory, which is essentially the statement that "neo-Darwinism" CANNOT explain "genetics," is now rolled up into "neo-Darwinism"/"Modern Synthesis." You see: "synthesis," that is, "amalgamation;" that is, the "Blob." In the modern world of epigenetics, whole genome analysis, enhanced microscopy and such, this "bird" just can't fly anymore. Here, I'm going to sound like I'm going off-topic, but I'm not. Years ago, right here at UD, I highlighted the case of the Adriatic lizards moved from one island to another island having no lizards whatsoever and being left there, uninspected for forty years because of the Bosnian/Serbian war. When the biologist went back to the island, they found that their genome had NOT change; but that their physiology DID change. Now, my question to you: if no "alleles" changed, then HOW did these physiological changes come about--the most dramatic being the development of cecal valves in their stomachs? How does "genetics" answer this question? How did these changes happen in forty to eighty generations? I'll wait for your response to this post and to this question, and then we can discuss the above lizard experiment a bit more. I wonder if you remember this discussion taking place here years ago.PaV
November 11, 2022
November
11
Nov
11
11
2022
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT
Relatd/30
Seversky at 29, This might help: https://evolutionnews.org/2019/04/vindicated-by-behe-devolution-is-natural-evolution-is-not/
This might help more ...
Darwin Devolves: “Devolution” is Not a Thing […] In Michael Behe’s new book, he touts the concept “Devolution” using what he calls the first rule of adaptive evolution, that is, that unguided natural selection usually works through random mutations that damage, diminish, or break the genes in which they occur. To do more than that, the actions of a supernatural intelligent agent are required, according to Behe. (For a more comprehensive review of Behe’s ideas about Intelligent Design, see the first few sections of my recent review of “Darwin Devolves.”) I have lots of problems with this book. I detail some of them in this review in Science, but I take a detailed scientific look at his opening example in this post, which I think captures Behe’s general approach of presenting data in a very misleading way. But in addition to the problems with his individual claims and examples, the whole concept of “devolution” is rather puzzling and I’d like to expand on that. You have probably never seen the word “devolution” in a scientific context, because it is not a concept within biological science (as far as I know). Behe uses the terms devolve and devolution to indicate a loss or diminishing of function, as though these were the opposites of evolve and evolution. According to Behe, a protein evolves if it improves in function (or gains a new function), and it devolves if it’s function is reduced, degraded, or destroyed. These are not terms that chemist, biochemists, or molecular biologists use and understand. “Devolve” is a pure Behe-ism. It also doesn’t make any sense. Evolution simply means change over time, and it is not a steady march toward perfection or increasing complexity. In fact, evolution favors simplicity, efficiency, and streamlining as often as it favors complexity. While it’s possible that Behe is using the term in a jocular manner, there’s no indication of that, and he uses the term repeatedly throughout the book in that very specific way. Let’s call this… Misunderstanding #1: Behe seems to think that evolution is the accumulation of complexity. If so, it’s no wonder that he has such angst about it. The reality is that evolution is aimless, sloppy, and produces clunky solutions as often as it does elegant ones. Our own bodies are filled with glitches and goofs left over from the imprecision of natural selection. This may be deeply unsatisfying to some, but nature cares little about our satisfaction. This fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of evolution is a serious error, especially for someone who has dedicated his career to critiquing modern evolutionary theory. But it not the only one. Misunderstanding #2: Behe’s notion of “irreducible complexity” demands that natural selection can only work if every single step on an evolutionary path is advantageous. We know that’s not true. Populations of organisms harbor a great deal of genetic diversity generated by gene duplications, neutral mutations (and even slightly deleterious ones), recombination, and even rare but dramatic events like chromosomal duplications or rearrangements, and horizontal gene transfer (which may actually be not as rare as we thought). Evolutionary forces then act on all that diversity in unpredictable ways. In Darwin Devolves, you will not find discussions of any of this. Behe either ignores or quickly dismisses these phenomena, despite the key role they play in the generation of the very complexity that Behe doesn’t think that nature can build. Misunderstanding #3: Behe frequently speaks as though natural selection (which he often calls Darwinism) is the only evolutionary force and speaks about in only the simplest terms, as if we haven’t learned a great deal since the mid-19th century. Natural selection encompasses many permutations that Behe rarely, if ever, acknowledges including exaptation, sexual selection, and frequency-dependent selection. Moreover, natural selection is joined by other forces such as genetic drift, gene flow, hybridization, and meiotic drive. Behe constantly repeats his refrain that natural selection cannot account for everything we see in nature. Yeah, we know. And we’ve known that for a very long time.
Seversky
November 11, 2022
November
11
Nov
11
11
2022
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT
Jerry,, ha ha ha,,,bornagain77
November 11, 2022
November
11
Nov
11
11
2022
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT
Looking for intelligent life https://i.redd.it/1k0f2gbnmba81.jpgjerry
November 11, 2022
November
11
Nov
11
11
2022
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT
Martin_r: "(Yet) When a Darwinian biologist is wrong, tens of millions of people become atheists”,,, Sev: "Oh, would that were true…" So Sev, are you saying that you actually would prefer Darwinian biologists to be wrong just so that tens of millions of people would become atheists? ,,, Aside from revealing your dogmatic bias towards atheism no matter if Darwinism is wrong, tell me something Seversky, have you ever really cracked a history book? i.e. You do realize that tens of millions of people actually have been led astray, led into atheism, because of Darwin's pseudoscientific theory do you not? BA77: "(and then a couple of hundred million people die)." Sev: "How many people have died in the name of religions whose followers cannot even admit the possibility that they might be wrong?" So what is your actual argument here Seversky? Christianity is ALMOST as bad as your Darwinian atheism is in murdering its own people so we should prefer your Darwinian atheism over Christianity? Sev, aside from your claim being patently absurd on its face, your claim doesn't even make any logical sense. Even if Christianity were ALMOST as bad as atheism in murdering its own people, as you falsely imagine it to be, we should still prefer the worldview that has resulted in less death. Moreover, contrary to what you, and Dawkins, falsely imagine about Christianity being ALMOST as bad as atheism, the fact of the matter is that Christianity, unlike Darwinian atheism, has made the world a much better place for humanity. For instance. from his book ‘Evidence for Christianity’ Josh McDowell, in giving examples of the influence of Jesus Christ on the world, cites many examples of Christianity’s positive influence. Here are just a few examples:
1. Hospitals 2. Universities 3. Literacy and education for the masses 4. Representative government 5. Separation of political powers 6. Civil liberties 7. Abolition of slavery 8. Modern science 9. The elevation of the common man 10. High regard for human life Evidence for Christianity - Josh McDowell https://www.amazon.com/Evidence-Christianity-Josh-McDowell/dp/1418506281
bornagain77
November 11, 2022
November
11
Nov
11
11
2022
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT
As stated, that argument is nonsense
So something that’s perfectly logical because it fits the data is nonsense. I didn’t say all fit organisms devolved. But some actually did and got fitter. And there are no examples of new capabilities arising through genomic change. Maybe you should read the book before commenting. It makes you look like a fool.jerry
November 11, 2022
November
11
Nov
11
11
2022
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT
Seversky at 29, This might help: https://evolutionnews.org/2019/04/vindicated-by-behe-devolution-is-natural-evolution-is-not/relatd
November 11, 2022
November
11
Nov
11
11
2022
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT
Jerry/27
ID is science+
No, ID is science manqué. It fails to live up to its claims.
Behe has a specific meaning by devolve. It is when an organism survives or is fittest when it loses genomic information. That is how some organism get fitter. In fact it is a very common way they do
As stated, that argument is nonsense. If the fitness of an organism is improved by the loss of genetic information then that information must have been detrimental. Losing it allowed the organism to become better fitted, so how is that devolution? If losing genetic information is always happening and always detrimental to organisms then why don't they experience an inevitable genomic degradation to the point where they collapse in an error catastrophe? In fact, on that understanding, why are there any genetic-based life-forms around at all? And does Behe make any mention of the proposed mechanisms by which information could be added to the genome?Seversky
November 11, 2022
November
11
Nov
11
11
2022
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT
Bornagain77/17
“When an engineer is wrong, people may die. (Yet) When a Darwinian biologist is wrong, tens of millions of people become atheists”,,,
Oh, would that were true...
(and then a couple of hundred million people die).
How many people have died in the name of religions whose followers cannot even admit the possibility that they might be wrong?Seversky
November 11, 2022
November
11
Nov
11
11
2022
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT
What in the world are you talking about?
Genetics Everything you list is genetics. And ID has no disagreements with anything you list or genetics. ID is science+ so you just endorsed part of what ID endorses. You just endorsed something else besides Social Security.
or if you’re in Behe’s strange world, “devolve”
Behe has a specific meaning by devolve. It is when an organism survives or is fittest when it loses genomic information. That is how some organism get fitter. In fact it is a very common way they do. So the expression "devolves" is extremely appropriate. You endorsed "devolves" too. Aside: you make comments on things you do not understand. The above for example. Maybe besides derogatory remarks, you should reserve your comments for asking questions. Asise2: I can give you a bank number to use when you endorse those checks.jerry
November 11, 2022
November
11
Nov
11
11
2022
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT
Re: Jerry What in the world are you talking about? Organisms evolve (or if you're in Behe's strange world, "devolve"). Fitness doesn't evolve or "devolve." Fitness, contrary to BA77's meanderings into 100-year-old biology, is simply a description of how well an organism interacts (i.e., fits) with its environment. Does it thrive and reproduce, or does it struggle and die out? These questions are studied using, inter alia, birth rate, mortality rate, metabolism, food utilization, dominance, predation, climate, terrain, etc. etc. etc. by field and population biologists. The whole science of wildlife management deals with fitness. None of this has anything to do with "intelligent design." The only thing that I'll be endorsing is my social security check...........chuckdarwin
November 11, 2022
November
11
Nov
11
11
2022
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT
Jerry: Except fitness devolves. Meaning? No evidence for that in Evolution. In genetics, yes. So you are endorsing ID. I've asked you before some questions regarding your view of genetics vs evolution but you a) missed the questions, b) ran away and ignored the questions. Are you ready now to clear up your views?JVL
November 11, 2022
November
11
Nov
11
11
2022
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT
I think my post at #1 adequately addresses the topic of the OP.
Except fitness devolves. No evidence for that in Evolution. In genetics, yes. So you are endorsing ID.jerry
November 11, 2022
November
11
Nov
11
11
2022
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT
Martin_r If English is your second language, then I apologize for my corrective. You are to be complimented on improving your skills in a foreign language. We Americans are woefully deficient in that department. Substantively, I think my post at #1 adequately addresses the topic of the OP.chuckdarwin
November 11, 2022
November
11
Nov
11
11
2022
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT
Chuck "as far as i know" corrected: "as far as I know"martin_r
November 11, 2022
November
11
Nov
11
11
2022
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT
you sure
Absolutely. You fail to understand that most of what they say is genetics. And anything wrong there will be corrected and nearly all is good science that ID agrees with. So ID agrees with the Darwinians on most of what they find. That is an uncomfortable truth that people fail to realize here. There have been a few dissenting biologists of Darwin’s ideas for years. They could care less about design. They are looking for another natural way for Evolution and are not supporters of ID.jerry
November 11, 2022
November
11
Nov
11
11
2022
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply