[_ Old Earth _] Findings of Evolutionary Development and Primate Brains.

[Barbarian]

Evo-devo and the primate isocortex: the central organizing role of intrinsic gradients of neurogenesis
Brain Behav Evol. 2014;84(2):81-92
Abstract
Spatial gradients in the initiation and termination of basic processes, such as cytogenesis, cell-type specification and dendritic maturation, are ubiquitous in developing nervous systems. Such gradients can produce a niche adaptation in a particular species. For example, the high density of photoreceptors and neurons in the 'area centralis' of some vertebrate retinas result from the early maturation of its center relative to its periphery. Across species, regularities in allometric scaling of brain regions can derive from conserved spatial gradients: longer neurogenesis in the alar versus the basal plate of the neural tube is associated with relatively greater expansion of alar plate derivatives in larger brains. We describe gradients of neurogenesis within the isocortex and their effects on adult cytoarchitecture within and across species. Longer duration of neurogenesis in the caudal isocortex is associated with increased neuron number and density per column relative to the rostral isocortex. Later-maturing features of single neurons, such as soma size and dendritic spine numbers reflect this gradient. Considering rodents and primates, the longer the duration of isocortical neurogenesis in each species, the greater the rostral-to-caudal difference in neuron number and density per column. Extended developmental duration produces substantial, predictable changes in the architecture of the isocortex in larger brains, and presumably a progressively changed functional organization, the properties of which we do not yet fully understand. Many features of isocortical architecture previously viewed as species- or niche-specific adaptations can now be integrated as the natural outcomes of spatiotemporal gradients that are deployed in larger brains.

So delayed maturation of the embryo leads directly to the larger cortex of hominid brains. The effect was first suggested by D'Arcy Thompson in the early 1900s; he showed that human faces were most like those of juvenile apes, and demonstrated that this should result in an adult hominid with a larger brain and smaller face.

Now we know the genetic cause of this.

 

[brother Paul]

Lord...please help Barbarian....

 

[Barbarian]

He did. He told me that I don't have anything to fear from the truth. He is truth. Let Him be God and decide how He should do creation.

Once one is willing to let Him be in control, all of that fear goes away. Worth a try.

 

[brother Paul]

God formed man from the elements of the earth directly, not through ape-kind. So for me, believing the truth is that ape-kind is nature's development and variety (speciation) upon God's original design for ape-kind. Ape-kind did indeed change and develop variety over time. Nothing in your article, or others I have read with the same spin on interpreting the data via the preconceived conclusion, actually demonstrates one became the other, just that they shared some anatomical similarities (just as tigers and lions, bears and dogs, etc.)

Thompson (who YOU mentioned) saw Natural selection as some secondary factor. The similarity of form and development within kinds (like fish as opposed to birds) for him actually FOLLOWED mathematical patterns (thus pre-designed possibilities)....he actually was one of the first to indicate scientifically that Darwin's general theory was in error.

 

[Barbarian]

God formed man from the elements of the earth directly, not through ape-kind.

That is man's revision of God's word. That's not what Genesis says.

So for me, believing the truth is that ape-kind is nature's development and variety (speciation) upon God's original design for ape-kind. Ape-kind did indeed change and develop variety over time. Nothing in your article, or others I have read with the same spin on interpreting the data via the preconceived conclusion, actually demonstrates one became the other, just that they shared some anatomical similarities (just as tigers and lions, bears and dogs, etc.)

Perhaps you didn't read the article. That's not what the evidence is about. The anatomical evidence (as Thompson showed, a hundred years ago) is now confirmed by genetic evidence showing the same thing.

Thompson (who YOU mentioned) saw Natural selection as some secondary factor.

Not quite. He argued (with some evidence to support him) that biological form depended as much on physical laws as on heritable factors. So the shape of the skull was dependent on physical forces and on genes. The point he made with the comparison of the skulls of humans and apes was that a simple change in developmental timing could produce a large number of changes, and the coordinates of development in each skull showed evidence for this. Evo-devo has now confirmed his expectation.

Which, as you might know, is part of Darwin's theory. The notion of the biological populations, affected and changed by environment, is the heart of Darwinism.

The similarity of form and development within kinds (like fish as opposed to birds) for him actually FOLLOWED mathematical patterns (thus pre-designed possibilities)

"Pre-designed possibilities" was not part of his idea. His ideas are serious objections to ID:

However, Thompson's underlying thesis is just as inimical to ID as is the explanation from evolutionary biology. His argument is essentially that biological form is constrained by the kind of mathematical relationships that characterize classical physics. That is, there are "built-in" laws of form that constrain the forms that biological organisms can take. And therefore, physical law provides the “front-loading”, not a supernatural “intelligent designer.”

For example, Thompson pointed out that the shape that droplets of viscous liquid take when dropped into water are virtually identical to the medusa forms of jellyfish, and that this "convergence of form" is therefore not accidental. Rather, it is fundamentally constrained by the physics of moving fluids, as described in the equations of fluid mechanics. Thompson's book is filled with similar examples, all pointing to the same conclusion: that biological form is constrained by the laws of physics (especially classical mechanics).

Evolutionary convergence, far from departing from Thompson's ideas, is based on essentially the same kinds of constraints. Sharks, dolphins (the fish, not the mammals), tunas, ichthyosaurs, and porpoises all appear superficially similar (despite significant anatomical differences) because their external shapes are constrained by the fluid medium through which they swim. In the language of natural selection, any ancestor of a shark, dolphin, tuna, ichthyosaur, or porpoise that (through its developmental biology) could take the shape of a torpedo could move more efficiently through the water than one that had a different (i.e. less efficient) shape, and therefore would have a selective advantage that would, over time, result in similar shapes among its proliferating ancestors. The same concept is applied to the parallel evolution of marsupial and placental mammals: similar environments and subsistence patterns place similar selective constraints on marsupial and placental mammals in different locations, resulting in strikingly similar anatomical and physiological adaptations, despite relatively non-homologous ancestry.

This evolutionary argument is now being strongly supported by findings in the field of evolutionary development ("evo-devo"), in which arguments based on "deep homology" are providing explanations for at least some of the seemingly amazing convergences we see in widely separated groups of organisms.
http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2006/07/darcy-thompson-and-front-loaded.html

....he actually was one of the first to indicate scientifically that Darwin's general theory was in error.

No. In fact, Thompson did not argue with any part of Darwin's premises. His argument was that not every aspect of living things could be attributed to natural selection. Nor did Darwin say that it would be. Indeed, modern Darwinists generally acknowledge the importance of neutral mutations in evolution. Darwin's four points remain as solid as ever, as you now see, reinforced by Thompson's findings, which are confirmed by evolutionary development data.

 

[brother Paul]

No revisions just a quotation…

“Then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living soul.”

“formed” or yatzar means to fashion or shape or lend materiality to something or someone….no revision, no hocus pocus! God gave mankind their material form not the monkeys which became man…all his form….both internal and external are of God.

The anatomical evidence (as Thompson showed, a hundred years ago) is now confirmed by genetic evidence showing the same thing.

And what do YOU say that is?

(Thompson;s opinion) biological form depended as much on physical laws as on heritable factors

Laws which pre-exist and determine the biology. Laws which even the biochemistry adhere to and obey…monkeys becoming men are not in those laws nor do those laws indicate the necessity of this hypothesis.

The notion of the biological populations, affected and changed by environment, is the heart of Darwinism.

But they don’t change apes into humans they just change apes into alternative apes…fish into new species of the same kind of fish and so on….Nobel Laureate P. Medawar called it the process by which patterns are formed in plants and animals. Patterns which can change over time, but patterns none the less. The face of a Gibbon remains the face of a Gibbon and does not become the face of an Orangutan. The only time environment can make any specific or permanent change to the genome if it has effected the chromosomes that are inherited.

 

[Sinthesis]

I find the differences in facial characteristics between domestic pigs and feral hogs that share the same genome but different environments very interesting.

 

[brother Paul]

Good point. Pigs will be pigs and boys will be boys! Same genomes sometimes produce various characteristics, and sometimes very different genomes similar ones. The latter not necessitating one became the other. That idea is an inference from the hypothesis being imposed on the interpretation of the evidence. Environment changes little anatomically save to some degree by adaptation (more or less muscular, more or less hair, fiercer vs more docile attitude, etc.) and this in turn does contribute to speciation (new varieties) but acquired characteristics has never been proven and few really believe it.

 

[Barbarian]

brother Paul said: ↑
God formed man from the elements of the earth directly, not through ape-kind.

Barbarian observes:
That is man's revision of God's word. That's not what Genesis says.

No revisions just a quotation…

Well, let's take a look...
Gen: 1:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Not at all what you said it was. "Directly" was your revision.

Barbarian observes:
The anatomical evidence (as Thompson showed, a hundred years ago) is now confirmed by genetic evidence showing the same thing.

And what do YOU say that is?

That the differences in human and ape skulls and brains is determined by genes that alter timing in development.

(Thompson;s opinion) biological form depended as much on physical laws as on heritable factors

As you see, the Darwinian notion that environment alters populations is completely in accord with Thompson's idea, except in that organisms aren't passive in this process; they also alter the environment, and so actively change the forces on them.

Laws which pre-exist and determine the biology. Laws which even the biochemistry adhere to and obey…

Which is of course, Darwinian thinking. Darwin speculated that very idea, although we hadn't learned enough at that time to really say much about it. But he was right.

monkeys becoming men are not in those laws

Neither is it in Darwinian theory. Monkeys are not the ancestors of men. We are on a different line of primates. And it is immaterial whether God actively determined man's ancestry, or created the world so as to bring forth humans. And Acquinas says, God can work divine providence by means of necessity, or by contingency, as He sees fit to do.

Barbarian observes:
The notion of the biological populations, affected and changed by environment, is the heart of Darwinism.

But they don’t change apes into humans they just change apes into alternative apes…

Your belief is not supported by the evidence. As you learned, there are many transitional forms between apes and men. And genetic evidence clearly shows humans had a common ancestor with apes.

fish into new species of the same kind of fish and so on…

Except for those fish with legs we find just before we see true tetrapods. And your belief in that also fails.

Nobel Laureate P. Medawar called it the process by which patterns are formed in plants and animals. Patterns which can change over time, but patterns none the less.

Notice in the OP, we now have a genetic basis for this process. Medawar, who first explained the evolutionary reason for senescence, has since been again confirmed by the evolutionary development data.

The face of a Gibbon remains the face of a Gibbon and does not become the face of an Orangutan.

Because, as we now know, developmental gene timing makes this possible.

The only time environment can make any specific or permanent change to the genome if it has effected the chromosomes that are inherited.

Not quite right. One sort of mutation is altering chromosomes. Another is directly affecting genes.

 

[brother Paul]

Hillarious, really!!!!

 

[Barbarian]

I find the differences in facial characteristics between domestic pigs and feral hogs that share the same genome but different environments very interesting.

Most feral hogs in the United States are mutts, crosses with Russian boars and various domestic varieties. Like feral dogs, they revert in few generations to become more like the wild species. Natural selection does work, and so the most advantageous traits will again become favored.

There's a really interesting experiment that's been going on in Moscow for about 150 years. Feral dogs have been tolerated and even encouraged in Moscow, with some remarkable changes. The "begger" dogs have formed packs that tend to keep the "wild" dogs out of the city. Meantime, they've learned to navigate the subways, use traffic signals, and form a society apart from, but symbiotic with humans.

I'm told that removal of the dogs has been opposed because the "begger dogs" tend to run off the more aggressive "wild" dogs that live outside the city and because many Moscovites regard them as an integral part of Moscow life. People often feed and even build winter shelters for them.

Not surprisingly, these dogs have reverted to a particular type, most adapted to free living in an urban environment.

"I moved to Moscow with my family last year and was startled to see so many stray dogs. Watching them over time, I realised that, despite some variation in colour – some were black, others yellowish white or russet – they all shared a certain look. They were medium-sized with thick fur, wedge-shaped heads and almond eyes. Their tails were long and their ears erect.

They also acted differently. Every so often, you would see one waiting on a metro platform. When the train pulled up, the dog would step in, scramble up to lie on a seat or sit on the floor if the carriage was crowded, and then exit a few stops later."
http://web.archive.org/web/20111216...f1c-11de-a677-00144feab49a.html#axzz3uJ8gPWAN

 

[Barbarian]

That idea is an inference from the hypothesis being imposed on the interpretation of the evidence. Environment changes little anatomically save to some degree by adaptation (more or less muscular, more or less hair, fiercer vs more docile attitude, etc.) and this in turn does contribute to speciation (new varieties) but acquired characteristics has never been proven and few really believe it.

Since there is no demonstrated barrier between "kinds", and there are numerous transitional organisms between kinds, speciation (macroevolution) is all that is needed for common descent.

It should be noted that "acquired characteristics" like tatoos are not heritable, but that genetically-acquired characteristics like the Milano mutation are inherited. "Epigenetic" changes are environmentally-determined changes that can be passed on for a generation or two, but do not persist for very long. While interesting, and of some medical significance, they are not evolutionary changes.

 

[brother Paul]

Since there is no demonstrated barrier between "kinds", and there are numerous transitional organisms between kinds, speciation (macroevolution) is all that is needed for common descent.

Yeah! Like Pan. Speciation never made a reptile a bird, a fish an amphibian, or an ape a human....never been demonstrated, or observed, or experienced (all keys to actually sound scientific conclusion) and all testing to try and make it happen STILL requires the direct intervention of an outside intelligent force who attempts it with intent and a preconceived outcome in mind.

Speciation however has been observably and demonstrably rampart in Cichlid fish (especially in in Lake Victoria in Africa) over the past couple hundred years. There are now around 500 species (varieties) of Cichlid fish...note they are species of CICHLID FISH....not a new kind of fish...speciation has only been able to PROVE (by demonstration, observation, experience, and testing) the production of variation within a given kind. All else is speculation interpreted to support the imagined "could be" "might be" hypothesis...

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Since there is no demonstrated barrier between "kinds", and there are numerous transitional organisms between kinds, speciation (macroevolution) is all that is needed for common descent.

Yeah! Like Pan. Speciation never made a reptile a bird, a fish an amphibian, or an ape a human....

Your assumption is not supported by the evidence. We have numerous examples of primitive birds with dinosaur characters, fish with legs, apes walking upright with tools and large brains, etc. All predicted by the theory before they were found. Genetic evidence shows the same transitions. And that is known to indicate common descent. It's been checked by looking at organisms of known descent.

If we lived in that time and saw a small dinosaur with feathers that grew long enough to provide flight, would we predict an entire new class from that? Likely not. If a new class of vertebrates is evolving now, we'd likely not see it as such. Who would have guessed that the first clumsy dinosaur fliers would be refined into the sort of bird we see today? And yet, the fossil record shows every sort of transition between them.

The idea that nothing can happen if it takes longer than a human lifetime, is demonstrably wrong.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Since there is no demonstrated barrier between "kinds", and there are numerous transitional organisms between kinds, speciation (macroevolution) is all that is needed for common descent.

Yeah! Like Pan. Speciation never made a reptile a bird, a fish an amphibian, or an ape a human...

That belief is not supported by the evidence. As you know, there are numerous examples of dinosaurs in various stages of birdhood. There are fish with functional legs, and plenty of transitionals on each side of that. The genetic data clearly shows that these are examples of descent. For example, the few living fish on the line that led to us, are genetically more like us than they are like other fish.

When a small amount of heme from a dinosaur bone was found, it turned out to be more like that of birds than like that of other reptiles. In each case, exactly what you would see, if tetrapods evolved from fish and birds evolved from dinosaurs.

As you also know, genetic and anatomical data show that chimpanzees and humans are more closely related to each other than either is to any other animal. Again, exactly what would be seen if they had a recent common ancestor.

 

[brother Paul]

You do know that repeating yourself over and over doesn't make it more true!

 

[Barbarian]

Evidence shows that it's true. I'm just pointing out why it's true. The correct answers to these creationist fallacies are always the same.

 

[turnorburn]

Evolution is the second largest hoax the first was "hath God said" What did God say?

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

 

[Barbarian]

Evolution is the second largest hoax the first was "hath God said" What did God say?

It's merely God's creation. And He doesn't do hoaxes. Let Him be God and you'll find some peace with what He's done.

 

[brother Paul]

God formed man (have him his form)...you either believe Him or you do not....He formed him out of the matter available on the earth...not through a fish, through an amphibian, though a reptile which became a mammal which became a monkey which became a man....the sea produces one set of living things, the earth another, and God made other creatures, and God made MAN...."asah": to make; to fashion; shape; produce....believe Him or not Ripley but stop pretending