Ancient Greece: a synopsis.

AI overlord makes a show of strength.

 

The latter day prometheus?

 

The fossil record vs. Darwinian narrative.

 Fossil Friday: Nakridletia — The Rise and Fall (and Possible Resurrection) of a Fossil Insect Order

Gunter Bechly

This Fossil Friday features the reconstruction drawing of Strashila incredibilis, an extremely weird fossil insect from the Late Jurassic of Siberia. It was first described by Rasnitsyn (1992) as a new species, genus, and family, and attributed to an unknown order of holometabolan insects, possibly related to scorpionflies and fleas. Rasnitsyn suggested that strashilids were wingless blood-sucking ectoparasites of warm-blooded animals, most likely on the hairy wing membrane of pterosaurs. He based his interpretation on the putative presence of sucking-piercing mouthparts (that were later allegedly destroyed by improper preparation with alcohol) and large pincers on the hind limbs that supposedly were used to grab the host’s hairs or feather-like filaments.

In their leading textbook on insect evolution, Grimaldi & Engel (2005) agreed that strashilids were ectoparasitic mecopteroid insects, but considered their relationship as obscure and a closer affinity to fleas as insufficiently documented. Vrsansky et al. (2010) concurred with Rasnitsyn’s view and explicitly affirmed that such ectoparasitism can be interpreted as evidence for endothermy and sociality in pterosaurs. The latter authors described a very similarly looking new family Vosilidae from the Middle Jurassic Daohugou site in China, and erected a new insect order Nakridletia to accommodate these strange supposed parasites.

Challenged by Fantasy

A  few years later, this whole parasite interpretation was challeged to be mere fantasy by Huang et al. (2013), who studied new and very well-preserved material from the Middle Jurassic of China. They synonymized Vosilidae with Strashilidae and concluded that these insects were just amphibious flies of the modern family Nymphomyiidae. Even though some corrections of the earlier descriptions are without doubt valid (e.g., the absence of functional sucking-piercing mouthparts), the latter work is also compromised by some confusing issues (the fossils have no similarity with known Nymphomyiidae) and obvious errors (e.g., a confusion of dipteran march flies with ephemeropteran mayflies in Suppl. Fig. 8), of which the most important concerns the alleged presence of wings: there is only a single of the 11 studied fossil specimens that does possess anything resembling a wing-like strucure. This specimen only features a single supposed forewing, which seems much too large and somewhat out of place. Also the broad and lobed shape of this structure is very much unlike any dipteran forewings. In my view a superimposed plant remain would be a more likely alternative interpretation of this alleged wing. Furthermore, there are no halteres visible in any of the well-preserved specimens, which should be present in all dipteran insects as their typical club-like vestiges of hind wings that function as vibrating gyroscopes.

Huang et al. suggested that strashilids were amphibious or aquatic even as adult flies and, similar to living Nymphomyiidae, shed their wings after emergence and mating for oviposition in the water. However, even though the larvae of nymphomyiids are aquatic like many dipteran larvae, there are no living examples for aquatic adults. Also, all known adult Nyphomyiidae have a very elongate and slender body, unspecialized legs, and narrow wings with long hairs. Thus, they are not even remotely similar to the anatomy of strashilids. Last but not least, no putative nymphomyiid-like larvae were ever discovered in the same layers or even any other fossil localities of the same age at all. Nevertheless, the reinterpretation by Huang et al. (2013) seems to be generally considered and quoted as the final word on this matter, even in the notorious Wikipedia. No experts ever looked into this issue again.

A Darwinian Perspective

So , were strashilids a distinct order of parasitic insects or just aquatic flies? I suggest that the reinterpretation of Huang et al. (2013) is far from bulletproof and the validity of order Nakridletia should be reconsidered. From an intelligent design perspective there is another much more important thing to note: strashilids were perfectly adapted to a peculiar way of life with unique modifications, which appeared abruptly in the Middle Jurassic without any known precursors or obvious relatives that could be strashilid ancestors. This meets the expectations from a design approach much better than those from a Darwinian perspective.

References

Grimaldi D & Engel MS 2005. Evolution of the Insects. Cambridge University Press, New York (NY), xv+755 pp.

Huang D, Nel A, Cai C, Lin Q, Engel MS 2013. Amphibious flies and paedomorphism in the Jurassic period. Nature 495, 94–97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11898

Rasnitsyn AP 1992. Strashila incredibilis, a new enigmatic mecopteroid insect with possible siphonapteran affinities from the Upper Jurassic of Siberia. Psyche 99(4), 323–334. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/1992/20491

Vršanský P, Ren D, Shih C 2010. Nakridletia ord. n. – enigmatic insect parasites support sociality and endothermy of pterosaurs. AMBA Projekty 8, 1–16. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285797717

The perenial overdog?

 

The laws of physics do not exclude/preclude the miraculous.

 

Physics: if you are not confused you haven't being paying attention.

 

Darwinisn vs. Darwinism II

 

On darwinian apologists sleight of hand

 Evolutionary Flimflam: Watch Out for These Common Parlor Tricks in Science Reporting

Jonathan Witt

I suspect the average person comes to accept modern evolutionary theory, not through a series of careful arguments, but through a near-constant drip of pro-evolution propaganda. The propaganda comes in many forms and from many directions. Here I want to focus on just one source, popular news stories about evolution, and specifically on a couple of parlor tricks often embedded in these articles.

Bait-and-Switch

Probably the most common trick begins with a news headline or lead sentence promising a new discovery of evolution in action. The article then highlights an actual, observed species changing over time. But the example it cites is mere microevolution, such as a change in fur color or minor changes in beak size or leg length. 

That won’t do. If Charles Darwin had argued that nature can produce modest variations in existing species, the collective response would have been, now tell us something we don’t know. Evolutionary theory needs to provide evidence of its distinctive claim, namely, that purely natural mechanisms can and do produce major innovations — something like the first wings, the first eyes, new molecular biological machines, or novel animal body plans. 

A recent example of this bait-and-switch begins with the headline, “Long-term Lizard Study Challenges the Rules of Evolutionary Biology.”1 The headline gives the impression that maybe the lizards in the study, refusing to play by the restrictive rules of standard evolutionary theory, hauled off and evolved in a much more daring way than conventional thinking had allowed. But then we learn that the study’s big finding helps explain cases where evolution doesn’t generate anything impressive — that is, cases of stasis, where a species remains largely unchanged for millions of years. 

Hmm, that sounds like the opposite of impressive evolutionary daring-do, doesn’t it? 

Troubled by this inconsistency but undaunted, we read on and are soon informed that the researchers have solved a big evolutionary conundrum. The news story invites us to wonder how there could be so many cases of stasis in the history of life when we see evolution doing amazing stuff right before our eyes all the time. The article doesn’t mention any of these amazing broad-daylight transformations. Instead it informs us that the study found that the lizards varied in minor ways (e.g., longer or shorter legs) and that the changes, rather than accumulating into something dramatically novel, canceled each other out. Voilà — an explanation for stasis.

That’s it. That’s the study’s big finding. No macroevolution. Just the observation of what was the common view before Darwin’s theory of evolution — that healthy members of a species can vary a bit, but only within strict limits.

To sum up the parlor trick: Promise to demonstrate bigtime evolution. Demonstrate minor changes and hope the audience doesn’t notice the difference. 

An Audacious Use of Stasis

A particularly brazen variation on this bait-and-switch appears in an article out of Ireland. The lead sentence announces, “Palaeontologists at UCC have discovered X-ray evidence of proteins in fossil feathers that sheds new light on feather evolution.”2 What is the discovery? That, contra expectations, the protein in question has not evolved for tens of millions of years. In other words, the findings suggest more stasis in the history of life and diminished evidence for evolution. 

So now it’s not microevolution (minor changes) standing in for macroevolution (big innovations). It’s a discovery of stasis (basically, no change) standing in for macroevolution. Laughable if you’re paying attention, but if you’re just skimming headlines and articles, well, the word “evolution” appears three times, and the scientific paper being reported on appeared in Nature Ecology & Evolution. Sounds like a whole lotta evolution goin’ on. 

Drip, drip, drip. So works the propaganda.

Dazzle and Distract

A second parlor trick used to the same end is a tad harder to spot. It involves reporting on a discovery that sheds light on how some complex biological process works, and then promises that the finding gives us important insights into how the process evolved. How so? The teaser turns out to be yet another of evolutionary theory’s many promissory notes, one you will grow old waiting on for payment.

We shouldn’t take the promise on faith, since it’s far from automatic that discovering how a given biological mechanism works will help biologists understand how the process evolved. Certainly it wouldn’t if evolution did not actually generate the mechanism in question. But even if we grant for the sake of argument that the biological process did evolve, and did so through blind material forces, it’s perfectly possible that gaining a better understanding of how a mechanism works would in no way reveal how the process it’s embedded in evolved. 

Nor is it enough to show that the newly understood mechanism is useful to the biological system it’s a part of. Yes, natural selection tends to favor the useful over the useless in the evolutionary process, but that doesn’t allow evolution’s blind process of gradual change to magically look ahead so as to bring together various parts to assemble an intricate new mechanism. The act of looking ahead (foresight) and planning for a distant goal is the exclusive domain of minds. Mindless evolution, lacking this capacity, requires a series of small, functional, random mutations (blind baby steps) in order to evolve, say, the first bat sonar or the first air-breathing animals. The evolutionist should detail a plausible stepwise path of this sort, and then we can talk.

This second parlor trick, to summarize, runs like this: (1) Highlight a fresh insight into how a biological mechanism works. (2) Tout the discovery as shedding important light on how a system or process evolved. (3) Don’t actually demonstrate #2, but instead dazzle and distract the reader with the challenging technical details of the discovery highlighted in #1.

The Curious Case of TCOF1

An example of this second parlor trick appears in a Science Daily news piece titled, “Study Explains How Part of the Nucleolus Evolved.”3 What did the researchers learn? “Biologists discovered that a scaffolding protein called TCOF1 is responsible for the formation of a biomolecular condensate called the fibrillar center, which forms within the cell nucleolus.”

We could challenge the phrasing there. The language makes it sound like the scaffolding protein single-handedly forms the fibrillar center, when we can be sure the protein is just one crucial player in a process involving many other factors without which we would have no fibrillar center. But set that quibble aside. 

The article further informs us that “biomolecular condensates perform many critical functions” in cells. Then we encounter a refreshing note of humility: “It is not well understood how proteins and other biomolecules come together to form these assemblies within cells.” Then an overdue qualifier: “The findings could help to explain a major evolutionary shift, which took place around 300 million years ago, in how the nucleolus is organized.” 

So we’ve gone from “Study Explains” in the headline to “The findings could help to explain.” 

Then another concession: “Biologists do not yet fully understand why this shift happened.” Although a welcome injection of honesty, the sentence also subtly implies that biologists mostly understand why the shift happened, just not fully. But the article doesn’t give us the mostly. It just implies that the understanding is out there and leaves us to accept the implicit claim on faith. 

What the article does explain is quite different from what the headline promised:

“If you look across the tree of life, the basic structure and function of the ribosome has remained quite static; however, the process of making it keeps evolving. Our hypothesis for why this process keeps evolving is that it might make it easier to assemble ribosomes by compartmentalizing the different biochemical reactions,” says Eliezer Calo, an associate professor of biology at MIT and the senior author of the study.

So, the ribosome presents another striking case of stasis, but at least the process of how it is made keeps evolving, or so we are told. But how do they know the process evolved, and evolved through mindless material mechanisms, as the theory of evolution holds? Just showing that nature has more than one way of making ribosomes doesn’t demonstrate that these methods evolved one from another, or from a common ancestral method. After all, the various methods might each have been separately designed, as the various methods for assembling cars were separately designed.

What of the researcher’s specific evolutionary hypothesis summarized in the block quote above? It’s at best an extremely partial explanation. He is saying that the assembly method evolved because the innovation might make the assembly go smoother. In other words, the explanation of how it evolved boils down to pointing out a possible functional improvement in the method. But usefulness is only a necessary condition of evolution by natural selection; it’s far from a sufficient condition, just as being able to dribble a ball is a necessary condition of being an NBA basketball player, but far from a sufficient one.

If the researchers had identified a definite functional improvement as an explanation for how the assembly method evolved, that would be weak tea; but they didn’t even do that. They only identified a possible functional improvement. And from all this we get the breathless headline, “Study Explains How Part of the Nucleolus Evolved.”

And so it goes. Drip, drip, drip.

Notes

Catherine Barzler, “Long-term Lizard Study Challenges the Rules of Evolutionary Biology,” Phys.org (October 9, 2023). 

“Dinosaur Feathers Reveal Traces of Ancient Proteins,” University College Cork, Ireland (September 22, 2023).

“Study Explains How Part of the Nucleolus Evolved,” Science Daily (August 15, 2023).

The cruelty of the Gods of atheism.

 

ID for the win?

 

Terraforming should begin at home?

 

On the divine name in the first century septuagint.

 

The king of Titans lays down the law.

 

The gap between conspiracy theory and actual conspiracy just keeps getting narrower?

 

Mathematics vs. OoL science.

 

Darwinism and teleology: Friends/enemies/frenemies?

 Did Darwin Banish Teleology from Nature or Not?

Richard Weikart

I have been reviewing a new collection from Cambridge University Press, Darwin Mythology: Debunking Myths, Correcting Falsehoods. (See my earlier posts here and here.) James G. Lennox opens his essay about Darwin’s views on teleology with Friedrich Engels’s statement in a letter to Karl Marx. Engels exulted that Darwin had demolished teleology. This is a view that is commonplace among many Darwinian biologists, as well as historians. Lennox, however, calls it a myth that Darwin banished teleology from nature.

Lennox defines teleology thus: “A teleological explanation is one in which some property, process or entity is said to exist or be taking place for the sake of a certain result or consequence.” In the course of the essay Lennox points out that when discussing organisms’ adaptations, Darwin often used the language of teleology: “final cause,” “contrivances for this end,” etc.

Lennox also correctly points out that Darwin’s teleology differed from that of Harvard biologist Asa Gray, who argued that teleology implied natural theology. Darwin completely rejected natural theology. Lennox is right that this makes Darwin’s and Gray’s teleology different.

The problem with Lennox’s analysis is twofold: 1) Darwin recognized that his use of teleological language could be problematic; and 2) the kind of teleology that Lennox claims Darwin embraced is trivial compared to the kind of teleology he rejected.

Darwin’s Teleological Language

To be sure, Darwin used teleological language when discussing organisms’ adaptations. Lennox quotes from an 1862 essay, where Darwin wrote that “the final cause of all this mimicry” among butterflies is evading predation. Lennox then states, “It is this valuable consequence of mimicry that explains its selective advantage — that is the end achieved by mimicry.” (p. 191) Thus, Darwin recognized that adaptations had purposes. For instance, the eye has a purpose — it is for seeing.

Sometimes Darwin’s contemporaries criticized him for using teleological language. In 1877 Darwin responded to Alphonse de Candolle’s critique:

There is much justice in your criticisms on my use of the terms object, end, purpose; but those who believe that organs have been gradually modified by natural selection for a special purpose, may I think use the above terms correctly though no conscious being has intervened. I have found much difficulty in my occasional attempts to avoid these terms; but I might perhaps have always spok[en] of a beneficial or serviceable effect.1

Darwin’s claim here that there was some justice in the critique, as well as his confession that he sometimes tried to avoid teleological terms, suggests that Darwin was not entirely comfortable using teleological language. However, he defends the use of teleological language nonetheless, because he believed that adaptations did serve a purpose — helping an organism survive and reproduce in the struggle for existence. In light of this, perhaps Lennox has a point.

The Teleology Darwin Did Banish from Nature

However, Lennox seems to miss the point that, even though Darwin admitted that adaptations served a purpose, he vociferously denied that the evolutionary process was teleological. When Engels and most scholars insist that Darwin banished teleology from nature, they are denying that evolution is a teleological process. They are not denying that specific organs of animals and plants serve specific purposes.

Darwin often stressed that evolution on the whole was non-teleological. In an 1881 letter to William Graham, Darwin stated that his primary disagreement with Graham “is that the existence of so-called natural laws implies purpose. I cannot see this.”2 Both here and in many other writings Darwin explicitly denied the existence of any over-arching purpose for organisms.

In 1861 Darwin wrote to Lyell a letter where he denied that adaptations had originated for a purpose: “No doubt these [i.e., variations] are all caused by some unknown law, but I cannot believe they were ordained for any purpose; & if not so ordained under domesticity, I can see no reason to believe that they were ordained in a state of nature.”3 Since variations are the source of evolutionary change, Darwin was hereby denying that evolution had any goal toward which it was moving.

Darwin often used the term “chance” to describe variations in nature, because he did not believe variations arose for any purpose or toward any goal. This is why Darwinian evolution is a non-teleological process. Thus, despite Lennox’s arguments, it still makes sense to say that Darwin banished teleology from the evolutionary process, even if biological adaptations do serve various purposes.

Notes

Darwin to Alphonse de Candolle, August 3, 1877, Darwin Correspondence Project, https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/?docId=letters/DCP-LETT-11092.xml&query=purpose.

Darwin to William Graham, July 3, 1881, Darwin Correspondence Project, https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/?docId=letters/DCP-LETT-13230.xml&query=purpose.

Darwin to Charles Lyell, August 13, 1861, Darwin Correspondence Project, https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/?docId=letters/DCP-LETT-3230.xml&query=purpose.

Grok's take on bloodless medicine.

Bloodless medicine

15 web pages

4 posts

Bloodless medicine refers to medical practices and surgical procedures that aim to minimize or completely avoid the use of blood transfusions. This approach has gained traction due to several reasons:

Religious Beliefs: Some patients, notably Jehovah's Witnesses, refuse blood transfusions based on their religious beliefs. Bloodless medicine provides a way to treat these patients while respecting their convictions.

Health and Safety: There are also medical reasons for avoiding transfusions, including reducing the risk of transfusion-related infections, allergic reactions, or other complications like transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI).

Technological Advances: Developments in medical technology have made bloodless medicine more feasible. Techniques include:

Preoperative Blood Management: Using medications like erythropoietin to boost red blood cell production, and iron therapy to prevent or treat anemia before surgery.

Intraoperative Techniques: Employing minimally invasive surgery, precise surgical tools like lasers or sonic scalpels to minimize blood loss, and using cell salvage systems to recycle the patient's own blood lost during surgery.

Postoperative Care: Strategies to promote blood conservation post-surgery, including careful monitoring of blood loss and the use of medications to enhance blood clotting.

Economic Considerations: In some cases, bloodless medicine can be more cost-effective by reducing the need for expensive blood products and the associated costs of transfusion, though this varies by healthcare system.

Patient Outcomes: Studies suggest that patients undergoing bloodless surgery might experience benefits such as fewer postoperative infections, reduced hospital stays, and potentially lower rates of complications like strokes or heart attacks.

Institutions and Programs: Several hospitals and medical centers have established dedicated programs for bloodless medicine:

UPMC (University of Pittsburgh Medical Center) has a comprehensive program for bloodless medicine and surgery, focusing on patient blood management.

Tampa General Hospital offers a Center for Bloodless Medicine and Surgery, providing state-of-the-art care for patients who refuse blood products.

Johns Hopkins Medicine has a team dedicated to bloodless medicine, understanding the needs of patients who cannot or will not accept blood transfusions.

Current Sentiment: Posts on X (formerly Twitter) reflect both educational content on the subject and news about significant milestones or events in the field of bloodless surgery, like commemorating the first bloodless heart surgery by Dr. Denton Cooley.

Bloodless medicine represents a growing field in healthcare, emphasizing personalized treatment plans that respect patient autonomy while leveraging modern medical science to achieve successful outcomes without traditional blood transfusions

On those systemic issues

 

The theory that explains everything explains nothing?

 

Why the punctuation in the fossil record is problematic for the Darwinian narrative.

 

An interlude XXII

 

Where science actually leads re:origins.

 

The standard model is threadbare?

 

Why the multiverse only multiplies questions but provides no answers re:finetuning

 Why the Multiverse Theory Can’t Explain Away Cosmic Fine-Tuning

Evolution News

Some argue that our universe being fine-tuned for life is merely an accident. After all, there might be millions of flopped universes out there. There is no evidence for them but, they say, we can’t rule them out either.

Durham University philosophy professor Philip Goff explains at IAI.TV why he doesn’t think that the idea of a multiverse can explain away the obvious fine-tuning of our universe.

An Example of Fine-Tuning

First, he offers an example of that fine-tuning,:

The claim is just that, for life to be possible, certain numbers in physics had to fall in a very narrow range. For example, if the force that powers the accelerating expansion of the universe had been a little stronger, everything would have shot apart so quickly that no two particles would have ever met. There would have been no stars, planets, or any kind of structural complexity. Whereas if that force had been significantly weaker, it would not have counteracted gravity, and so the entire universe would have collapsed back on itself a split second after the Big Bang. For there to be structural complexity, and therefore life, that strength of this force had to be — a bit like Goldilocks porridge –— not too strong, and not too weak: just right. There are many numbers like this, which is what it means to say our universe is fine-tuned for life. 

“The mistake at the heart of the multiverse,” December 3, 2024

The argument against fine-tuning is called the Inverse Gambler’s Fallacy:

Suppose you and I walk into a casino and the first person we see is someone winning big. I say, ‘Wow, there must be tens of thousands of people playing in the casino tonight!’ You say, ‘What makes you think that?’ I reply, ‘Well, if there are tens of thousands of people playing, it’s not so surprising that at least one person would win big, and that’s what we’ve just observed.’

“The mistake”

A Lucky Night

Of course, we have no evidence of that. We just see one person having a lucky night. Goff comments,

If we simply apply our standard way of understanding how evidence works, given by Bayes’ theorem, the fine-tuning of physics for life presents us with evidence for some form of goal-directedness towards life in the early universe. I suspect that it is deep-seated bias, a sense that this kind of hypothesis is not ‘proper science’, that is stopping most in the scientific community from following the evidence where it leads. Future historians will find it bizarre that we ignored for so long what is staring us in the face.

“The mistake”

But many thoughtful people in science today would see the goal of science as explaining away both goal-directedness and thought. In this universe, they have their work cut out for them.

The elephants' elephant?

 

Necessary not sufficient?

 

On more Darwinian mythmaking and mythbusting.

 Is It a Myth That Darwin Rejected Design?

Richard Weikart

In the new book I’m reviewing here, Darwin Mythology: Debunking Myths, Correcting Falsehoods, the actual title of Michael Ruse’s chapter is “Myth 4: That Darwin Always Rejected the Argument from Design in Nature and Developed His Own Theory to Replace It.” (See my first post in this review series here.) I have never heard anyone claim that Darwin always rejected the argument from design, because before he came to believe in evolution in the late 1830s, he found William Paley’s natural theology — which was based on the argument from design — convincing. Many scholars — myself included — believe that as Darwin formulated his theory in the late 1830s, he rejected the argument from design and used natural selection as a way to explain how things could look designed without actually being designed. Ruse disagrees, claiming that Darwin still embraced design when he wrote The Origin of Species in 1859.

In his essay, the late Professor Ruse correctly explains that Darwin rejected theism and embraced deism in the 1830s, and he continued using deistic language in The Origin of Species. Deism is the idea that God created the cosmos and its natural laws, but thereafter did not intervene with miraculous events. Sometime after 1859 and before 1870, Ruse informs us, Darwin gave up on deism and embraced an agnostic position. 

So Far, So Good

However, Ruse then makes the controversial — and misguided — claim that throughout this deistic phase of Darwin’s life — including during his writing of The Origin of Species — he continued to believe in the argument from design in nature. Ruse is correct that in Origin and in his correspondence, Darwin continued to admit that the universe and natural laws seem designed, and some kind of deistic God probably created those laws. However, Ruse then confuses this notion that the cosmos as a whole is designed with the idea that biological organisms exhibit design.

Strangely, Ruse even quotes from an 1860 letter that Darwin wrote to Harvard biologist Asa Gray. Darwin continually debated with Gray about the argument from design, with Darwin taking the position that organisms are not designed. Here is the passage Ruse quotes:

With respect to the theological view of the question; this is always painful to me. — I am bewildered. — I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see, as plainly as others do & as I sh[oul]d wish to do, evidence of design & beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed.

This is a clear expression of Darwin rejecting the design of organisms and their adaptations. Ruse, however, will not admit this, but instead inexplicably states, “The argument from design interpreted in a deistic manner seems still to have legs.” Really? Where? Darwin has just stated that he “cannot see . . . evidence of design,” and he denied that cats or eyes are designed.

An Untenable Position

Ruse’s position is simply untenable, especially if one reads even more of Darwin’s correspondence in the year or two after publishing Origin, where he directly confronted the issue of design. 

In a July 1861 letter Darwin explained clearly his view of design:

The mind refuses to look at this universe, being what it is, without having been designed; yet, where one would most expect design, viz. in the structure of a sentient being, the more I think on the subject, the less I can see proof of design. Asa Gray and some others look at each variation, or at least at each beneficial variation (which A. Gray would compare with the rain drops which do not fall on the sea, but on to the land to fertilize it) as having been providentially designed. Yet when I ask him whether he looks at each variation in the rock-pigeon, by which man has made by accumulation a pouter or fantail pigeon, as providentially designed for man’s amusement, he does not know what to answer; and if he, or any one, admits these variations are accidental, as far as purpose is concerned (of course not accidental as to their cause or origin); then I can see no reason why he should rank the accumulated variations by which the beautifully adapted woodpecker has been formed, as providentially designed.1

So, while Darwin may have had a vague idea about the cosmos being designed, he clearly rejected the notion that biological organisms exhibited design.

Correspondence with Charles Lyell

Another example is an 1861 letter to his friend Charles Lyell, the founder of uniformitarian geology. Darwin discussed his disagreement with Gray, who believed that God guided variations. Darwin wrote:

The view that each variation has been providentially arranged seems to me to make natural selection entirely superfluous, & indeed takes whole case of appearance of new species out of the range of science. . . . It seems to me that variations in the domestic & wild conditions are due to unknown causes & are without purpose & in so far accidental; & that they become purposeful only when they are selected by man for his pleasure, or by what we call natural selection in the struggle for life & under changing conditions.2

In this letter Darwin maintained that natural selection could explain purpose or design in organisms, thus rendering divine providence unnecessary.

As many scholars have argued, Darwin’s rejection of the argument from design preceded his publication of Origin by many years; it was not an afterthought.

Rather Awkward

Interestingly, at the close of his essay, Ruse puts forward an argument that is rather awkward in light of his overall point. He claims that Darwin — after writing Origin — “came to see that the variations produced by a deistic God are no less directed than the variations produced by a theistic God.” Ruse then states, “Natural selection makes guided variations unnecessary. No need to assume a Designer. Hence, even as it keeps the major premise, that organisms are as-if designed, natural selection destroys the argument from design.” (p. 55) Ruse never explains why he thinks Darwin did not understand this point already in the late 1830s as he developed his theory, as many other scholars have insisted.

In sum, Ruse admits that natural selection eliminates the need for design. However, he wrongly argues that Darwin did not fully understand that until after writing Origin.

Notes

Charles Darwin to Frances Julia Wedgwood, July 11, 1861, Darwin Correspondence Project,https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/?docId=letters/DCP-LETT-3206.xml&query=design.

Charles Darwin to Charles Lyell, August 1, 1861, Darwin Correspondence Project, https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/?docId=letters/DCP-LETT-3223.xml&query=purpose

Lying propagandists gonna lyingly propagandize

A few lying propagandists on the net are shamelessly claiming that we believe that only 144,000 people are going to be saved. Here is what we actually believe.

 Here is the Commentary under the final subheading of insight books article on christ mediatorship: 

Blessings to Mankind in General. 

While Jesus’ mediatorship operates solely toward those in the new covenant, he is also God’s High Priest and the Seed of Abraham. In fulfilling his duties in these latter two positions, he will bring blessings to others of mankind, for all the nations are to be blessed by means of Abraham’s seed. Those in the new covenant are first blessed by Christ, the primary Seed (Ga 3:16, 29), being brought in as associate members of the seed. Being made kings and priests by reason of the new covenant that he mediated, they will share in administering the blessings of Jesus’ sacrifice and of his Kingdom rule to all the nations of the earth. Christ’s mediatorship, having accomplished its purpose by bringing “the Israel of God” into this position, thus results in benefits and blessings to all mankind.​—Ga 6:16; Ge 22:17, 18.

There are, thus, others not of the 144,000 “sealed” ones who also pray to Jehovah God in the name of Christ, putting faith in the merit of his ransom sacrifice. This sacrifice is not only for those for whom Jesus mediates the new covenant but also for all mankind expressing faith in Christ. (1Jo 2:2) These not in the new covenant also appreciate that “there is not another name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must get saved.” (Ac 4:12) They, too, look to Jesus Christ as their great heavenly High Priest, through whom they can approach God and through whose ministration they can get forgiveness of sin. (Heb 4:14-16) Revelation 21:22-24 points out that ‘the nations will walk in the light of New Jerusalem,’ where Jehovah God is the light and the Lamb Jesus Christ is the lamp.

Theism:the mother of modern science?

 

Genesis II: The sequel?

 

On Darwinian mythmaking and mythbusting.

 A New Scholarly Book Trying to Debunk Myths about Charles Darwin and His Theory

Richard Weikart

In a new book published by Cambridge University Press, Darwin Mythology: Debunking Myths, Correcting Falsehoods, an array of prominent Darwin scholars attempt to dismantle 24 myths about Darwin and his theory. Many of these essays are excellent examples of historians setting the record straight. However, while myth-busting is a venerable pursuit for historians, caution must be exercised, especially when dealing with ideologically loaded subjects. Indeed, ironically, in a few cases in this volume, which I will discuss in subsequent posts, the debunkers need to be debunked themselves, because instead of correcting falsehoods, they end up creating or perpetuating falsehoods.

Problems with “Mythology”

Indeed, the whole notion of mythology can at times be problematic, because some scholars brand as “myth” interpretations of other scholars with whom they disagree. For example, James G. Lennox, in his chapter on Darwin and teleology (which I will discuss in a subsequent post), informs us that the Darwinian biologist Michael Ghiselin has dubbed as myth the view that Darwin’s theory included teleology. Lennox states, “In this chapter, then, my aim is to show that what Michael Ghiselin claims to be a myth is in fact reality, and that his assertion that Darwin rid biology of teleology is itself a myth.” (p. 183) So here we have two scholars insisting that the other one is embracing a myth.

A related problem is that in some cases, the scholars in this volume disagree among themselves on what is mythical. For example, David Depew in his essay claims that in addition to natural selection, Darwin also believed in group selection. (p. 177) In his essay on Darwin and race, Erik L. Peterson seems to agree, strongly implying that Darwin believed in group selection. (p. 255) The late Michael Ruse, however, in trying to distance Darwin from Alfred Russel Wallace, claims rather emphatically that Darwin rejected group selection. (pp. 133-34)

So, Which Is the Myth?

On this particular issue of group selection, it seems to me that Ruse is the one perpetuating a misconception about Darwin. Ruse uses rather twisted logic to maintain his position. After quoting a passage in Descent of Man where Darwin discusses tribes competing with other tribes (which is group selection), Ruse makes the bizarre claim that this is not really group selection. Why not? Well, Ruse informs us that right after this discussion of tribes competing, Darwin promoted what we call today “reciprocal altruism.” Therefore, Ruse oddly asserts, Darwin could not be promoting the idea of group selection. (I should note that Ruse is wrong about the placement of this passage, as it actually comes three pages earlier than the one about the tribes, but this is a minor point). Ruse’s logic is fallacious, because group selection and reciprocal altruism are not contradictory. Darwin believed them both. No wonder Depew and Peterson disagree with Ruse, as do a host of other Darwin scholars.

Before I critique the other essays that are problematic, let me draw attention to some of the myths about Darwin that this volume properly addresses. John Hedley Brooke refutes the myth that the biologist Thomas Henry Huxley demolished Anglican Bishop Samuel Wilberforce at their famous 1860 debate before the British Association for the Advancement of Science. It seems that the debate (or discussion) was more of a toss-up. I was surprised to learn from Brooke’s essay that one scientist who had embraced Darwinism before this event actually abandoned Darwinism as a result of the discussion that day. (p. 151)

White Supremacy and Genocide

An interesting essay by Erik L. Peterson refutes the myth that Darwin believed in racial equality. Peterson acknowledges that Darwin hated slavery, but shows that it was not because he believed in racial equality. Both in Descent of Man and in his correspondence Darwin not only clearly expressed belief in the racial superiority of Europeans, but he insisted that the Europeans’ triumph in the racial struggle for existence — which would result in the racial extermination of allegedly inferior races — would bring evolutionary advance to the human species. In an 1860 letter to Lyell, Darwin stated, “White man is ‘improving off the face of the earth’ even races nearly his equal.” Right after quoting this, Peterson comments, “Here again, we might find jarring Darwin’s cavalier references to white supremacy and genocide as supportive of his overall theory.” (p. 254)

In another essay Richard W. Burkhardt Jr. counters the widespread idea that Darwin rejected Lamarck’s ideas about use and disuse and the inheritance of acquired characteristics. To be sure, Burkhardt explains that Darwin stressed the primacy of natural selection and considered Lamarckian mechanisms secondary. However, Darwin did not dismiss them outright, as some later Darwinians, such as the German biologist August Weismann, did.

John Van Whye makes a strong case against the claim that Darwin delayed publication of The Origin of Species for twenty years, allegedly because he was afraid to make his views public. Van Whye shows that Darwin divulged his theory to many of his contemporaries in his correspondence. None of Darwin’s family or contemporaries ever claimed that Darwin delayed publishing his theory. Indeed, the idea that he delayed only arose in the mid 20th century. During those twenty years between discovering his theory and publishing it, Darwin was studying and doing research to buttress and refine his theory.

Just a Sampling

This is just a sampling of the many interesting and useful essays in this work. However, as I indicated, some of the essays are problematic, and I will address a few of these in the coming days.

The throne of JEHOVAH'S Son demystified.(yet again)

 RS reads: “Of the Son he says, ‘Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.’” (KJ, NE, TEV, Dy, JB, NAB have similar renderings.) However, NW reads: “But with reference to the Son: ‘God is your throne forever and ever.’” (AT, Mo, TC, By convey the same idea.)

Which rendering is harmonious with the context? The preceding verses say that God is speaking, not that he is being addressed; and the following verse uses the expression “God, thy God,” showing that the one addressed is not the Most High God but is a worshiper of that God. Hebrews 1:8 quotes from Psalm 45:6, which originally was addressed to a human king of Israel. Obviously, the Bible writer of this psalm did not think that this human king was Almighty God. Rather, Psalm 45:6, in RS, reads “Your divine throne.” (NE says, “Your throne is like God’s throne.” JP [verse 7]: “Thy throne given of God.”) Solomon, who was possibly the king originally addressed in Psalm 45, was said to sit “upon Jehovah’s throne.” (1 Chron. 29:23, NW) In harmony with the fact that God is the “throne,” or Source and Upholder of Christ’s kingship, Daniel 7:13, 14 and Luke 1:32 show that God confers such authority on him.

Hebrews 1:8, 9 quotes from Psalm 45:6, 7, concerning which the Bible scholar B. F. Westcott states: “The LXX. admits of two renderings: [ho the·osʹ] can be taken as a vocative in both cases (Thy throne, O God, . . . therefore, O God, Thy God . . . ) or it can be taken as the subject (or the predicate) in the first case (God is Thy throne, or Thy throne is God . . . ), and in apposition to [ho the·osʹ sou] in the second case (Therefore God, even Thy God . . . ). . . . It is scarcely possible that [’Elo·himʹ] in the original can be addressed to the king. The presumption therefore is against the belief that [ho the·osʹ] is a vocative in the LXX. Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: God is Thy throne (or, Thy throne is God), that is ‘Thy kingdom is founded upon God, the immovable Rock.’”—The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1889), pp. 25, 26

The inference to the best explanation.

 

The ongoing search for the fountain of youth.

 

In search of a new physics?

 

Why asymetric warfare is not favoring palestinian nationalists.

 

The future of war.

 

Neanderthals: disinherited no more?

 

The beginning?

 

Toward a scientifically rigorous design inference

 

The conserved optimality of vertebrate limbs vs. Darwin.

 

Primordial WiFi?

 Biological Information in Static Electricity

David Coppedge

Insects and spiders know how to read the air when static electricity is present. Electrical charge, to them, is a source of biological information, says Daniel Robert in Current Biology in his Primer on “Aerial Electroreception.”

This newfound sensory modality reveals a previously unrecognised source of information, a new informational ecological niche integral to diverse life histories and navigational abilities, which remarkably involves animals, plants and atmospheric electricity

Arthropods live in an “electric ecology” where “electrostatics is everywhere, always, and all at once.” They come equipped with antennae and tiny hairs that are sensitive to the electrical environment. Sensing a charge, however, is only a part of the story. How do these organisms utilize the information? What does it tell them? How does it trigger a response?

Coulomb’s Law

In a brief review of electrostatics (as opposed to electrodynamics, which involves charges moving near the speed of light), Dr. Robert discusses electric fields and Coulomb’s Law — the principle that like charges repel and opposite charges attract. He notes that “electric fields are ubiquitous in the presence of matter.” He then links electrosensitive abiotic materials with electrosensitive biological materials.

In essence, electrostatics provides a framework for understanding how a static imbalance in charge distribution can ensue between materials, and how forces arise from it. Biological materials are evidently not exempt from such processes, and it is proposed here that electrostatics plays a discrete yet pervasive and significant role in the informational ecology of terrestrial organisms.

Those terrestrial organisms include plants. Flowering plants can fashion the electric ecology for pollinators, as I discussed in an article about floral electric fields that attract bumblebees. See also my article, “Bioelectricity Gives Biologists a Jolt.” Professor Robert’s article extends the concept of the electric ecology to wider dimensions.

While humans are only weakly sensitive to electrostatic charges in air, those charges are large for small organisms like arthropods. “It has become increasingly clear that many organisms tend to be electrically charged,” he says. In fact, “it is actually very difficult to find objects, biological or else, that are not charged.” A flying insect, therefore, can “feel” the electrical field in its environment with its sensory equipment and react if it has the mechanical equipment and brain software to know how to use the information.

Crucially, these ubiquitous electrical fields generate the Coulomb forces between charged objects that are measurable and putatively useful to organisms. Thus, do electric fields have the potential to be a source of information for animals and plants to organise their lives in space and time?

The Answer Is Yes

The influence of static charge in pollination is one demonstrable case — not only for bees, but for moths and hummingbirds as well. A flower, “grounded” to ground (a net source of electrons), attracts a bee that accumulates a positive charge flying through air. The apex of the plant will be the most negatively charged due to the atmospheric potential gradient (APG) that increases the electric potential 100V for every meter above ground. While the Coulomb attraction would be too weak to move the entire insect, its sensory hairs and antennae feel a tractor beam drawing them to the flower. 

Charges without sensors cannot use information in the electric ecology. But with its tiny hairs, antennae, and wings which “can act as charged dielectric surfaces,” the insect might be able to carry and store electrical information for communicating with other bees in the hive. This fascinating and only recently investigated phenomenon is probably true of most arthropods since all are equipped with similar sensors.

In effect, these structures are present in nearly all species of terrestrial arthropods. The notion thus arises that such processes of aerial electroreception may be widespread, though other mechanisms of detection cannot be excluded. It can be highlighted that these sensory hairs can be sensitive to air currents and sounds, in addition to electric fields. Here, it is expected that hairs, as long, thin, sharp and protruding structures, will tend to accumulate charge and engage in electrostatic interactions. Hair canopies constitute a distributed array of sensors, sometimes covering the entire arthropod body. Theoretical work shows that dual acoustic and electric detection of hair arrays can extract rich information, sensing the position and distance of external charges.

Other Examples of Electroreception 

Professor Robert gives other examples of electroreception. A caterpillar might sense the approach of a wasp. “Reciprocally, the capacity of wasps to detect caterpillars electrostatically should be considered,” he writes, “which also raises the enticing possibilities of electric crypsis, masquerade, and/or aposematism.” Spiders that use ballooning with silk threads to travel long distances might be utilizing Coulomb forces to lift themselves up through the APG. And unfortunately for large mammals, their fur can accumulate thousands of volts, potentially helping parasites like ticks ride the electrostatic tractor beam to their skin.

These are just a few of the research possibilities in the new field of aerial electroreception. Professor Robert’s article is intriguing, but sadly, he attributes causal powers to evolution, committing the fallacy that evolution searches for phenomena to exploit. The maxim “opportunity knocks” works for humans with foresight, but mutations and natural selection couldn’t care less if static electricity is in the air or not. Without operational sensors and instincts built into an organism from the start, nothing would happen.

A braver newer world than ever?

 

Moore's Law redux?

 

The OoL just got less simple?

 

Einstein's feet of clay?

 

EVs :the fine print.

 

His Name will be published in all the earth.

 

The "equilbrium" in "punctuated equilibrium" ?

Fossil Friday: Evolutionary Stasis in Beetles

Gunter Bechly 

This Fossil Friday features the living ground beetle genus Loricera, which has recently been recovered as fossil adults and larvae from mid-Cretaceous Burmese amber. The genus belongs to the ground beetle family Carabidae and features in adults as well as the larval stage specially modified antennae and mouth parts for predation on springtails (Collembola) in leaf litter. Spiny hairs at the base of the antennae and the maxillae serve as a kind of catching cage for their springtail prey. This complex adaptation has now turned out to be much more ancient than expected.

In two recent papers Li et al. (2024a, 2024b) described adult and larval Loricera beetles from the mid-Cretaceous Kachin amber (Burmite) of Myanmar, which has been radiometrically dated to an age of 99 million years. These fossil beetles are basically indistinguishable from the various living species of the genus Loricera and have identical anatomical features of adults and larvae. This means that this beetle with its unique adaptations existed in unchanged form since at least about 100 million years and survived the mass extinction at the end of the Cretaceous period.

The Crucial Point

A popular science article in Wired (Kahil 2024) freely admits that “the Loricera beetle’s survival story challenges conventional notions of evolution” and exhibits “a remarkable consistency in an ever-changing world.” This is indeed the crucial point, because such striking cases of stasis are commonly explained away by evolutionary biologists as due to stabilizing selection in a stable environment of their ecological niche. However, this explanation simply is not plausible over hundreds of millions of years with changing habitats, changing climate, changing biota, and even mass extinction events of apocalyptic dimensions. The press release (NIGPAS 2024) reporting the new discovery acknowledges that “the K/Pg mass extinction triggered one of the most profound biodiversity reorganizations in geological history,” but still “the study suggests that both springtails and their predators have exhibited significant evolutionary stasis, both in terms of individual species morphology and community structure.”

Compare this with the evolutionist’s claim that pig-like mammals similar to Indohyus and Pakicetus changed into fully marine dolphin-like whales such as Dorudon and Basilosaurus in just 4 to 8 million years. Natural selection is the great magician in evolutionary fantasy land, where it explains rapid change in explosive radiations as well as no change at all over eons in so-called “living fossils.” However, a theory that is always perfectly consistent with any possible outcome is not explaining anything, but rather is as dubious as Freudian psychoanalysis or astrology, with their vague predictions that always fit. And every fit is sold to the gullible public as a successful corroboration of the theory, which is why people still believe in astrology and — for what it’s worth — in unguided evolution through natural selection acting on random mutations. It is time to call neo-Darwinism out for what it indubitably is: a pseudoscience, which is nurtured, promoted, and fiercely defended by a gigantic industry in mainstream academia that depends on it!

References

Kahil N 2024. This black beetle is a survivor of the dinosaur extinction. Wired November 4, 2024. https://wired.me/science/this-black-beetle-is-a-survivor-of-the-dinosaur-extinction/

Li Y-D, Tihelka E, Engel MS, Huang & Cai C 2024a. Specialized springtail predation by Loricera beetles: An example of evolutionary stasis across the K-Pg extinction. The Innovation 5(3): 100601, 1–2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xinn.2024.100601

Li Y-D, Tihelka E, Engel MS, Xia F-Y, Huang D-Y, Zippel A, Tun KL, Haug GT, Müller P & Cai C-Y 2024b. Description of adult and larval Loricera from mid-Cretaceous Kachin amber (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Palaeoentomology 7(2), 265–276. DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/palaeoentomology.7.2.10

NIGPAS 2024. Cretaceous Amber Reveals the Stability of Beetle-Specialized Predation. NIGPAS Newsroom September 25, http://english.nigpas.cas.cn/new/hs/rp/202409/t20240925_690552.html

ID :a fruitbearing tree.

Bad faith?

 

The human miracle vs. Darwin.

 

John ch.8:58 demystified (again)

 

It looks like technology because it is technology?

 The Eukaryotic Cell Cycle: An Irreducibly Complex System

Jonathan McLatchie

I have previously published several articles at Evolution News on the incredible design, and exquisite engineering, of the eukaryotic cell division cycle (see this recent article for links to previous essays on this subject). I also recently published a paper, in the journal BIO-Complexity, in which I documented significant obstacles to the origins of the eukaryotic cell cycle by evolutionary processes (available for free here).1 Here, I will describe several aspects of the cell cycle that render it irreducibly complex, which are also discussed in my paper.

Condensins

Condensins are protein complexes that play a crucial role in the organization and segregation of chromosomes during cell division. They are highly conserved across eukaryotes. Condensin I is active during late prophase and contributes to the structural integrity of chromosomes following the break-down of the nuclear envelope. Condensin II functions earlier in prophase and is involved in the initial stages of chromosome condensation in the nucleus.

Image source: Wikimedia Commons

Condensin molecules are composed of five subunits (as shown in the figure), including the SMC (Structural Maintenance of Chromosomes) proteins SMC2 and SMC4, which possess ATPase activity. SMC proteins possess coiled-coil domains (long, flexible arms that fold back on themselves, creating a V-shaped structure), a hinge domain that facilitates the dimerization of the two SMC proteins; and head domains containing ATP-binding and ATPase sites, energizing the activities of condensins. In addition to the SMC subunits, there are also three non-SMC subunits, which bind specific regions of DNA and assist in regulation of condensing activity.

Condensin complexes load onto chromatin in a stepwise manner, directed by non-SMC subunits. The SMC subunits create loops in DNA, utilizing their ATPase activity. These loops are stabilized and condensed into mitotic chromosomes.

The condensing proteins are crucial for the process of cell division. In their absence, the consequence would be chromosomal disorganization, as well as great difficulty in achieving proper segregation during mitosis.

Image credit: CNX OpenStax, CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

A complex of proteins, known as the kinetochore, assembles around the centromere of each chromosome (as shown in the figure), and is critical to the process of mitotic cell division. Each kinetochore serves as an attachment site for the spindle microtubules, which radiate from the centrosomes at the cell’s poles. Kinetochores assist with the alignment of chromosomes at the equatorial plane of the cell during metaphase, ensuring equal distribution of genetic material. Kinetochores also sense tension generated by microtubule pulling, thereby ensuring proper attachment. If improper attachments occur (e.g. if the kinetochores of both sister chromatids are attached to the same pole), these errors can be corrected by the kinetochore-associated machinery.

What would be the consequence if there were no kinetochores? This would result in the improper attachment of the chromosomes to the spindle apparatus, and the genetic material would be unequally distributed to the daughter cells. Indeed, so critical are the kinetochores to the process of cell division that they are found ubiquitously throughout all known eukaryotic organisms.

Separase and the Anaphase Promoting Complex

Image source: Wikimedia Commons.

Progression from metaphase to anaphase is mediated by the anaphase promoting complex or cyclosome (APC/C), an E3 ubiquitin ligase. When bound to its coactivator, Cdc20, the APC/C functions to ubiquitylate securin (a protein that prevents the cleavage of cohesin by the enzyme separase). Ubiquitylation of securin targets it for destruction by the cell’s molecular shredder, the proteasome. This liberates the enzyme separase to cleave the cohesin ring that tethers the sister chromatids together, thereby promoting sister chromatid separation.

In the absence of separase, the sister chromatids would fail to separate, and the cell would be rendered unable to segregate its chromosomes at anaphase. Indeed, experimental knockout studies have shown that deleting separase results in embryonic lethality.2,3 Cell cycle progression would also be halted in the absence of the APC/C, inhibiting the progression from metaphase to anaphase. Indeed, experimental studies knocking out APC2 (a core APC/C subunit) in mice, for example, resulted in lethal bone marrow failure within only seven days.4

Aurora Kinases

Aurora kinases are also crucial to proper spindle formation and chromosome segregation. Aurora kinase A phosphorylates proteins involved in microtubule organization and facilitates the accurate attachment of microtubules to kinetochores. Indeed, “Aurora A null nice die early during embryonic development during the 16-cell stage. These Aurora A null embryos have defects in mitosis, particularly in spindle assembly, supporting critical functions of Aurora A during mitotic transitions.”5 This indicates that Aurora kinase A is among the components that are essential for successful cell division.

Microtubules

I have previously described the critical role of microtubules in cell division. Microtubules radiate from centrosomes and anchor to the kinetochore complex, assembled around the centromere of each chromosome. During metaphase, the chromosomes are aligned along the equatorial plane of the cell, bound to microtubules at the kinetochore. In anaphase, the sister chromatids are pulled apart by the microtubules, driven by poleward spindle forces. The microtubules are, therefore, essential for segregating the sister chromatids into the two daughter cells.

In the absence of the microtubules, mitotic spindle assembly would thus be severely impaired, inhibiting chromosome alignment and segregation. Indeed, experimental studies with mouse embryos that are deficient in γ-tubulin exhibit a mitotic arrest that arrests development at the morula/blastocyst stages.6

The Contractile Ring

Image credit: David O Morgan, via Wikimedia Commons.

The contractile ring is also critical to the process of cytokinesis, the final stage of mitosis where the cell physically divides into two daughter cells. It is principally composed of actin filaments and myosin II motor proteins, together with other regulatory proteins such as formins, RhoA, and septins. These components form a dynamic, belt-like structure beneath the membrane at the equator of the dividing cell. The contractile ring produces the force that is needed for the ingression of the cleavage furrow. Myosin II proteins interact with actin filaments in the ring to generate this contractile force. This process is energized by hydrolysis of ATP. As the ring tightens, the plasma membrane is pinched inward, ultimately dividing the cytoplasm. The absence of the contractile ring would result in a failure of the cell to divide, leading to binucleated cells as well as other abnormalities.

Motor Proteins

In a previous article at Evolution News, I described the role of motor proteins (kinesin and dynein) in the assembly and function of the mitotic spindle during eukaryotic cell division. I’d refer interested readers to that essay for a discussion of this astounding process. The absence of these motor proteins would severely compromise the transport and positioning of chromosomes, resulting in chromosomal misalignment during metaphase and difficulty in establishing a proper mitotic spindle. The consequence would be errors in chromosome segregation during anaphase.

Cdk and Cyclin Molecules

I have written previously about the role of cyclin-dependent kinases and cyclin molecules in cell cycle progression. I refer readers there for a review. The Cdk and cyclin molecules exhibit redundancy, meaning that they are not all individually necessary. For example, mouse knockouts of Cdk2, 3, 4, or 6 still retain viability.7,8,9,10,11,12,13Furthermore, yeast cells possess only a single Cdk, specifically Cdk1.14 Interestingly, double knockouts involving combinations of Cdk2 and 4, or Cdk4 and 6, result in embryonic lethality, though a double knockout of Cdk2 and 6 does not.15,16 It appears, then, that the pair Cdk2 and 4 and the pair Cdk4 and 6 can substitute for one another.17 However, Cdk1 appears to be essential, and knocking it out arrests development at the blastocyst stage.18

Cdk molecules themselves are activated by the binding of cyclin molecules. Without those cyclins, the Cdks would be inactive, resulting in cell cycle arrest. Though there is redundancy here too (and thus not all cyclins are indispensable to successful division), the absence of cyclin B (which activates Cdk1 to drive progression into mitosis), would impair the transition from G2 to M phase. In other words, the cell could not enter mitosis. This is corroborated by experimental knockout studies of cyclin B in mouse embryos, leading to the arrest of the cell cycle in G2 after as little as two divisions.19,20

Checkpoints

I have written previously about the various cell cycle checkpoints — i.e., the G1 (restriction) checkpoint, G2 (DNA damage) checkpoint, and spindle assembly checkpoint (see my articles on these here, here and here). These are also essential for successful cell division. For instance, without the mitotic checkpoint complex, the cell’s ability to monitor spindle assembly would be abolished — drastically increasing the risk of cells proceeding through division with spindle defects, the result of which would be chromosome missegregation and aneuploidy. The absence of the G1 checkpoint would enable damaged DNA to enter S phase, which could lead to the propagation of mutations as well as genomic instability. The loss of the G2 checkpoint would allow cells with DNA damage to enter into mitosis, leading to the division of cells with unrepaired genetic material, as well as a greatly increased risk of chromosome aberrations. Without the DNA damage checkpoint in S phase, replication of damaged DNA would occur, resulting in the propagation of mutations and thus an elevated risk of genetic abnormalities in the daughter cells.

Irreducibly Complex

As seen from the cursory discussion above, various components of the mitotic cell division apparatus are indispensable for the system to work. This makes the eukaryotic cell division irreducibly complex, rendering it resistant to explanations in terms of blind, evolutionary processes. Any system that achieves a complex higher-level objective by means of various well-matched interacting components requires foresight to come about. In a subsequent article, I will discuss how the challenge to evolutionary accounts of the origins of eukaryotic cell division extends much deeper than this.

Notes

McLatchie J (2024) Phylogenetic Challenges to the Evolutionary Origin of the Eukaryotic Cell Cycle. BIO-Complexity 2024 (4):1–19 doi:10.5048/BIO-C.2024.4.

Kumada K, Yao R, Kawaguchi T, Karasawa M, Hoshikawa Y, et al (2006) The selective continued linkage of centromeres from mitosis to interphase in the absence of mammalian separase. J Cell Biol. 172(6): 835-46. doi:10.1083/jcb.200511126

Wirth KG, Wutz G, Kudo NR, Desdouets C, Zetterberg A, et al (2006) Separase: a universal trigger for sister chromatid disjunction but not chromosome cycle progression. J Cell Biol. 172(6): 847-60. doi:10.1083/jcb.200506119

Wang J, Yin MZ, Zhao KW, Ke F, Jin WJ, et al (2017) APC/C is essential for hematopoiesis and impaired in aplastic anemia. Oncotarget. 8(38): 63360-63369. doi:10.18632/oncotarget.18808

Lu LY, Wood JL, Ye L, Minter-Dykhouse K, Saunders TL, Yu X, Chen J (2008) Aurora A is essential for early embryonic development and tumor suppression. J Biol Chem. 283(46): 31785-90. doi:10.1074/jbc.M805880200

Yuba-Kubo A, Kubo A, Hata M, Tsukita S (2005) Gene knockout analysis of two gamma-tubulin isoforms in mice. Dev Biol.282(2): 361-73. doi:10.1016/j.ydbio.2005.03.031

Berthet C, Aleem E, Coppola V, Tessarollo L, Kaldis P (2003) Cdk2 knockout mice are viable. Curr Biol. 13: 1775–1785. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2003.09.024

Ortega S, et al. (2003) Cyclin-dependent kinase 2 is essential for meiosis but not for mitotic cell division in mice. Nat Genet.35: 25–31. doi:10.1038/ng1232

Ye X, Zhu C, Harper JW (2001) A premature-termination mutation in the Mus musculus cyclin-dependent kinase 3 gene. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 98: 1682–1686. doi:10.1073/pnas.98.4.1682Rane SG, et al. (1999) Loss of Cdk4 expression causes insulin-deficient diabetes and Cdk4 activation results in β-islet cell hyperplasia. Nat Genet. 22: 44–52. doi:10.1038/8751

Tsutsui T, et al. (1999) Targeted disruption of CDK4 delays cell cycle entry with enhanced p27Kip1 activity. Mol Cell Biol. 19: 7011–7019. doi:10.1128/MCB.19.10.7011

Hu MG, et al. (2009) A requirement for cyclin-dependent kinase 6 in thymocyte development and tumorigenesis. Cancer Res. 69: 810–818. doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-08-2473

Malumbres M, et al. (2004) Mammalian cells cycle without the D-type cyclin-dependent kinases Cdk4 and Cdk6. Cell. 118: 493–504. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2004.08.002

Enserink JM, Kolodner RD (2010) An overview of Cdk1-controlled targets and processes. Cell Div. 5: 11. doi:10.1186/1747-1028-5-11

Malumbres M, et al. (2004) Mammalian cells cycle without the D-type cyclin-dependent kinases Cdk4 and Cdk6. Cell. 118: 493–504. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2004.08.002

Berthet C, Kaldis P (2007) Cell-specific responses to loss of cyclin-dependent kinases. Oncogene 26: 4469–4477. doi:10.1038/sj.onc.1210243

Satyanarayana A, Kaldis P (2009) Mammalian cell-cycle regulation: Several Cdks, numerous cyclins and diverse compensatory mechanisms. Oncogene. 28:2925–2939. doi:doi.org/10.1038/onc.2009.170

Diril MK, Ratnacaram CK, Padmakumar VC, Du T, Wasser M, Coppola V, Tessarollo L, Kaldis P (2012) Cyclin-dependent kinase 1 (Cdk1) is essential for cell division and suppression of DNA re-replication but not for liver regeneration. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 109(10): 3826-31. doi:10.1073/pnas.1115201109

Berthet C, et al. (2006) Combined loss of Cdk2 and Cdk4 results in embryonic lethality and Rb hypophosphorylation. Dev Cell. 10: 563–573. doi:10.1016/j.devcel.2006.03.004

Strauss B, Harrison A, Coelho PA, Yata K, Zernicka-Goetz M, Pines J (2018) Cyclin B1 is essential for mitosis in mouse embryos, and its nuclear export sets the time for mitosis. J Cell Biol. 217(1): 179-193. doi:10.1083/jcb.201612147