Digit numbering and limb development

i-e88a953e59c2ce6c5e2ac4568c7f0c36-rb.png
i-ccbc028bf567ec6e49f3b515a2c4c149-old_pharyngula.gif

Answers in Genesis has evolutionary biology on the run now. In an article from 2002, Ostrich eggs break dino-to-bird theory, they explain that development shows that evolution is all wrong, since developmental pathways in different animals are completely different, and can’t possibly be the result of gradual transformations.

The first piece of evidence against evolution is the old avian digit problem. Birds couldn’t have evolved from dinosaurs, because they have the wrong finger order!

The research conclusively showed that only digits two, three and four (corresponding to our index, middle and ring fingers) develop in birds. This contrasts with dinosaur hands that developed from digits one, two and three. Feduccia pointed out:

‘This creates a new problem for those who insist that dinosaurs were ancestors of modern birds. How can a bird hand, for example, with digits two, three and four evolve from a dinosaur hand that has only digits one, two and three? That would be almost impossible.’

The second problem is that frogs and people develop hands in completely different ways, ways that are even more different than the order of the digits.

This is not the only example where superficially homologous structures actually develop in totally different ways. One of the most commonly argued proofs of evolution is the pentadactyl limb pattern, i.e. the five-digit limbs found in amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals. However, they develop in a completely different manner in amphibians and the other groups. To illustrate, the human embryo develops a thickening on the limb tip called the AER (apical ectodermal ridge), then programmed cell death (apoptosis) divides the AER into five regions that then develop into digits (fingers and toes). By contrast, in frogs, the digits grow outwards from buds as cells divide (see diagram, right).

Dang. I might as well hang it up right now. There is no possible way around these intractable differences. Take me, Jesus, I have seen the ligh…oh, wait a minute. That isn’t right. It looks to me like Jonathan Sarfati is just hopelessly confused on the first problem (I can’t really blame him, though—it is a complicated issue that has been the subject of scientific arguments for two centuries), and is simply completely wrong on the second (and that one I do blame him for. Tsk, tsk.)

So first, let’s tackle the tricky problem, digit identity in evolution. Extend your right hand out in front of you, palm down. Your thumb should be sticking out towards the left, and by convention, that’s Digit I. Counting from left to right, your index finger is Digit II, middle finger is Digit III, ring finger is digit IV, and your pinky is Digit V. We have the primitive pentadactyl (five-fingered) hand, so figuring out who is who is fairly easy. The difficulties arise in species that have reduced the number of their digits—when they extend their three-fingered hand, we have to figure out which digits are missing before we assign numbers to the remaining fingers.

i-3c0e069625b13ffadb5e3b8ad75f7986-deinonychus_hand.gif

One way is by looking at the adult anatomy. Looking at your hand, you probably notice that your thumb is quantitatively different from the other fingers: it only has two joints, instead of three. This is common, that Digit I has fewer phalanges, or segments, than the others, and this is the kind of property that allows anatomists to figure out whether Digit I is present or not. To the right, for instance, is the hand of the raptor Deinonychus (the left hand, sorry to confuse you) with its digit numbering, from DI to DII to DIII, an assignment that was made on the basis of the anatomy. You can see that the ‘thumb’, DI, has fewer phalanges than the others.

You can try to do the same thing with the digits of birds, but it’s harder. Avian digits are reduced and fused into that pointy thing you find at the end of a chicken wing, and it takes an expert to sort out what bones are blended together in there. Anatomists tried, though, and initially and long ago (Meckel came to this conclusion in 1825), decided the bones were numbered DI, DII, and DIII, just like the ones we see in three-fingered dinosaurs…so no dilemma, right?

Wrong. There’s another way of looking at the identity of these bones, and that is by watching them develop. What some birds do is start to make five fingers—they form four or five little nubbins of cartilage, called condensations, and then shut down the development of some of them. What another old time anatomist noticed (Owen, in 1836) was that one of the condensations that got thrown away was the first one—which means that the bird digits are actually derived from Condensation II, Condensation III, and Condensation IV. The data is even stronger in this day of molecular markers: bird digits arise embryonically from the second, third, and fourth cartilaginous condensations.

Now this is a complication for evolution. We have three-fingered dinosaurs, and three-fingered birds, but it looks like they aren’t the same fingers. Bird ancestors would have had to resurrect their discarded Digit IV, then eliminate Digit I, all before fusing the whole assemblage into a bony gemisch anyway. It’s not parsimonious at all. (Of course, it’s even less parsimonious to throw away more than a century of data supporting evolution, as Jonathan Sarfati would like us to do.)

There is another, better explanation that Wagner and Gauthier have made that clarifies everything to me, at least.

Note that anatomists initially assigned digit numbers I, II, and III to bird limbs on the basis of their form, but later had to revise that to II, III, and IV on the basis of embryology. Dinosaur digits are assigned numbers I, II, and III on the basis of their adult form (which is admittedly much less ambiguous than adult bird digits!)…but what about their embryology? If we had access to information about expression of molecular markers and early condensations in the dinosaur limb, would we have to revise their digit numbers?

We don’t have fetal dinosaur hands to experiment on, but our growing knowledge about how limbs develop suggests that that might just be the case. This diagram illustrates the sequence of development in the hand of an alligator (a) and an ostrich (b).

i-3d4cb812c44b43be89d64bf407329866-metapterygial_axis.gif
(Click for larger image)

What you’re seeing is the pattern of early condensations in the limb. We tetrapods have a standard pattern: the very first digit to develop as an extension of the limb is Condensation IV, your ring finger, forming what is called the metapterygial axis. Next, the pinky (CV) forms as a little afterthought along one side of the metapterygial axis, and a new axis of condensation hooks over the palm, with the middle finger (CIII) forming next, then the index finger (CII), and lastly the thumb (CI). From a developmental standpoint, the easiest digits to lose are that odd little CV, and the thumb, CI. CI is the very last to form, so you can stop its formation by changing the timing of development in a process called heterochrony, and just halting the development of that axis hooking across the palm early. You can see that in the ostrich, which just stops making fingers after CII, so CI doesn’t form. The hardest digit to lose is CIV, because it’s kind of the lynchpin of the process—all the other digits follow after IV, so it would be difficult to suppress IV without losing all of the other digits. (Who would have thought that the ring finger was so central and important to hand development?)

The numbering of the dinosaur limb is a problem then…it suggests that they don’t have a Digit IV, which looks like a complicated and unlikely thing to do. But they do have a ‘thumb’, or Digit I. How do we resolve this seeming contradiction?

The answer is that there are two developmental processes going on. The first is the formation of the condensations, CI through CV. This process partitions the terminal region into an appropriate number of chunks, but doesn’t actually specify the identity of the digits. The second process takes each of those chunks and assigns a digit identity to them, and this process is to some degree independent of the first and uses a different set of signals. Wolpert et al. have noticed this in modern embryos:

For example, digit identity is specified at a surprisingly late stage in limb development, and identity remains labile even when the digit primordia have formed. It now appears that digit identity is specified by the interdigital mesenchyme and requires BMP signaling. There is also evidence that mechanisms other than a diffusible morphogen operate to lay down the initial pattern of cartilage, which is then modified by a signal from the polarizing region…

What Wagner and Gauthier propose is that three-fingered dinosaurs accomplished that reduction by shedding the two easiest digits to lose, CI and CV, so that if we enumerated them by the same criteria we use in modern birds, they possess Condensations II, III, and IV. What also happened, though, was that there was a frame shift in the mechanism that assigns digit identity, so CII develops as DI, CIII as DII, and CIV as DIII.

i-985af1b7eaa00ab3b9bd5685a64241c6-digit_frameshift.gif

The timing of this shift can be mapped onto saurian phylogeny, and it all makes sense and is consistent. And it doesn’t involve taking seriously the silly sequence of the biblical account, which has birds appearing before all of the land animals.

i-738081af842c6fd8bec2fc1b6b2e98f2-digit_phylogeny.gif
(Click for larger image)

What about Sarfati’s second line of evidence against evolution, that frogs and humans use completely different mechanisms to build their limbs?

Simple answer: it’s all bullshit. It’s a blatant denial of basic information you’ll find in any developmental biology textbook.

We’ve got a pretty good handle on the outline of limb development in multiple tetrapod lineages now, and they all use the same tools. Contrary to Sarfati’s implication, they all have apical ectodermal ridges (with some rare exceptions in a few highly derived, direct-developing frogs) and zones of polarizing activity, they all use the same set of molecules, including FGF-4 and FGF-8 and the same Hox genes and retinoic acid and BMPs. If there’s one thing we know, it’s that limb development is dazzlingly well conserved.

It is true that frogs have less apoptosis between their digits than we do, but that’s because they have webbed feet. Suppress apoptosis in other vertebrates, and you get the same phenomenon, retention of membranous webs between the digits. There is a simple functional reason why they differ in this regard, and it takes advantage of a common property of limb development in all tetrapods.

I can sympathize with Sarfati having difficulty sorting out digit numbering—it’s subtle and sneaky and has puzzled smarter people than either of us. But the uninformed rejection of some of the most straightforward, clearest examples of common mechanisms in development, something that you can find described in the most introductory biology textbook…that’s hard to forgive.

Wagner GP, Gauthier JA (1999) 1,2,3=2,3,4: A solution to the problem of the homology of the digits in the avian hand. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 96:5111-5116.

Wolpert L, Beddington R, Jessel T, Lawrence P, Meyerowitz E, Smith J (2002) Principles of Development. Oxford University Press.

How to build a dinosaur

I’ve been reading a new book by Jack Horner and James Gorman, How to Build a Dinosaur: Extinction Doesn’t Have to Be Forever(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll), and I was pleasantly surprised. It’s a book that gives a taste of the joys of geology and paleontology, talks at some length about a recent scientific controversy, acknowledges the importance of evo-devo, and will easily tap into the vast mad scientist market.

It is a little scattered, in that it seems to be the loosely assembled concatenation of a couple of books, but that’s part of the appeal; read the chapters like you would a collection of short stories, and you’ll get into the groove.

The first part is about Horner’s life in Montana, the Hell Creek formation, and dinosaur collecting. Hand this to any kid and get him hooked on paleontology for life; I recall reading every book I could get my hands on that talked about Roy Chapman Andrews as a young’un, and it permanently twisted me…in a good way. This will have the same effect, and many people will think about heading out to Garfield County for a little dusty adventure. I know I am — all that stands in my way is South Dakota.

A good chunk of the book is about molecules and how they show the relatedness of dinosaurs to birds, and to the work of Horner’s former student, Mary Schweitzer, who discovered soft tissue in T. rex bones. Horner presents a good overview of the subject, but is also appropriately cautious. You’ll get a good feel for the difficulty of finding this material, and for interpreting it; he clearly believes that these are scraps of real T. rex tissue, but how intact it is, what kinds of changes have occurred in it, and how much information will be extractable from these rare bits of preserved collagen (or whatever) is left an open question.

Finally, the subject of the title…Horner was an advisor to the Jurassic Park movies, and right away he dismisses the idea of extracting 65 million year old DNA in enough quantity to reconstitute a dinosaur as clearly nothing but a fantasy. That’s simply not how it can be done. But he does have a grand, long-term plan for recreating a dinosaur.

What is it? Why, it’s developmental biology, of course. Development is the answer to everything.

Here’s his vision, and I found it believable and captivating: start with a modern dinosaur, a chicken, figure out the developmental pathways that make it different from an ancient dinosaur, and tweak them back to the ancestral condition. For instance, birds have lost the long bony tail of their ancestors, reducing it to a little stump called a pygostyle. In the embryo, they start to make a long tail, but then developmental switches put a kink in it and reduce it to a stub. If we could only figure out what specific molecules are signaling the tissue to take this modern reducing path and switch them off, then maybe we could produce a generation of chickens with the long noble tails of a velociraptor.

My first thought was skepticism — it can’t be that easy. There may be a simple network of genes that regulate this one early decision to form a pygostyle from a tail, but there have been tens of millions of years of adaptation by other genes to the modern condition; we’re dealing with a large network of interlinked genes here, and unraveling one step in development doesn’t mean that subsequent steps are still competent to respond in the ancient pattern. But then, thinking about it a little more, one of the properties of the genome is its plasticity and ability to respond in a coherent, integrated way to changes in one part of a gene network. That capacity might mean you could reconstitute a tail.

And then, once you’ve got a tailed chicken, you could work on adding teeth to the jaws. And foreclaws. And while you’re at it, find the little genomic slider that controls body size, and turn it up to 11. What he’s proposing is a step-by-step analysis of chicken-vs.-dinosaur decisions in the developmental pathways, and inserting intentional atavisms into them. This is all incredibly ambitious, and it might not work…but the only way to find out is try. I like that in a scientist. Turning a chicken into a T. rex is a true Mad Scientist project, and one that I must applaud.

One reservation I have about this section of the book is that too much time is spent dwelling over ethical concerns. Need I mention that real Mad Scientists do not fret over the footling trivia of the Institutional Review Board? These are chicken embryos, animals that your average member of the taxpaying public finds so inconsequential that they will pay to have them homogenized into spongy-textured slabs of yellow protein to be slapped onto their McMuffin. Please, people, get some perspective.

As for respecting the chickens themselves, what can be grander and more respectful than this project? I would whisper to my chickens, “With these experiments, I will take your children’s children’s children, and give them great ripping claws like scythes, and razor-sharp serrate fangs like daggers, and I will turn them into multi-story towers of muscle and bone that will be able to trample KFC restaurants as if they were matchboxes.” And their eyes would light up with a feral gleam of primeval ambition, and they would offer me their ovaries willingly. I’d be doing the chickens a favor. Maybe some chicken farmers would have cause to be fearful, but I wouldn’t be working on their embryos, so let them tremble.

Oh, all right. Horner is taking the responsible path and putting some serious thought into the ethics of this kind of experiment, which is the right thing to do. It’s also the kind of project that will generate serious and useful information about developmental networks, even if it fails in its ultimate aim.

But I have a dream, too. Of a day when biotechnology is ubiquitous, and middle-class kids everywhere will have a cheap DNA sequencer and synthesizer in their garages, and a freezer with handy vectors and enzymes for directed insertional mutagenesis. And one day, Mom will come home with a box of fresh guaranteed organic free range chicken eggs, and Junior’s eyes will glitter with a germ of a cunning plan, fed by a little book he found in the library…and 30-foot-tall fanged chickens will triumphantly stride the cul-de-sacs of suburbia, and the roar of the dinosaur will be heard once again.

Embryonic similarities in the structure of vertebrate brains

i-e88a953e59c2ce6c5e2ac4568c7f0c36-rb.png

I’ve been doing it wrong. I was looking over creationist responses to my arguments that Haeckel’s embryos are being misused by the ID cretins, and I realized something: they don’t give a damn about Haeckel. They don’t know a thing about the history of embryology. They are utterly ignorant of modern developmental biology. Let me reduce it down for you, showing you the logic of science and creationism in the order they developed.

Here’s how the scientific and creationist thought about the embryological evidence evolves:

i-0fbb95c437feb7bb89110acb6f8e6326-brcorner.gifScientific thinking

An observation: vertebrate embryos show striking resemblances to one another.

An explanation: the similarities are a consequence of shared ancestry.

Ongoing confirmation: Examine more embryos and look more deeply at the molecules involved.

i-c1503e12cd6cf804a7bbd33bdcee007f-tiny_gumby_trans.gif

Creationist thinking

A premise: all life was created by a designer.

An implication: vertebrate embryos do not share a common ancestor.

A conclusion: therefore, vertebrate embryos do not show striking resemblances to one another.



[Read more…]

Snails have nodal!

i-e88a953e59c2ce6c5e2ac4568c7f0c36-rb.png

My first column in the Guardian science blog will be coming out soon, and it’s about a recent discovery that I found very exciting…but that some people may find strange and uninteresting. It’s all about the identification of nodal in snails.

i-9814996ee90947e59439af12f03a03db-nodal_guts.jpg

Why should we care? Well, nodal is a rather important — it’s a gene involved in the specification of left/right asymmetry in us chordates. You’re internally asymmetric in some important ways, with, for instance, a heart that is larger on the left than on the right. This is essential for robust physiological function — you’d be dead if you were internally symmetrical. It’s also consistent, with a few rare exceptions, that everyone has a stronger left ventricle than right. The way this is set up is by the activation of the cell signaling gene nodal on one side, the left. Nodal then activates other genes (like Pitx2) farther downstream, that leads to a bias in how development proceeds on the left vs. the right.

In us mammals, the way this asymmetry in gene expression seems to hinge on the way cilia rotate to set up a net leftward flow of extraembryonic fluids. This flow activates sensors on the left rather than the right, that upregulate nodal expression. So nodal is central to differential gene expression on left vs. right sides.

i-21bda85fe662c24fe34efc609dcbf4ac-nodal_cilia.jpg

What about snails? Snails are cool because their asymmetries are just hanging out there visibly, easy to see without taking a scalpel to their torsos (there are also internal asymmetries that we’d need to do a dissection to see, but the external markers are easier). The assymetries also appear very early in the embryo, in a process called spiral cleavage, and in the adult, they are obvious in the handedness of shell coiling. We can see shells with either a left-handed or right-handed spiral.

i-d03d89cba8e1ae44e04152b3d93bf105-nodal_spiral.jpeg
(Click for larger image)
Chirality in snails. a, Species with different chirality: sinistral
Busycon pulleyi (left) and dextral Fusinus salisbury (right). b, Sinistral (left)
and dextral (right) shells of Amphidromus perversus, a species with chiral
dimorphism. c, Early cleavage in dextral and sinistral species (based on ref.
27). In sinistral species, the third cleavage is in a counterclockwise direction,
but is clockwise in dextral species. In the next divisions the four quadrants
(A, B, C and D) are oriented as indicated. Cells coloured in yellow have an
endodermal fate and those in red have an endomesodermal fate in P. vulgata
(dextral)15 and B. glabrata (sinistral)28. L and R indicate left and right sides,
respectively. d, B. glabrata possesses a sinistral shell and sinistral cleavage
and internal organ organization. e, L. gigantea displays a dextral cleavage
pattern and internal organ organization, and a relatively flat shell
characteristic of limpets. Scale bars: a, 2.0 cm; b, 1.0 cm; d, 0.5 cm; e, 1.0 cm.

Until now, the only organisms thought to use nodal in setting up left/right asymmetries were us deuterostomes — chordates and echinoderms. In the other big (all right, bigger) branch of the animals, the protostomes, nodal seemed to be lacking. Little jellies, the cnidaria, didn’t have it, and one could argue that with radial symmetry it isn’t useful. The ecdysozoans, animals like insects and crustaceans and nematodes, which do show asymmetries, don’t use nodal for that function. This suggests that maybe nodal was a deuterostome innovation, something that was not used in setting up left and right in the last common ancestor of us animals.

That’s why this is interesting news. If a major protostome group, the lophotrochozoa (which includes the snails) use nodal to set up left and right, that implies that the ecdysozoans are the odd group — they secondarily lost nodal function. That would suggest then that our last common ancestor, a distant pre-Cambrian worm, used this molecule in the same way.

Look in the very early mollusc embryo, and there’s nodal (in red, below) switched on in one or a few cells on one side of the embryo, the right. It’s asymmetrical gene expression!

i-6daa81c2edebfc143fde371c4849c1cf-nodal_early_exp.jpeg
(Click for larger image)
Early expression of nodal and Pitx in snails. a, 32-cell stage L.
gigantea expressing nodal in a single cell. b, Group of cells expressing Pitx in
L. gigantea. c, Onset of nodal expression in B. glabrata. d, A group of cells
expressing Pitx in B. glabrata. e, 32-cell L. gigantea expressing nodal (red) in
a single cell (2c) and brachyury (black) in two cells (3D and 3c).
f-h, brachyury (black) is expressed in a symmetrical manner in progeny of 3c
and 3d blastomeres (blue triangles in g), thus marking the bilateral axis, and
nodal (red) is expressed on the right side of L. gigantea in the progeny of 2c
and 1c blastomeres, as seen from the lateral (f) and posterior (g, h) views of
the same embryo. i, A group of cells expressing nodal (red) in the C quadrant
and Pitx (black) in the D quadrant of the 120-cell-stage embryo of L.
gigantea. j, nodal (red) and Pitx (black) expression in adjacent areas of the
right lateral ectoderm in L. gigantea. L and R indicate the left and right sides
of the embryo, respectively. The black triangle in b and i, the green, yellow
and pink arrows in f and i, and the black and pink arrows in f and h point to
the equivalent cells. Scale bars: 50µm.

Seeing it expressed is tantalizing, but the next question is whether it actually does anything in these embryos. The test is to interfere with the nodal-Pitx2 pathway and see if the asymmetry goes away…and it does, in a dramatic way. There is a chemical inhibitor called SB-431542 that disrupts this pathway, and exposing embryos to it does interesting things to the formation of the shell. In the photos below, the animal on the left is a control, and what you’re seeing is a coiled shell (opening to the right). The other two views are of an animal treated with SB-431542…and look! Its shell doesn’t have either a left- or right-handed twist, and instead extends as a straight tube.

i-055b648d0eaf32f767e5cc31f9f9a19b-nodal_shell.jpeg
(Click for larger image)
Wild-type coiled and drug-treated non-coiled shells of B.
glabrata. Control animals
(e) display the normal sinistral shell morphology. Drug-treated animals
(f, g, exposed to SB-431542 from the 2-cell stage onwards) have straight
shells. f and g show an
individual, ethanol-fixed, and shown from the side (f) and slightly rotated
(g).

What this all means is that we’ve got a slightly better picture of what genes were present in the ancestral bilaterian animal. It probably had both nodal and Pitx2, and used them to build up handedness specializations. Grande and Patel spell this out:

Although Pitx orthologues have also been identified in non-deuterostomes such as Drosophila melanogaster and
Caenorhabditis elegans, in these species Pitx has not been reported in
asymmetrical expression patterns. Our results suggest that asymmetrical expression of Pitx might be an ancestral feature of the bilaterians.
Furthermore, our data suggest that nodal was present in the common
ancestor of all bilaterians and that it too may have been expressed
asymmetrically. Various lines of evidence indicate that the last common ancestor of all snails had a dextral body. If this is true, then our
data would suggest that this animal expressed both nodal and Pitx on
the right side. Combined with the fact that nodal and Pitx are also
expressed on the right side in sea urchins, this raises the possibility
that the bilaterian ancestor had left-right asymmetry controlled by
nodal and Pitx expressed on the right side of the body. Although
independent co-option is always a possibility, the hypotheses we present can be tested by examining nodal and Pitx expression and function in a variety of additional invertebrates.

It’s also, of course, more evidence for the unity of life. We are related to molluscs, and share key genes between us.

Grande C, Patel NH (2009) Nodal signalling is involved in left-right asymmetry in snails. Nature 457(7232):1007-11.

Man-hating Chinese doctors murder baby!

God blessed a Chinese woman with twin baby boys, each one ensouled at the instant of fertilization with personhood and a personal divine fate. At their birth, though, the doctors callously ended one proud male life…and they’ve probably got the poor fellow pickled in a jar somewhere. Here’s a photo of the pair.

i-1bebb470f7aee1ac66b17c45c220bc00-Baby_with_spare.jpeg

That is a baby. The odd blob on his back? That’s his brother, a nicely formed penis growing and thriving there. This is a case of fetus in fetu, in which a mass of cells, either an absorbed twin or a large teratoma (a surprisingly well differentiated, but abnormal, fragment of embryonic tissue), form a partial individual fused to a larger fetus. In this case, all that made it was a penis and what looks like some other adjoining tissues.

Please note that Little Wang (the kids were unnamed, but I have to call him something) is made up of entirely human tissue, and is genuinely alive — blood flows through him, he was probably innervated with sensory and motor nerves, he is obviously sufficiently differentiated that we have no problem calling him male, and he is a miracle of creation — yet what did the doctors do? In a cruel three hour operation, they cut him away from his brother and let him bleed to death.

Yeah, I know what you’re going to say: he was a parasite, entirely dependent on his brother for survival, and could not live on his own—but we all know that argument is totally bogus, because…because…well, because it just is! Life is precious, and you must choose life!

(OK, seriously, this was an awkward developmental difficulty for the child and his parents, but it’s also fascinating. Not enough detail is given in the articles; I’d like to know about deeper levels of organization. Were the various ducts present? Was there any recognizable pelvic tissue? Three hours of surgery implies there may have been some internal entanglements? And most importantly, that location implies that there might have been some spinal involvement — I hope the kid is entirely all right now, and that there won’t be any long term problems.)

(And again seriously, it does raise issues of individuality and human identity. I have no problem saying that the extra penis is an unwanted growth that can be eliminated with no ethical difficulties…but people who claim personhood for a tiny ball of cells ought to have greater problems with this case.)

The fertilized egg is not a human life

A while back, I got a letter from a student at the University of Texas named Mark, who had been confronted by a group of those typically hysterical anti-choice people on campus. They made an assertion I’ve heard many times, and he asked me to counter it.

So there I was, walking along the University of Texas campus, enjoying an absolutely gorgeous day (it was 75 and sunny!) when all of a sudden I’m accosted by a huge structure covered with gigantic (10+ ft) pictures of 5-20 week old fetuses. Surprise! I’d forgotten all about our annual day of political theatre hosted by some pro-life group on campus. I started having a very cordial conversation with a couple of (very cute!) pro-lifers when one of them makes the astounding claim that “Every biologist would agree absolutely that life begins at conception”. I let it pass and then I call her on it after she says it a couple more times. Eventually she explains that she’s very confident in this statement because their ‘executive director” always says it, and claims that if someone proves him wrong he’ll eat the paper it’s written on.

Easy. I sent back a quick reply…I daresay that no competent biologist would take the position that these anti-choicers claim is universal among us.

Life does not begin at conception.

It’s an utterly nonsensical position to take. There is never a “dead” phase — life is continuous. Sperm are alive, eggs are alive; you could even make the argument that since two cells (gametes) enter, but only one cell (a zygote) leaves, fertilization ends a life. Not that I would make that particular claim myself, but it’s definitely true that life is more complicated than the simplistic ideologues of the anti-choice movement would make it.

I recently received more email from someone in this organization; the mail is from a David Lee, but is signed “R.”, so I’m not sure who I’m talking to. Whoever it is, they don’t quite get it, but are trying desperately to weasel out of the bargain now.

Dr. Meyers,

I’m in possession of correspondence between yourself and a University of Texas at Austin student by the name of Mark. Mark handed me a copy of his email addressed to you, and your email response addressed to him dated February 25, 2009, as citing evidence that would require me to eat the page upon which your response was printed.

Mark presented me your remarks as said evidence to be eaten because during the Justice For ALL Exhibit (www.jfaweb.org) presentation at UT-Austin several weeks ago I was heard to offer to eat the page of the biology textbook in use on the UT-Austin campus that asserts that “someone having human parents can be something other than biologically fully human, at any point in their existence.”

I proffered my eating-the-page challenge that day in response to numerous students’ claim that the offspring of two human parents was not biologically human until birth (in their defense most of them were not science majors).

I did not eat the page that Mark handed me that day because it did not contain the evidence I requested. Which is why I now write to you. You claim to have knowledge of such documentation.

In fact you make the bold assertion in your correspondence with Mark that “[Human] life does not begin at conception” followed by “…There is never a ‘dead’ phase — life is continuous. Sperm are alive, eggs are alive; you could even make the argument that since two cells (gametes) enter, but only one cell (a zygote) leaves, fertilization ends a life. Not that I would make that particular claim myself… .” (my bold and italics)

I’m encouraged that you don’t make the claim that human fertilization ends a human life; however in postulating the argument you seem to grant nebulous scientific credibility to those who might make such a claim? For what purpose? Surely not to discredit my position.

Unless you believe in the possibility of an extra-physical or metaphysical existence, I seriously doubt that you believe your own assertion that “…There is never a ‘dead’ phase — life is continuous.”

On what evidence do you base your assertion that “life is continuous?” Do you believe in life after death in some physical or metaphysical sense? If you mean by your assertion that at least one human self-directing organism must contribute living genetic material in order for a new member of the human species to come into existence I quite agree.

But you have labeled my assertion “simplistic” and “nonsensical” that sexually reproduced human life — I’ll go further than that — all new mammalian species members, have a beginning, and that that beginning is the conception of the species member.

So professor, you’re on the record; from a biology or human embryology textbook in use on an accredited university campus (your own University of Minnesota-Morris campus would be fine), please cite chapter and page that unequivocally states that “human life does not begin at conception.”

I look forward to your reply. Respectfully,

R.

Talk about complete, blind incomprehension…no, I’m not talking about life after death, since I don’t believe in that, either. I’m saying that it is absurd to talk about a life beginning at conception because it didn’t begin then: the precursors to the zygote were also alive. The only “beginning” of life that we could talk about occurred a few billion years ago, and even that wasn’t discrete, but the product of a gradual progression from chemical replicator to functioning cell, a cline upon which there was no point where one could say that everything before was dead, and everything after was alive. Life is a very fuzzy concept.

One thing you’ll notice is the frantic attempt to qualify everything by inserting the qualifier “human” before every mention of the word “life”, to the point where they are even adding it when quoting me! Alas, it doesn’t help them at all. I’m also confident that the freshly fertilized zygote is not human, either. There’s more to being human than bearing a cell with the right collection of genes.

Now this person wants a specific quote from a biology text that has the words “human life does not begin at conception” in it. That would be tough, because it’s a sentence that rather boggles the brain of any developmental biologist — we also tend not to write sentences like, “human beings are not flies”. We kind of expect that anyone intelligent enough to read the textbook doesn’t need their hand held in superfluous explications of the bleedin’ obvious. But you will find us saying simple things like that in email and conversations and even popular lectures to lay people…such as this talk by Lewis Wolpert.

Wolpert is, of course, one of the best known developmental biologists on the planet. He is also the author of a very good introductory text in developmental biology (Principles of Development(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll)
), one that I use in my classes at UMM, and in this lecture (which you really should watch and listen to in its entirety, it’s very good), he does come right out and say the bleedin’ obvious.

What I’m concerned with is how you develop. I know that you all think about it perpetually that you come from one single cell of a fertilized egg. I don’t want to get involved in religion but that is not a human being. I’ve spoken to these eggs many times and they make it quite clear … they are not a human being.

There, that should help. When you go reaching for an authority in development, a professor at a small liberal arts college isn’t the sine qua non of the field (well, unless maybe you’re talking about Scott Gilbert…), but you really can’t pull rank higher than Lewis Wolpert.

Jonathan Wells’ weird notions about development

Jonathan Wells recently gave a talk in Albuquerque at something called the “Forum on Science, Origins, and Design”, a conference about which I can find absolutely nothing on the web. I wasn’t there, of course, and I don’t get invited to these goofy events anyway, but I did get a copy of Wells’ powerpoint presentation from an attendee. It’s titled “DNA Does Not Control Embryo Development” — shall we look at it together? It’s really a hoot.

i-f4643e9acc2c8e5b72626389922c08d5-wells1.jpeg

[Read more…]

Sharon Begley, how could you?

Usually, Begley is reasonably good on science, but her latest piece is one big collection of misconceptions. It reflects a poor understanding of the science and of history, in that it confuses long-standing recognition of the importance of environmental factors in gene expression with a sudden reinstatement of Lamarckian inheritance, and it simply isn’t — she’s missed the point of the science and she has caricatured Lamarck.

Some water fleas sport a spiny helmet that deters predators; others, with identical DNA sequences, have bare heads. What differs between the two is not their genes but their mothers’ experiences. If mom had a run-in with predators, her offspring have helmets, an effect one wag called “bite the mother, fight the daughter.” If mom lived her life unthreatened, her offspring have no helmets. Same DNA, different traits. Somehow, the experience of the mother, not only her DNA sequences, has been transmitted to her offspring.

That gives strict Darwinians heart palpitations, for it reeks of the discredited theory of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829). The French naturalist argued that the reason giraffes have long necks, for instance, is that their parents stretched their (shorter) necks to reach the treetops. Offspring, Lamarck said, inherit traits their parents acquired. With the success of Darwin’s theory of random variation and natural selection, Lamarck was left on the ash heap of history. But new discoveries of what looks like the inheritance of traits acquired by parents–lab animals as well as people–are forcing biologists to reconsider Lamarckism.

She’s describing real and interesting phenomena, but it isn’t new and it isn’t revolutionary. These are results of plasticity and epigenetics, and we aren’t having heart palpitations over them (you’re also going to have a difficult time finding any “strict Darwinians” in the science community who are even surprised by this stuff). We load up pregnant women with folate and maternal vitamins and recommendations to eat well, and we tell them not to get drunk or smoke crack for a few months, because it is common sense and common knowledge that extra-genetic factors influence the health and development of the next generation. Genes don’t execute rigid, predetermined programs of development — they are responsive to the environment and can express radically different patterns in different contexts. The same genes build a caterpillar and a butterfly, the difference is in the hormonal environment that selects which genes will be active.

It’s the same story with the water fleas. Stressed and unstressed mothers switch on different genes in their offspring epigenetically, which lead to the expression of different morphology. It’s very cool stuff, but evolutionary biologists are about as shocked by this as they are by the idea that malnourished mothers have underweight babies. That environmental influences can have multi-generational effects, and that developmental programs can cue off of the history of the germ line, is not a new idea, especially among developmental biologists.

This is just wrong on evolution:

Water fleas pop out helmets immediately if mom lived in a world of predators; by Darwin’s lights, a population of helmeted fleas would take many generations to emerge through random variation and natural selection.

It misses the whole point. The population of water fleas have a genetic attribute that allows the formation of spines under one set of conditions, and suppresses them under others. This gene regulatory network did not pop into existence in a single generation! If it did, then Begley would have a big story, evolution would have experienced a serious blow, and we’d all be looking a little more carefully into this ‘intelligent design’ stuff. The pattern of gene regulation was the product of many generations of variation and selection; only the way it was expressed in a phenotype experienced a shift within a single generation.

It’s also not Lamarckism. It’s another of those short and simple-minded myths perpetuated by high-school textbooks that Lamarck and Darwin had competing explanations for the same phenomena. They did not. This story of giraffes stretching their necks is an example of the purported inheritance of acquired characteristics … and here’s some headline news, Darwin proposed exactly the same thing! Darwin did not have a solid theory of heredity, and he himself proposed a mechanism of pangenesis which permitted the inheritance of characters by use and disuse and by injury or malformation. The key difference is that Darwin proposed that these variations could lead to the formation of new species; Lamarck believed in the fixity of species, and thought that a species would merely express a constrained range of forms in differing environments.

Both were wrong. A concept called the Weismann barrier emerged in the late 19th century, which suggested that the only influences that can be transmitted across generations are those that affect the germ line, the cells that give rise to sperm and egg, and that modification of the somatic tissues alone would not propagate. This is correct, and it’s still true: nothing in these reports suggest anything but that when perturbed by environmental stressors, gametes can switch on different genetic programs.

I think epigenetics and plasticity are important and play a role in evolution, certainly, but these kinds of elaborations on how cells interact do not imply in any way that there is a revolution in evolution, or that evolutionary biology has had it all wrong, or that this is heresy in progress. It’s also annoying to see all the vague handwaving about discrediting a “Darwinian model” — what Darwinian model? These discoveries are about mechanisms of genetic inheritance, and Darwin didn’t have a valid mechanism in the first place. In that sense, the only real heresy that counted was Mendel’s.

Awesomely horrible

We have a long history in developmental biology of studying the most amazing freaks of nature — damage to developing organisms can produce astonishingly ghastly results as the embryo tries to regulate and recover, yielding results that are almost normal. There’s even a whole subdiscipline of the field, teratology, dedicated to studying aberrations of embryology. The word is perfect, since it is derived from a Greek root that means both “wonders” and “monsters”.

An unfortunate child in Colorado was the recipient of one of these wonders/monsters. Diagnosed with a brain tumor, when surgeons opened up his skull, they found fragments of a fetus inside: two tiny feet, part of a hand, coils of intestine. The surgery was successful and the child is doing fine now, but this was the most well-organized ‘tumor’ I’ve ever heard of. It’s not clear exactly what it was; there are things called teratomas, where a particular kind of cancer recapitulates a developmental program and builds tissues, things like skin with hair or teeth or chunks of muscle and bone and gland, but those aren’t this well organized. They tend not to produce complete organs, but partially differentiated sheets and lumps. Another possibility is fetus in fetu, where a fragment of the very early embryo is isolated and begins its own independent pattern of normal development, and then is engulfed by the larger and faster growing sibling embryo. Sometimes people late in life will be surprised to learn that there is a partially developed twin imbedded deep in their body. There is no question in any of these cases, however, that the tissue is not an autonomous individual. It is a piece of human-derived tissue that has executed part of the program of cell:cell interactions and induction that these kinds of cells are capable of doing.

Something struck me when I saw the photograph of this particular surgery. Here it is, a photo of a fetal foot flopping out of a bloody baby’s brain (don’t click if you’re squeamish). As I’m sure you’ve noticed, anti-choice people love to parade about with gory photos of aborted fetuses, and they love to dwell on little details like a recognizable hand or face. This picture is exactly like those, yet realize this: there was no human being behind those little baby toes. The existence of these fragments of non-sentient tissue endangered the life of a child, and there was no question that they needed to be extracted.

This is also how we should view abortion. It’s ugly and messy, and there’s something disquietingly resonant of humanity in the pieces of the embryo or fetus, but we shouldn’t be fooled. Those are beautifully patterned collections of differentiated cells, but there is no person there.

A Natural History of Seeing: The Art and Science of Vision

Simon Ings has written a wonderful survey of the eye, called A Natural History of Seeing: The Art and Science of Vision(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll), and it’s another of those books you ought to be sticking on your Christmas lists right now. The title give you an idea of its content. It’s a “natural history”, so don’t expect some dry exposition on deep details, but instead look forward to a light and readable exploration of the many facets of vision.

There is a discussion of the evolution of eyes, of course, but the topics are wide-ranging — Ings covers optics, chemistry, physiology, optical illusions, decapitated heads, Edgar Rice Burroughs’ many-legged, compound-eyed apts, pointillisme, cephalopods (how could he not?), scurvy, phacopids, Purkinje shifts…you get the idea. It’s a hodge-podge, a little bit of everything, a fascinating cabinet of curiousities where every door opened reveals some peculiar variant of an eye.

Don’t think it’s lacking in science, though, or is entirely superficial. This is a book that asks the good questions: how do we know what we know? Each topic is addressed by digging deep to see how scientists came to their conclusion, and often that means we get an entertaining story from history or philosophy or the lab. Explaining the evolution of our theories of vision, for example, leads to the story of Abu’Ali al-Hasan ibn al-Hasan ibn al-Haythem, who pretended to be mad to avoid the cruelty of a despotic Caliph, and who spent 12 years in a darkened house doing experiments in optics (perhaps calling him “mad” really wasn’t much of a stretch), and emerged at the death of the tyrant with an understanding of refraction and a good theory of optics that involved light, instead of mysterious vision rays emerging from an eye. Ings is also a novelist, and it shows — these are stories that inform and lead to a deeper understanding.

If the book has any shortcoming, though, it is that some subjects are barely touched upon. Signal transduction and molecular evolution are given short shrift, for example, but then, if every sub-discipline were given the depth given to basic optics, this book would be unmanageably immense. Enjoy it for what it is: a literate exploration of the major questions people have asked about eyes and vision for the last few thousand years.