The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20120111195437/http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/

Google’s doodle: women have eggs

by Matthew Cobb

Today’s Google doodle (above) is in honour of Nicolas Steno (1638-1686) – it would be his 374th birthday today (in fact it’s a bit more complicated than that, because he was actually born on 1 January 1638, but under the old Julian calendar…).

The doodle fetes Steno’s principle of superposition, which is the idea that, in any geological strata, the lower layers are older than the upper layers. Furthermore, it shows fossils in the rocks – Steno was the first person to clearly show that fossils were actually the remnants of long-dead animals.

But Steno was not just the father of geology. He was one of the most amazing thinkers who participated in the Scientific Revolution that took place in the 17th century. He also made lasting contributions to anatomy and physiology, and above all to our understanding of where we come from. All in the space of about 12 years.

Steno

Between 1662 and 1667, in Amsterdam, Leiden, Paris and Florence:

  • He discovered the duct that takes saliva from the parotid gland to the mouth – this is still called ‘Steno’s duct’.
  • He made the first scientific dissection of the human brain.
  • He showed how muscles work.

That would be enough for anyone. But Steno’s big breakthroughs came after his 1667 book on muscles (Elementorum Myologiae Specimen) had been approved by the Holy Office (the church censor). Just before it went to press, Steno added two brief pieces to his book, both of which had the same origin: the dissection of a shark.

In October 1666, French fishermen landed a gigantic great white shark at the port of Livorno. They weighed it (1200 kg), took out its liver, hacked its head off and then rolled the rest into the sea. The head was then brought to Florence for Steno to dissect in front of the Duke Ferdinand’s court.

Steno noticed that the sharks’ teeth looked remarkably like glossopetrae (tongue-stones) which could be found on exposed rocks in the region, and which were thought to be vipers’ tongues. Like a number of previous thinkers, Steno suggested that glossopetrae looked like sharks’ teeth because that is what they were. His dramatic drawing (in fact of another shark) shows the teeth:

 

The problem, of course, was how they got into rocks on the top of mountains.

Steno was a good Christian – at this stage he was still a Protestant – and he had a simple answer:  the flood. Fish, like sharks, would have been stranded on the top of mountains when the waters receded. He also pointed out that during earthquakes, huge bits of land could move up or down, and that over time, this might also explain how the remains of marine organisms could be found at high altitudes.

Now Steno didn’t have any idea of deep time – if he thought about how old the world was, I assume he would have agreed with something like Bishop Ussher’s view that it was all in the Bible, and so around 6,000 years old. And he was also wily enough to know that his suggestion could be a problem for the Churh, so he used Galileo’s device of claiming that the view he had outlined was merely one possibility amongst many:

‘While I show that my opinion has the semblance of truth, I do not maintain that holders of contrary views are wrong. The same phenomenon can be explained in many ways; indeed Nature in her operations achieves the same end in various ways. Thus it would be imprudent to recognise only one method out of them all as true and condemn all the rest as erroneous.’

In the final part of Elementorum Myologiae Specimen, entitled Historia Dissecti Piscis ex Canum Genere (Study of the dissection of a dogfish) – which is a mere nine pages long – Steno described the dissection of a small female dogfish that gives birth to live young. Most of this is is pretty unexceptional, and then in the final couple of pages, Steno used an a simple analogy and, in a few lines, made a huge break-through in humanity’s understanding of ‘generation’ – where animals come from, and in particular the role of the female ‘testicles’ (what we would now call ovaries).

First he noted that much of the internal anatomy of this shark was very similar to that of an egg-laying ray that he had previously dissected. Then he went on to muse about the nature of ‘generation’ in oviparous and viviparous animals, before coming to this amazing conclusion:

‘having seen that the testicles of viviparous animals contain eggs and having noticed that their uterus opened into the abdomen like an oviduct, I have no doubt that the testicles of women are analogous to the ovary, whatever the manner the eggs themselves, or the matter that they contain, pass from the testicles to the uterus.’

‘The testicles of women are analogous to the ovary’: in other words, women have eggs. This amazing statement – almost a throwaway comment in a brief section on sharks – was the start of our modern understanding of both human reproduction, and on the essential unity of the animal kingdom.

Over the next couple of years, Steno found ovaries in deer, guinea pigs, badgers, wolves, asses and mules, but he never published anything further on the question.

Four years later, two of Steno’s old student friends, Jan Swammerdam and Reinier de Graaf, were slugging it out in public over who had been the first to discover that women have eggs – Swammerdam did some neat dissections, de Graaf did some neater experiments. The Royal Society of London was called in to adjudicate the matter. It took them so long that by the time they issued their verdict, de Graaf was dead, and Swammerdam and Steno had both become obsessed with religion (Swammerdam went all mystic, Steno became a devout Catholic and ended up a bishop; both men abandoned science because of their beliefs). And the Royal Society rightly gave the credit to Steno – the man who discovered that women have eggs.

Five years later, our understanding of what is going on in ‘generation’ became even more complex when Antoni Leeuwenhoek, an uneducated Dutch draper who had known de Graaf, discovered spermatozoa. But for reasons that will have to be dealt with at another time, it would not be until 1827 until von Baer actually saw a human egg, and not until the 1850s that it was realised that egg and sperm were complementary halves of the future organism, and that both were necessary for life to arise.

Google’s doodle rightly commemorates Steno’s principle of superposition. I would like to have seen some eggs floating around in the doodle, too. Without Steno’s brilliant insight, we would not have discovered what we know in the same way, or at the same pace. Maybe they can include a shark and an egg next year.

If you want to know more about Steno or about the discovery of the human egg, the best place to start is either of these two books:

Matthew Cobb (2007) The Egg & Sperm Race (published in the US as Generation)

Alan Cutler (2003) The Seashell and the Mountaintop 

What the books get up to at night

by Matthew Cobb

Great video from Type bookstore in Toronto. Do any readers know the shop?

h/t @sophiescott

 

Maslow’s hierarchy of internet needs

by Matthew Cobb

When I was a psychology student, I was taught about Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, which suggested (as I recall) that we had to be nourished and sheltered and have all sorts of basic needs satisfied before we could pay attention to higher needs such as being creative. I remember being a smartass in a tutorial and saying: ‘But what about the starving artist?’.

Whatever the validity of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, this portrayal of the hierarchy of *internet* needs is most definitely correct. You can’t do anything on the internet without first satisfying that most basic of human needs: kittehs.

29606 540 500x427 Maslows Hierarchy of Internet Needs

I have taken this from here, but I’m not sure who actually made it…

Soldier bees, super-soldier ants

by Matthew Cobb

One of the most amazing things about social insects – bees, wasps, ants and termites (hornets are just big wasps) – is the way they have a division of labour. At its simplest, this division of labour is morphological and involves having a reproductive individual or group of individuals who is the queen. She is genetically identical to all the other females in the colony/hive, but she is specialised for producing loads of eggs. We know there’s nothing genetic about being a queen – there’s no special ‘queen gene’. It’s simply a matter of how much food she is given when she’s a larva. The same seems to apply to those ant species that have specialised workers – ‘soldiers’ – that carry out defensive or aggressive tasks. There’s no gene involved in being a soldier, it is environmentally determined.

This raises a fascinating question: how does the genome of a single species code such a wide variety of forms? In other words, how are the different developmental pathways turned on and off?

Things get even odder when you realise that although many ant or termite species have ‘soldiers’, there are no known cases of bees or wasps having morphological worker casts. There are no ‘soldier bees’ or ‘soldier wasps’. Why not?

Two recent papers – one in Science on ants, the other on bees in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) (PNAS as it is generally known) – have addressed these issues, giving some insight into how the ability to have soldiers may have evolved, and revealing that in one species of bee at least, there ARE soldiers!

The PNAS article, from researchers in Sussex (UK) and Sao Paulo (Brazil), studied the neotropical stingless bee Tetragonisca angustula. This species has two kinds of guards that protect the nest: standing bees near the entrance, and ‘hovering bees’ that do pretty much that. Together, only about 1% of T. angustula workers in a nest are guards.

The guards are much bigger (both in size and weight) than their sisters who go out foraging, or those who take the trash out, suggesting that they are actually determined to perform this function (no, bees don’t have free will, either). Furthermore, they are not simply scaled up versions of their smaller sisters, bits of them are proportionately bigger, suggesting that they are specialised in certain functions.

T. angustula forager (left) and guard (right). Grüter et al (2012), PNAS.

Having shown that this species of bee does have ‘soldiers’ – a morphological worker subcaste – the next question was ‘why’? These stingless bees can’t defend themselves by stinging (the clue is in the name), and yet they are regularly attacked by much larger robber bees (the clue’s in the name there, too).

In a final step the scientists carried out a classic experiment: they set up a bug fight. T. angustula guards were paired off with their deadly foes, Lestrimelitta limao robber bees. The larger the guard, the longer the fight lasted.

L. limao bee (right) with the head of a T. angustula guard clamped onto it. The robber bee has decapitated its foe, but has not been able to shake off the head, and cannot fly. Grüter et al (2012), PNAS.

The increased size, and perhaps the altered shape, of the guards, may be involved in their defensive ability. As the authors say in a nice closing sentence: their discovery ‘serves as a reminder that stingless does not mean defenceless’.

In the best scientific tradition, this finding merely raises more questions: if T. angustula has morphological soldiers, why don’t other bee species, or wasp species, for that matter? Is there something different about the ecology of ants and termites (you’ll have noticed they are both terrestrial) compared to that of bees and wasps that means that the evolution of soldiers is more likely?

In some closely related ant species can vary for the presence of soldiers. For example, in the genus Pheidole, although all species have two worker subcastes (minor workers and soldiers) as well as the queen, eight species also have ‘supersoldiers’ – much larger individuals, with significantly wider heads and with tiny vestigial wings. It is thought that juvenile hormone (JH) levels – largely influenced by the amount of food the insect has received as a larva – are responsible for these switches. The presence of apparently useless vestigial wings in supersoldiers is probably due to some developmental link between extra-high JH levels and wing development, which is required for queen development. Don’t forget, all these kinds of ants have the same genes, they are just being activated in different ways at different times in different tissues, due to the amount of JH, which in turn is affected by food.

Three for the price of one: juvenile hormone levels alter morphology in Pheidole ants (adapted from Rajakumar et al (2012) Science

A study in Science by an international group of researchers looked at the evolution of supersoldiers, and how they might develop. The starting point was a chance observation on a field trip, where they found some odd soldiers in a nest of Pheidole morrisi, which does not have supersoldiers.

These odd ants were larger than their sisters (see below), and looked a bit like supersoldiers – right down to the vestigial wings – suggesting that this species might also possess the developmental pathway to produce these extra-large soldiers, even though they are not normally found in nature.

Wild-caught P. morrisi soldier (SD) and anomalous supersoldier (aXSD). Rajakumar et al (2012)Science

By looking at a number of Pheidole species, the authors concluded that naturally-occurring supersoldiers had probably evolved separately, even though similar developmental mechanisms seem to be involved.

To investigate what those mechanisms might be, the researchers put methoprene (an analog of insect juvenile hormone – JH) onto larvae of P. morrisi and produced extra-large ants a bit like the ones they had seen in the wild. They then tried a similar experiment in other species that do not have supersoldiers and found similar results. It seems that all Pheidole ants they studied share the ability to produce supersoldiers, if the right environmental conditions apply.

Evolutionary history of ancestral developmental potential and phenotypic expression of supersoldiers (XSDs). MYA, million years ago. Purple represents the expression pattern of the sal gene in the larval tissues ('wing discs') that will give rise to wings; asterisks indicate the absence of vestigial wing discs and sal expression. Green arrows and boxes represent the induction of XSD potential. From Rajakumar et al (2012) Science

To confirm that JH levels are involved in the production of supersoldiers, they studied a species that has this caste, and put JH on larvae that had yet to ‘decide’ whether they were going to be ordinary soldiers or supersoldiers. The treated larvae produced a higher proportion of supersoldiers, suggesting that JH is indeed involved in determining whether a supersoldier is produced.

This neat study doesn’t resolve the issue of why only some Pheidole species have this extra caste, but it seems very likely to be related to their ecology – some of the species with supersoldiers have to fight off attacks of army ants.

Whatever the case, JH levels, driven by food supply, appear to be responsible for morphological variation in these ants – and, I would bet, in the stingless bee soldiers too. The question of why such variability occurs remains unclear, and probably does not even have a single answer.

 

References (links to abstracts; pay wall for full articles)

 Rajendhran Rajakumar, Diego San Mauro, Michiel B. Dijkstra, Ming H. Huang, Diana E. Wheeler, Francois Hiou-Tim, Abderrahman Khila, Michael Cournoyea, and Ehab Abouheif (2012) ‘Ancestral developmental potential facilitates parallel evolution in ants’ Science 335: 79-82.

Christoph Grütera, Cristiano Menezesb, Vera L. Imperatriz-Fonsecab and Francis L. W. Ratnieks (2012) ‘A morphologically specialized soldier caste improves colony defense in a neotropical eusocial bee’ PNAS Early Edition.

And now for something completely different: trilobites

by Matthew Cobb

While Jerry’s away hiking, here’s an excellent 60 min lecture by the marvellous Richard Fortey, speaking about my second favourite extinct organisms: trilobites.

The wise Pia

As I head into the wilds of southern Costa Rica for three days of hiking and botanizing, I leave you with this:

Pia is an old, toothless tabby owned by Malgorzata Koraszewska and her husband Andrzej Koraszewski, friends of mine who run the Polish rationalist website Rasjonalista.  When they translate my articles into Polish for their site, I always ask for two photos of Pia as payment.

Now, on his Facebook page,  Andrzej is having dialogues with his cat; brief interchanges in which Pia shows her wisdom and often pwns her owner.  Here’s a good one (I originally explained to Malgorzata about the concept of “nom” as both verb and noun for cat eating and cat food, respectively), showing Andrzej and Pia:

The Pia Dialogues are in Polish, but you can see a translation on Andrzej’s site.  Here’s what Malgorzata explained:

Andrzej gave an explanation to Polish readers: “NOM” or “nom nom” is an English cats’ equivalent to Polish “mniam mniam”. NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria) is an amusing attempt to say that there is no conflict between science and religion”.

Who wrote Shakespeare?

I have landed in Costa Rica to find this email from a reader awaiting me:

 Professor Coyne:

Free will aside, your biological determinism means that it’s not Shakespeare who wrote Hamlet but Shakespeare’s brain. That’s an absurdity; isn’t it?
Might there be a place in this world and in literature for common sense even if there is a place too for science?
Of course it was Shakespeare’s brain, and his neurons and his molecules!
I’m a huge fan of literature, but am not sure what this reader is on about.  Yes, the words of all those great plays came out of the pen held in the hand of the man (whoever he was) known as William Shakespeare.  And he had no choice about what he wrote—most of my readers will agree that it was all determined when he sat down.
So what’s the absurdity? Can someone enlighten me?
The hold of dualism on people is very strong. . .

Head of Faraday Institute avers his Christian belief

Dr. Denis Alexander, head of the Templeton-funded Faraday Institute of Science and Religion at St. Edmunds College, Cambridge, is interviewed by the BBC on how he comports science with his evangelical  Christianity.  In the 30-minute interview, Alexander, a molecular biologist, explains his background, his transformation to Christianity, and his beliefs.  They include his acceptance of the divinity and physical resurrection of Jesus Christ, and of the efficacy of prayer.

He also draws the usual distinction between science as answering the “how questions” and religion as answering “why questions.” But (at around 17:00) he draws a number of parallels between the scientific and religious searches for truth:

  • They’re both looking for coherence.
  • Scientific hypothesis are based on data, and so are religious beliefs, which, he says, are heavily reliant on evidence (e.g., the fine-tuning of the universe).  At 17:40, he claims that if the stories in the Bible about Jesus aren’t true, and there’s no afterlife, then Christian faith collapses.

But he still sees the stories of Genesis as one of “figurative language,” not meant to be a “scientific textbook” (he refers to Augustine as holding this view, ignoring the many other church fathers who didn’t).  Genesis, he claims, is meant to show us the “purpose of mankind”, which is:

The purpose of humankind is to know God, to worship Him, and to be good stewards of the planet that God has put into our charge, that we’ve made such a huge mess of.

AT 19:20, he explains to the interviewer, Joan Bakewell, why he considers the Bible to be “scientific evidence.”  It’s bizarre: it’s because the Bible had the “amazing insight” that there was only one God and that he was a “god of love” (Alexander doesn’t explain how he knows these claims were true).  Bakewell calls him out by asking why such a god would sacrifice his son.  Alexander explain that Jesus was God’s “sacrificial lamb,” apparently to save us all.

As for the disparity in the different accounts of the Resurrection in the different gospels of the Bible (Bakewell asks him tough questions), Alexander replies, “The accounts we have of the Resurrection are exactly what you’d expect of eyewitness accounts. And I would myself be very suspicious if they were very coherent, and matched up, and so on. .  ”  And then he claims that these accounts are not contradictory. It’s a Biblical Rashomon!

At the end, he’s asked whether he thinks that Christianity is the one true faith, and after a bit of waffling about the Abrahamic faiths, he basically says yes, because they have Jebus, and there’s “honest disagreement” with faiths like Islam.

Make your own judgment; I find it remarkable that a trained scientist can find so much hard evidence in a book that by his own admission is largely metaphorical. As always, Genesis is a metaphor but the story of Jesus and his resurrection is non-negotiable truth.

h/t: Dom

Peregrinations, ctd.

by Greg Mayer

A reader posts a video response to Jerry’s TSA encounters:

h/t: Michael Fisher

Peregrinations

I’m off today (Sunday) for Costa Rica, where the council of the Society for the Study of Evolution is having its midwinter meeting.  Although that lasts only a couple of days, I can’t go to Central America—especially the country with the best system of biological reserves—without doing some biotourism. I’ll be tagging along with a colleague who’s doing botanical field work, and then travelling to La Selva, another reserve where, back in the Cambrian of my scientific life, I once spent several weeks.

The last time I was in Costa Rica was in 1973, when I took at two-month course in Tropical Ecology under the auspices of the Organization for Tropical Studies. It was a fantastic course, headed by Don Wilson and Dan Janzen. It will be great to revisit the place after all these years.

I’ll be back posting in a bit less than two weeks, and in the meantime stalwart pinch-bloggers Matthew Cobb and Greg Mayer will fill in. They’re both busy, so posting will be light at best.  But I promise to take plenty of pictures to bore you with when I return.

Hasta la proxima!

TSA POSTSCRIPT: I have just gone through the Naked Scanning Machine at O’Hare and then was chosen to be patted down. As the TSA guy said, “I’m going to palpate your left forearm and then your upper left thigh.” (They’re using classier language now.)

My forearm, of course, had my watch on it.  God knows what suspicious thing they saw on my thigh, but I didn’t like the grope. At least they didn’t “palpate” my buttocks as they did in Boston last January!

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 8,674 other followers