Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!zehntel!dual!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Chairs and Chromosomes
Message-ID: <525@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 9-May-85 11:42:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.525
Posted: Thu May  9 11:42:52 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 10-Jun-85 05:03:10 EDT
References: <1005@uwmacc.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Distribution: net
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 102

In article <1005@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes:
> > In article <330@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP writes:
> >> 6.  No known mutation has ever produced a form of life  having
> >>     both  greater  complexity and greater viability [a,b] than
> >>     any of its ancestors [c-f].
> 
> > [Mike Huybensz]
> > Autopolyploidy in plants is a standard trick of plant breeders to
> > develop more vigorous plants by doubling or tripling their chromosome
> > numbers...  I'd say that more chromosomes satisfies the
> > greater complexity clause.
> 
> I'm a little surprised that you didn't say they satisfy the greater
> viability clause.  That is more obviously true.

The problem is that neither complexity or viability are defined above.
Vigor isn't the same as viability: the more vigorous mountain goat may
tend to leap to its death more often.  The more vigorous plant may not
use its resources with the restraint necessary to optimize its
reproductive success.

> For complexity, I'd say number of chromosomes is meaningless.  There
> is no relationship between chromosome count and complexity.

In organisms where chromosomes are comparable, it can make sense to
say one with extra chromosomes is more complex.  But we really need to
define "complex".

> Man has 46.
> Chrysanthemums: 18 - 198
> Crustacea have from 8 to 208
> Arachnids have from 6 to 84
> Birds: 12-80
> Insects: 5-380
> The Radiolaria protozoa have over 800 chromosomes.  Are they therefore
> more complex than any living organism descended from them? (Whatever
> that might be...)

Here we have an ideal example of comparing apples and oranges.  :-)
I'm sure we can construct many standards of complexity where man ranks
fairly low.  Our usual anthropocentric standard emphasizes one hypertrophied
organ that we posess.  But our genome might contain less information than
that of some of the organisms you list.

> Chrysanthemums vary from 18 to 198 chromosomes.  Which one is most
> complex?  Are they any different?

Mums are another classic example of polyploidy.  The many chromosomed
ones might be more complex by the standard of having more alleles
represented in their genomes.

> Salamanders have about half as many chromosomes as us, but twenty times
> as much DNA.  One could say "I'd say that more DNA satisfies the
> greater complexity clause."  How many and which parameters do you want
> to consider?

I didn't choose the measure "complexity".  Some creationist did.  Let him
make a choice, and we'll try to find some examples to fit it specifically.

> > Duplicated chromosomes would count as new structures, since each copy is
> > then free to mutate in different directions.
> 
> So if I make a chair, and then I make another one, I have a new kind of
> furniture - a new structure by duplication?  Come on.  Yes, the
> chromosomes are free to mutate, but that in itself is no demonstration
> of anything, except that they mutate.  It does not demonstrate, e.g.,
> that any new structure *does* arise.

Allow me to bend your analogy to a shape more like what I'm thinking.
Assume you double the number of legs on the chair.  Now, the new set
of legs have the same carvings on them as the old.  But now both set's
carvings can be modified independantly of one another.  Soon, all the
legs once again have different carvings, and you have 8 different legs
where you used to have only 4.
 
> > There are quite a few candidates for nascent organs ...
> Ok.  You might have something here.  Please post some references.

I haven't been able to make it to a library lately, so I'm going to have a
hard time being as specific as you light like.

Revision of the Dryinidae  (there is a recent one: you should be able to
find it.)  Read about the modifications to the tarsi forming a new claw
(females of some subfamilies only.)

Sphecidae of the World, Bohart and Menke.  Check what is written about the
fore tibial shield on males of the genus Crabro.  A really flashy organ on
some (the first time I saw one it was perched on a rock, and I was really
puzzled what it could be.)

If you really want a good example of nascent organs, consider the progression
from fish brains to mammalian brains.  Like the eye, it might be really
difficult to imagine precursors to the mammalian brain if we didn't have
such a good representation of brains similar to precursors.  Just as we
wouldn't imagine functional "half eyes", neither do we find "half brains".
Instead, we find a progression of well-adapted organs with gradual
additions that assume new functions (and sometimes old ones as well.)
Check some books by Romer, such as "The Vertebrate Story" and "The
Evolution of the Vertebrates" (I think.)
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh