Understanding Ontogenetic Depth: Naming Versus Measuring

[Otangelo Grasso]

Understanding Ontogenetic Depth: Naming Versus Measuring

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2308-origin-of-development-and-ontogeny

"Development is possible," writes Arthur (2000), "only if cells 'know' what to do in all these respects," i.e., assign their planes of division, tendencies to move, directions and rates of movement, modes of differentiation into particular cell types, and cell death (apoptosis). "So the key question," Arthur continues, "becomes 'how do they know?', and the whole of developmental biology could be regarded as an attempt to answer this question." If the question "How do cells know?" is to be answered by developmental biology, its sister (and far more difficult) question "How did cells learn what they know?" must be addressed by evolutionary (or historical) biology.

[RonO]

To begin with, tell us in your own words what this means to you and what
you believe it supports. That would allow anyone to get right to the
point instead of shooting around trying only to figure out that you
really don't understand what you just put up and that it isn't worth
discussing the subject.

Ron Okimoto

[Kalkidas]

Biology can't answer this. Only philosophy can answer this. And it has,
authoritatively.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 04:13:46 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Otangelo Grasso
<audiov...@gmail.com>:

>Understanding Ontogenetic Depth: Naming Versus Measuring
>
>http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2308-origin-of-development-and-ontogeny
>
> "Development is possible," writes Arthur (2000), "only if cells 'know' what to do in all these respects," i.e., assign their planes of division, tendencies to move, directions and rates of movement, modes of differentiation into particular cell types, and cell death (apoptosis). "So the key question," Arthur continues, "becomes 'how do they know?', and the whole of developmental biology could be regarded as an attempt to answer this question." If the question "How do cells know?" is to be answered by developmental biology, its sister (and far more difficult) question "How did cells learn what they know?" must be addressed by evolutionary (or historical) biology.

Interesting. Now explain, in your own words, exactly what
you think it means.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[*Hemidactylus*]

What is ontogenetic depth? Sounds sciency enough:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontogenetic_depth

Oh that. No thanks.

And I daren't bother clicking on your link for if the site is safe in
form, the ideation content might sink a nasty parasite into my noggin
and suck out my brains like those roving sentinel balls in the classic
horror flick _Phantasm_.

But I did google part of the quote from this Arthur fellow and my
assumptions were correct. It is Wallace Arthur from his evodevo book
_The Origin of Animal Body Plans: A Study in Evolutionary Developmental
Biology_. Nice try. He would have no truck with creationist clap trap.

The part "only if cells 'know' what to do in all these respects" comes
from a part (page 103) where he is talking about cellular context, such
as the intercellular matrix, cell-cell signaling and transduction.

Arthur, a pioneer in evodevo, had developed a concept of the
morphogenetic tree that I found nifty years ago. If memory serves it was
a hierarchical cascading gene theory based on differences of phenotypic
effect between early acting and late acting genes. Those were the days.

But I think from his 2011 book _Evolution: a Developmental Approach_ he
has abandoned that nifty concept as too simplistic a model for evodevo.
In this 2011 book he also explicitly excludes "creation scientists" from
"the *entire* scientific community" which accepts evolution as fact.
Wallace Arthur is not your friend.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Poor Wallace Arthur being quote mined perhaps? Does the rest of the
website get any better?

[Robert Camp]

I'd be awfully surprised if that's true. Considering that the question
itself is so sophomoric and ill-posed* I'm going to guess that this is
your confirmation bias talking.

[*The specious transition from "'know'" in the opening sentence - where
the use of quote marks demonstrates that the author realizes it would be
silly to speak of cells actually "knowing" as the term is commonly
applied - to the assumption of that very conclusion in the question
itself, "How did cells learn what they know?", is particularly obvious
and irresponsible.]

[John Stockwell]

Of course, arguments from authority are fallacious.

-John

[Kalkidas]

Ah, you're an authority on fallacies!

[Steady Eddie]

Usually, things that go without saying are better left unsaid.
If you're not savvy enough to get the point, you're not savvy enough to get the point.

[Steady Eddie]

On Thursday, 18 February 2016 18:59:51 UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> On 02/18/2016 07:13 AM, Otangelo Grasso wrote:
> > Understanding Ontogenetic Depth: Naming Versus Measuring
> >
> > http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2308-origin-of-development-and-ontogeny
> >
> > "Development is possible," writes Arthur (2000), "only if cells 'know' what to do in all these respects," i.e., assign their planes of division, tendencies to move, directions and rates of movement, modes of differentiation into particular cell types, and cell death (apoptosis). "So the key question," Arthur continues, "becomes 'how do they know?', and the whole of developmental biology could be regarded as an attempt to answer this question." If the question "How do cells know?" is to be answered by developmental biology, its sister (and far more difficult) question "How did cells learn what they know?" must be addressed by evolutionary (or historical) biology.
>

> What is ontogenetic depth? Sounds sciency enough:
>

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontogenetic_etchdepth
>
> Oh that. No thanks.
>
If you base your viewpoints on Wikipedia, you're a snivelling wretch indeed, most to be pitied.

[Steady Eddie]

LOL what a dunce!
Do you even understand why the source even uses the term "know"?

[RonO]

In IDiot speak this means that you don't know what you are talking
about. Why not just say what you mean?

Ron Okimoto

[Öö Tiib]

On Monday, 29 February 2016 01:54:20 UTC+2, Steady Eddie wrote:
> On Thursday, 18 February 2016 18:59:51 UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> > On 02/18/2016 07:13 AM, Otangelo Grasso wrote:
> > > Understanding Ontogenetic Depth: Naming Versus Measuring
> > >
> > > http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2308-origin-of-development-and-ontogeny
> > >
> > > "Development is possible," writes Arthur (2000), "only if cells 'know' what to do in all these respects," i.e., assign their planes of division, tendencies to move, directions and rates of movement, modes of differentiation into particular cell types, and cell death (apoptosis). "So the key question," Arthur continues, "becomes 'how do they know?', and the whole of developmental biology could be regarded as an attempt to answer this question." If the question "How do cells know?" is to be answered by developmental biology, its sister (and far more difficult) question "How did cells learn what they know?" must be addressed by evolutionary (or historical) biology.
> >
>
> > What is ontogenetic depth? Sounds sciency enough:
> >

> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontogenetic_depth

> >
> > Oh that. No thanks.
> >
> If you base your viewpoints on Wikipedia, you're a snivelling wretch indeed, most to be pitied.

Paul Nelsons *own* *words* about it are
"A Biological Distance That's Currently Impossible to Measure"
Pure Creationist site with that black on white:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/04/understanding_ontogenetic_dept045531.html

No big surprise since ID has never had anything actually measurable
repeatable or testable in their toolkit.

[jillery]

Right here would have been a good place for you to say why you think
the source used the term "know". Just sayin'.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 11:06:40 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by John Stockwell
<john.1...@gmail.com>:

[Repost; this seems to be happening frequently with any
thread involving Kalkidas]

No problem, since all three of his statements are incorrect.

[John Stockwell]

Think of it as a recipe, not a building plan. When a cooks puts together
ingredients he or she knows nothing about the chemical processes, but
through trial and error the community of chefs have figured out the appropriate
cooking times and collections of ingredients that produce a palatable result,
entirely through trial and error.

[Steady Eddie]

And don't forget:
Applied Intelligence

[Steady Eddie]

Right here would have been a good place for you to say why you think the Darwinist used the
Term "know".

[*Hemidactylus*]

Have you read Wallace Arthur in the original? Otherwise...

[*Hemidactylus*]

[retry]

Yeah, well Wallace Arthur hardly needs development or evolution
explained to him. He's written many books about it.

[*Hemidactylus*]

I'm really confused as to what Paul Nelson's "own words" are versus this
copy and paste twit "Otangelo Grasso" and WTF this website he keeps
linking us to versus Paul Nelson's own "content". Has "Otangelo Grasso"
an original thought ever?

I do know for sure that Wallace Arthur ain't a fucking creationist and
all the twits on this thread who got sucked into that quote mining
should go apologize to him "Arthur (2000)". Clueless twit morons! Pisses
me off. And these ass-clowns don't take *me* seriously.

[Steady Eddie]

On Tuesday, 1 March 2016 02:04:24 UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

I can't imagine why not...

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 03/01/2016 03:29 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> On Tuesday, 1 March 2016 02:04:24 UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

Why you evade direct question too? What gives Steady? Was it being
dropped on your head as a baby or huffing the paint as a teen that
causes your issues?