Now on ScienceBlogs: HeartlandGate: Anti-Science Institute's Insider Reveals Secrets
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
Natural selection may lead to benefits for species, but these `higher' advantages can only arise as sequelae, or side consequences, of natural selection's causal mechanism: differential reproductive success of individuals.
Stephen Jay Gould
« Positive news on the UN's anti-blasphemy position | Main | I get email »
More articles by PZ Myers can be found on Freethoughtblogs at the new Pharyngula!
Category: Development • Evolution • Science
Posted on: October 28, 2009 2:33 PM, by PZ Myers
I'm liking these CreatureCast videos from Casey Dunn — I showed the first in this series, now here's the second. It uses very simple animation to illustrate basic concepts…like the evolution of multicellularity in this one.
CreatureCast Episode 2 from Casey Dunn on Vimeo.
Life ScienceTrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/123458
HTML commands: <i>italic</i>, <b>bold</b>, <a href="url">link</a>, <blockquote>quote</blockquote>
Orac 02.14.2012
Tim Lambert 02.01.2012
Jason Rosenhouse 02.12.2012
Orac 01.26.2012
ERV 11.26.2011
Comments
Posted by: Cycle Ninja
|
October 28, 2009 2:51 PM
How cool is that?
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
October 28, 2009 2:57 PM
The moderator needs to watch her voice modulation. She tends to drop her voice at the end of sentences, making it difficult for those of us ruined by teh rock music to hear.
Nonetheless, that may be the first time I've ever seen a plasticine penis put to use beyond irritating/amusing one's classmates.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
October 28, 2009 2:59 PM
It just makes me nostalgic for the good old days of being a single-celled organism. Sure, we didn't have all of those fancy eyes and genitals and things like that, but it was a good honest living.
Now we have to do all of that breathing, walking, and digesting, as if there were really a need for all that nonsense.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: The Science Pundit
|
October 28, 2009 3:07 PM
This video fits in well with a discussion about this year's Nobel Prize for telomeres.
Posted by: Quine | October 28, 2009 3:15 PM
I liked this very much. She picked a nice compact idea and got it across nicely. I do wince, however, when she calls evolved beings "creatures." Her clay figures are creatures of her imagination, which have her as a creator, but animals do not have a creator.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
October 28, 2009 3:18 PM
Remember how it was? Once mom divided into you and your sister, you were basically free to roam without a thought in the world. Ciliates, amoeboids: who cared? As long as there was a chemical or photon gradient to follow, we were happy.
Now we get pushed around by homeoboxes, sorted by adhesion molecules, made to line up and form tissues...some days it's enough to make you wanna apoptose. I got a friend, lives with me. Used to be a real free-living sort; now he just kinda keeps to himself. Even divides on his own. Oh sure, he helps out around the place--to tell you the truth, sometimes I don't know what I'd do without him; the guy's a real powerhouse--but he just can't make it on his own anymore.
And what's up with all this damn free oxygen?
Posted by: James Sweet | October 28, 2009 3:55 PM
It doesn't really cover the evolution of multicellularity, does it? But it's still awesome :)
Posted by: Mobius
|
October 28, 2009 4:15 PM
That is WAY cool.
Posted by: residualecho.myopenid.com
|
October 28, 2009 4:44 PM
Clay gets the idea across very clearly. I just saw a suitable companion for it, although it's a bit slick, in a Power of Tennish way.
Posted by: Al | October 28, 2009 5:02 PM
Seems like they need to be a little more careful with their language because they make it sound like cells are making a bunch of conscious decisions. That could confuse people who aren't well versed in this stuff -- like creationists.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | October 28, 2009 5:30 PM
#6, Brownian, I'll be chuckling for some time.
I miss those days, too. You know what I miss most? Eating by osmosis.
What could be better? No shopping, no prep, no dinner ritual, no dish washing, no in-laws.
Posted by: sasqwatch
|
October 28, 2009 5:32 PM
Perhaps if Stuart Pivar spent more time playing with clay instead of with balloons he could be a real scientist by now? Nah... that's a stretch.
Posted by: Rick | October 28, 2009 6:22 PM
Very cool!
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | October 28, 2009 9:03 PM
I can't say I object to "creature" any more than I do to "goodbye" or "Friday". What else would you say, anyway? "Animal" is too limited, and besides what about that etymology of anima - breath/soul. Lifeform?
Posted by: Ancient Brit | October 28, 2009 11:04 PM
I agree strongly with Al (#10) - in fact you beat me to the comment :) It's a great piece of work, but it has some issues with regard to the wording.
Whenever I've talked to creationists that's the strongest impression I get: that they not only take statements literally, they experience more impact from some phrases than from others.
So when Dr Extravour says something like "...they all have to agree on what jobs they all have to do...", it doesn't matter that the preface to that statement was "You can think of a multi-cellular animal as a community of cells..."; as far as a creationist is concerned, the key phrase implies that single cells have minds, that they get together and communicate in the way that humans do, and because that's obviously preposterous, the whole idea is also preposterous. Instant dismissal.
That makes the presentation of any kind of aspect of evolution something of a minefield as far as the use of language goes - more so even than for, say, a politician or a lawyer.
I don't know what the answer is. I can think of two figures who agonised over their use of language, in order to get it just right - Buckminster Fuller and James Joyce - but the majority of us don't have the luxury of preparing for weeks to make sure our words have exactly the interepretation we intend.
Posted by: Ancient Brit | October 28, 2009 11:08 PM
Hmmm. Odd. I edited "Extravour" to correct it but the correction obviously didn't make the cut. Apologies to Dr Extavour. I see frequent PHP errors cropping up on the ScienceBlogs pages these days...
Posted by: JohnnieCanuck
|
October 29, 2009 1:39 AM
So who would like to give more detail for the interested layman about what it is that makes one part of the original cell special so that it becomes the germ cells? Are mammals the only ones that don't do it with germ plasm?
Posted by: Richard Eis | October 29, 2009 6:05 AM
Agreed on the wording. I wince now (creationists arghhh) every time i got told about how cells "want", "need" and "have goals".
Also voice was too quiet.
Posted by: Psi Wavefunction | October 29, 2009 6:23 AM
Well, it's not necessary that multicellularity happens by cells "coming together", nor is differentiation unique to multicellular organisms (think life cycle stages; they can get quite sophisticated in some lineages); thus, the potential for spatial differentiation is already there in unicellular lineages. Multicellularity could alternatively evolve from cells regularly failing to 'drift apart' after division, ie staying together; and some semi-multicellular (the boundary between the two is QUITE fuzzy) organisms actually do just that - form 'coenobia' that are made up of a consistent number of cells. Some would argue that the coenobium hypothesis would actually be more likely than a bunch of cells randomly clumping together, for a coenobium guarantees identical DNA in each cell (necessary for highly stable cooperation).
Apparently the differentiation between germline and somatic tissues is the most fundamental to multicellularity, as it seems to have been the case among most (to my knowledge) of the >16 known cases of establishment of multicellularity within the eukaryotic kingdom (King 2004 Developmental Cell). Some explanations have been that mitosis is a very major commitment for a cell, during which time there's very little else it can do; thus, coenobia (or colonies) which have differentiated cells that are constantly dividing, and those that are feeding/swimming/whatever, are likely to find themselves a nice advantage.
The repeated 'coming together and deciding to cooperate' imagery is quite misleading though. But prevalent in public literature on evolution...
Just my $0.02...