
The longest cell in the history of life - tokenadult
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/05/28/the-longest-cell-in-the-history-of-life/
======
coffeedrinker
I don't follow the creation v. evolution debate so this was new to me. I did
google to see what the other side says about this and found this interesting:

"Human-designed devices, such as radios and computers, do not need to function
until their assembly is complete. By contrast, living organisms must function
to a high degree in order to thrive during every developmental stage from a
single-cell zygote to adult. The embryo as a whole must be a fully functioning
system in its specific environment during every second of its entire
development. For this reason, adult anatomy can be understood only in the
light of development."

[http://www.icr.org/article/recurrent-laryngeal-nerve-not-
evi...](http://www.icr.org/article/recurrent-laryngeal-nerve-not-evidence/)

I do not vouch for the science behind either article, but the concept that
everything must work all the time rather than only at completion is an
interesting concept that shows the difference between things I make and how I
was made.

~~~
epistasis
I'd disagree heartily with that quote. During development, multi-cellular
organisms aren't "fully functional." They survive, but in barely functional
states, in wombs, cocoons, or eggs.

Organisms do have to self-assemble though, which is pretty damn cool.

~~~
burgerbrain
_"They survive"_

Since that is their primary purpose, that's pretty fully functional in my
book.

~~~
ToastOpt
Human designed devices _also_ function in this regard throughout their
assembly. Varying the definition of "function" for only one side would make
the argument spurious.

~~~
burgerbrain
They are not designed to do shit, lets just keep that clear.

Now, when we say that they have to remain functional at all stages of
development, we mean like unlike your car, during normal development you can't
cut various control lines and reroute them.

You can remove the brakes in autocad temporarily to let you tweak something
else a bit easier. Evolution cannot do the same with RLN. Removing the RLN at
any stage of development constitutes a negative adaptation.

------
ilcavero
Richard Dawkins shows the giraffe nerve in a video (warning: dead giraffe in
the video): [http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xdm5he_richard-dawkins-
demo...](http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xdm5he_richard-dawkins-demonstrates-
laryngeal-nerve-of-the-giraffe_tech)

~~~
baddox
I want to mention, in case anyone is uninformed, that the giraffe is not
endangered and in fact is in the Least Concern category according to the IUCN.

------
stretchwithme
When you look at all the cables behind any collection of devices, the way they
are tangled indicates the order in which they were installed and moved around.
Unless someone took the initiative to straighten the mess out.

Apparently, the human body is the same way. And no one has gotten around to
cleaning up the mess. But all the wires work well enough.

~~~
rokhayakebe
How do we know if the wires work well enough? For example we can talk so our
communication tools work well enough, but what if we were suppose to
communicate telepathically, hence this form which works well enough limits our
ability to even think properly? Or let's say if the wiring had a little tweak
in it we could significantly expand our lifespan?

~~~
TheAmazingIdiot
I believe the bigger ethics question is "Would we want to extend the length of
an average life?"

We can easily surmise that saving our parents and grandparents would be an
awesome thing (in many circumstances). As an individual choice, having loved
ones around longer is good.

It gets stickier ethically the further we move away from the individual and go
more towards populations. Where do we put them? Do we warehouse them? How do
we manage to feed the bigger population? What will they do, as they must work?

And then there's the big scary word: Eugenics. It was advocated in the 1920's
by Sanger, and later by the Nazis. However nasty the connotations are, China
is currently going down this very path by taxation and restriction on number
of children. Discussions that we thought were closed will come reopened rather
quickly, when we have 10+ billion people here. Hopefully, we'll be mature, as
a citizen of the world, to discuss these problems.

~~~
rokhayakebe
Where do we put them?.....as they must work?

I _think_ these questions could be answered if we truly spent enough
ressources on them. We can scale up as opposed to horizontally. Food could be
produced in labs and have more nutrients and taste better.

~~~
TheAmazingIdiot
You make a decent emotional appeal.

However, the hard facts we are dealing with today is the aftermath of the Baby
Boomers. Normally, when we deal with population graphs, we see a huge base of
young, a smaller base of young adults, smaller base of mid adults, and a
small/pinnacle of elderly. It's supposed to taper off into a long tail.

Instead, we in the US (unsure about other cultures and areas) a huge bulge
around 55-65. Social programs are meant to subsidise the elder through the
younger. However in this situation, there's not enough younger to pay for the
same care the elder have been receiving. So you either raise the age cap, or
reduce service. And, AARP makes sure the second choice doesn't happen.

And about the food quip: back in 2000, the global food output was enough to
feed 12 earths of people, yet people still died of hunger. Overall resource
maintenance and allocation is the bigger, and unsolved problem.

~~~
TheAmazingIdiot
Why exactly am I getting modded to death? -4?

How about some of you who are giving downvotes explain why you are doing so?
Is what I said not factual, or just uncomfortable to read?

~~~
burgerbrain
Because I don't think that _"humanity tends to adapt to higher population
densities as it needs to"_ is an appeal to emotion, but I _do_ think that
accusing someone's argument of being an appeal to emotion in what is
traditionally a rather intellectual discussion venue is a pretty heavy
accusation.

Also, this is all _absurdly_ offtopic.

------
kiba
I wonder what would happens if the larynx nerve cell were actually redesigned
properly.

~~~
wbhart
This is an excellent point. The article is pretty badly written, and
oversimplified, I think. If the argument is somehow that this is evidence of
evolution (an argument that is never made in the article, but only ever
implied), and therefore evidence that there is no design to life (a pretty
specious argument in the first place in my opinion), then the article should
at least describe how this should have been plumbed, what the consequences of
that would be and why it would be better.

The article does not even try to establish that there is no functional reason
that it is plumbed this way in mammals. Actually, it doesn't even explain what
the function of the nerve is. It is left to the reader to guess.

Most importantly, the article does not try to explain why there is an
evolutionary obstacle to looping the nerve around the other side of the aorta.
It argues that it is "monumentally inefficient" to do it this way, something
that evolution should abhor, but does not even try to explain why evolution is
so constrained.

It seems to me to be a science of the gaps argument. Despite the overwhelming
appearance of design in nature, which is not disputed even by many atheists,
they seem to be trying to argue for {insert favourite naturalistic theory of
origins here} based upon personal ignorance of how a perfect designer would go
about doing this.

I'm not clear why this even made it to the front page of HN. It seems to have
been written solely to stir up debate with people who believe in intelligent
design. I think I'd prefer to stick to coding, science and technology.

~~~
stretchwithme
"Despite the overwhelming appearance of design in nature, which is not
disputed even by many atheists"

This IS disputing that there is overwhelming appearance of design. That many
atheists don't dispute it may just mean they are busy.

But "many" is not all or even necessarily more than one percent. But the word
is frequently used when trying to give the impression of preponderance where
none may actually exist.

Saying that there is no attempt to find a functional reason for the indirect
path of this nerve is not the same as offering proof that there is a reason
for it. If there is a reason, offer it. Can't find it? Didn't try?

~~~
wbhart
Here is a quote from Richard Dawkins: “Biology is the study of complicated
things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”
{Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1}

He even uses the word "overwhelming": “Natural selection is the blind
watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences,
has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection
overwhelmingly impress us with the illusion of design and planning.” {Richard
Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 21.}

Your attempt to get me to do your research for you is noted. The fact that I
got voted down for expressing my (perfectly valid) opinion is also noted. This
is why I do not like atheist/religious debates on HN. It's not the right forum
for it. If I wanted my religious views attacked I'd be subscribed to
talk.origins. This is a tech aggregator, not a forum for atheists and
Christians to battle it out.

~~~
stretchwithme
Thanks for sharing the opinion of one person. But opinions aren't proof of
anything. Stating something is not an argument.

Sorry that you feel your beliefs are under attack. I was addressing the way
you were describing the beliefs of others.

~~~
wbhart
It _was_ clumsily worded, for which I apologise. What I meant to be saying is
that many atheists do not dispute the appearance of design, and even some
scientists who are _atheists_ do not dispute it.

I once sat with a large group of scientists at a certain institution and I
heard the following words, "and no matter how much it appears things have been
designed, we must resist the temptation to see design in complex systems"
(statement was in the context of a discussion of complex biological systems).
This became the topic of conversation, and there was broad agreement with this
statement.

Even _if_ you, and many like you, do not personally believe that there is an
appearance of design, that would not change the fact that it is in fact a very
common position. Many atheists agree with Dawkins on this. My use of the word
"many" should of course not be construed to mean "most". That was not my
argument. Nor should it be construed to mean that I believe their position is
that these things _are_ designed. That should be clear from the quotation from
Dawkins. Despite the fact that on this occasion I was careless with my
wording, I do not, in general, use the word "many" to mean "most". I mean that
it is not a position held by only a handful of individuals on the fringe. In
speaking with many atheists, I conclude that it is in fact quite a common
conception.

Incidentally, whilst it is very much a minority opinion (here I _do_ mean only
a handful of credentialled individuals), there are atheists who do believe
that many complex biological systems were intelligently designed. And I am not
referring to people who believe life on earth was designed by
extraterrestrials (in the little green men sense), which I feel is usually
(maybe even always) not a scientific position.

What is more common is academics such as myself who accept that evolution
happens, but who also believe in a designer. And again, I do not mean to imply
that this is any kind of majority opinion or concensus. I mean that _relative_
to fringe technical opinions, belief in a designer is common. But I shouldn't
need to qualify every single word I use, should I.

So, getting back to the article, although I did not articulate it well, my
point is that the article not only simplifies the science, but it grossly
oversimplifies the diversity of opinion that exists not only amongst atheists
and people who believe in intelligent design of some kind, but of scientists
in general. To my taste, and this is nothing more than a personal opinion, I
found the article to be greatly oversimplified. Moreover, as I pointed out in
a post above, the argument it makes is not a new one, but a recycled one from
at least ten years ago. As such, I felt that it very directly conflicted with
the injunction on the HN faq to not introduce classic flamewar topics unless
there is something genuinely new to say.

Certainly it should be expected that there are going to be dissenting opinions
when an article of this nature is presented. Again, this is only my personal
opinion, but I felt that the article stuck out like a sore thumb on HN, not
because it was about the design issue per se, but because of the way it
attempted to deal with this controversial issue. I feel that a scientific
approach to the issue would encourage a careful examination of the data and of
various hypotheses on their merits. The thing that initially bothered me is
that the article did not even attempt to examine why this gross inefficiency
was preserved by evolution. To me this is always a clue that there is
something further to be understood, and more science to be done. I am not a
biologist, but I am a professional academic with a science degree. I expect
more from articles such as this and am prepared to say so, and defend my
opinion.

~~~
stretchwithme
The way the nerve is wrapped around other structures is totally consistent
with what the fossil record says about how life evolved.

The gross inefficiency was retained because it is more difficult or unlikely
that one structure can be moved past another. It could be that if someone were
born with a nerve that long and it doesn't loop around a structure, it might
not work properly or get pinched very easily or flop around.

There are plenty of possible explanations for what we find in nature. And just
because we haven't figured things out doesn't mean supernatural forces are
responsible.

~~~
majmun
See above discussion it is also explainable by other things ( like embryo
development ) wich are not what you call "supernatural". by saying "evolution
did it" you are dismissing all other valid explanations. and limiting
yourself. evolution theory is also not well understood so by using it to
explain things you are just passing hot potato to someone else. This exactly
the same thing that creationist are doing. they will say Creator did it! but
what? and how? it remains unanswered.

if it was understood we would now be able to induce it on living organisms (
things like grow wings on giraffe and such ). and i don't mean by classic
genetic engineering, but by using different environmental parameters we would
be able produce desired mutations.

~~~
wbhart
I heartily agree with your first paragraph. It is precisely the same logical
fallacy as a "god of the gaps" argument that we need to watch out for here,
but in the guise of a "naturalistic theory of origins of the gaps" argument.
We don't know how to explain something so we resort to our pet "explain all",
rather than continue doing good science.

On your second paragraph, I am not sure I agree. If evolution happened as
posited by the "concensus" view then it happened over many, many generations.
I don't think growing wings on a giraffe is possible in reproducible
experiments that anyone could feasibly carry out. Also, are mutations always
caused by environmental parameters? I guess radiation may be an example where
they are. But I don't know if it has been established that they always are.
Sometimes mutations seem to be encouraged by the very mechanisms of the cell
itself, within certain parameters.

So I would have to differ with you on your second statement. I think it is in
general very hard to establish what the restrictions are on systems that
evolve. In rapidly reproducing species, such as fruit flies or certain
bacterial colonies it is much easier to test the boundaries, and in fact this
has been done.

~~~
majmun
apropos second paragraph , at this point i believe that there are more than
one way to evolve some organism or many ways to do the same desired mutation.
like for example grow wings on giraffe, for example if i just control
environmental parameters it could maybe be possible, but nature does it in
many ways. (like viruses that inject DNA and what not.)

let us just take mutation by chromosomes (as in Down syndrom and others..),
like chromosome deletion, insertion, and other known operations, i believe
that by only this mechanism alone its enough power to change any part of DNA
desired. (if artificially induced by controlling environmental parameters)but
i may be wrong.

what mechanism is most common and most likely to occur in evolution i would
like to know.

~~~
wbhart
Down Syndrome itself is the duplication of all or part of chromosome 21,
usually due to improper separation of chromosome pairs during meiosis. I kind
of think of this like going around a factory and turning up every 23rd valve.

Gene duplication seems less severe. I agree it is not known how to make wings
on a giraffe by manipulating the environment so as to control or "benefit"
from gene duplication.

Your attempts to study this in nature might be frustrated by the difficulty in
identifying paralogs vs orthologs, the fact that gene duplications are often
not preserved between generations and the fact that many gene duplications are
deleterious.

It's also the case that it is not yet fully understood how gene expression
regulates the development and structure of body layouts. New body parts like
wings are complex biological structures and do not usually just appear due to
a change in genes. At least when I last left the debate conditions in the
womb, fetal orientation, rna from the mother, "junk" dna and many other things
were being examined for their role in the development of body layouts.

As you are probably aware, research has been done that shows duplication and
deletion of body parts due to genetic abnormality. But this is usually not a
good way to make an organism survive. How many people missing a leg or who
have an extra arm do you know of who find life easier?

Anyhow, my point regarding the giraffes was merely that it is going to take
very many generations of giraffes before anything at all happens. You and your
great grandchildren will be long dead before then. In that sense I don't think
it can be held against science that we haven't been able to demonstrate
evolution of wings on a giraffe.

I personally don't hold out much hope for it either. The changes that must
occur in a giraffe for it to support wings as a viable organism may be so
great that it is no longer anything like a giraffe any more. So the entire
concept of wings on a giraffe might just be a natural impossibility.

------
Daniel_Newby
Another example are the nerve fibers that dilate the eyes. They travel down
the spinal cord, exit at the base of the neck into a ganglion, travel back up
along the carotid artery into the brain, and finally connect to the eye.

------
moonboots
Maybe god just sucks at design

------
hoggle
I doubt that this animal died by a natural cause.

I've been an atheist all my life and especially because of that it saddens me
to witness the slaughter of an animal for the sake of fundamental research in
order to debunk a nonsensical belief in the first place.

------
TheRevoltingX
I wonder why this person thinks that we were created in perfection. Even the
bible points out this is far from the truth. Just sayin'

~~~
burgerbrain
I think you are misunderstanding. The primary purpose of this is to point out
that what we would expect to happen with evolution in mind _does_ in fact seem
to happen. The data jives with the theory.

Now, the secondary purpose is to provide some amusing snark: Anything that
would "design" such a thing would be anything but "intelligent".

The bible really has nothing to do with this.

~~~
TheRevoltingX
No, I like the article and I'm not arguing against it. Just wondering where
people get the idea that we were somehow designed to be perfect.

The bible has a lot to do with that since it's a standard upon which (at least
for the most part in America) the idea of God is derived from.

Seems like a lot of people don't even know what they don't believe in so they
make it up.

~~~
wnoise
God is widely regarded as perfect.

Genesis 1:27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he
created him; male and female he created them.

That certainly sounds like we should be perfect in body. Unless you want to
argue that the Fall rerouted the vagus nerve.

~~~
TheRevoltingX
Why wouldn't the fall change our bodies. Didn't God say if you eat of it you
will surely die? There are hundreds of other passages both in the new and old
testament that say we are disease ridden evil individuals.

~~~
burgerbrain
So the "fall" rerouted the recurrent laryngeal nerve. Makes sense!

Anyway, you asked why some people might think humans are perfect, and wnoise
answered why some people who read the bible might reasonably make that
assumption. What exactly is your continued issue here?

~~~
TheRevoltingX
None, like I said I was just curious why people thought that. Now I get it,
people are willingly lazy and stupid. I guess I think too much of people, I'd
expect them to get past page 1 in the bible.

~~~
burgerbrain
Believe it or not, it is possible for people to read the same text as you,
have a differing interpretation, and not be _"willingly lazy and stupid"_.

Well, I mean they _are_ looking for fact in a thousands year old collection of
fairy tales by assorted authors, but they're not particularly any _more_
willingly lazy or stupid...

