Cells into Organs: could it evolve?

That's a liget inquiry. I have seen a narrative in a fairly old botany textbook that replies to your question but I have not seen anything in the recent lit. On my own, I was able to reduce your "almost" to a topobiologist's "cell collectivity"
GIVEN a 70s advance in embryology about neural crest cells MOVEMENTS
and the following:

quote:

---

"intestinal cell death process involves the condensation and margination of chromatin against the nuclear envelope followed by the fragmentation of the chromatin and the cell itself to form the membrane-bound apotptic bodies...The presence of apopototic bodies in intact epitheliam cells indicates that larval epithelial cells can participte in the removal of their apoptotic neighbors even thouh they themselves are destined to die eventually...althouth how they are triggered to migrate is unclear...Interestingly, the macrophages seem to recognize specifically the dying cells or apoptotic bodies, but not the intact larval epithelial cells of the proliferating adult epithelial cells in the epithelium."

---

The author is Ishizuya-Oka I think in chapter 4 "Cellular and Biochemical Changes"
I dont have the booktitle, the material is in a book on Amphibian Metamorphosis. If you really need the reference I can sneak into a Cornell Library and find out. I get somewhat crossed up between the length of junk vs non junk DNA and the different sizes of DNA found in different cell death studies vs protein expression. The most important piece of information is that given the diploid state as the fulcrum of any morphospace the amounts of subdiploid DNA match the tertraploid content under cell death conditons whereas when not under cell death there is little to no DNA below the diploid level. I had to do some creative reading of Mendel to accomplish immunity from the lack of responseotherwise but it is possible.

and there is the point. to have been free living or not?On seeing the narative in the Botany text ( and I guess now I really need to find this book so as to cite chapter and verse) the linkage from a single cell to a colony of cells was dependent on the images of these zooids as not drawn dependent on any thing but the artists free style. The narration only described common biological process in the mean time.On reading this I was led to understand that the zooids ARE NOT independent artist free creations and thus free evolutionary argument ornaments but dependent also projectively in the illustrations ON THE ANGLE between the nucleus and the cilia on a line DRAWN between the pigment spot and Pyrenoid BEHIND WHICH is thePHOTOSYNTHETIC SPACE and THE CYTOPLASM in the foreground. Thus I cam to appreciate a new "view" of the critters, that, no matter whether living free or with any other number of zooids the division is INSIDE the place the memebrane attaches between the cilia and the rest of the life provided there are two functions actually of motion from the chemcial heat source and motion to the sun's heat source. That still keeps the same images but does not support the simple narrative that must invest on the free vs not free issue of the zooids othewise.Thus when it came to issues of Behe and sexuality and difference say between Chlamydomonas and Volvox argument AGAINST irreducible complexity (the need to narrate the zooids obviously ADDS complexity in Behe's sense) could only be maintained if the WORD "colony" had a projective geometric grammer as it is about what, how the cilia affect in the cycle of sex, almost remincient of human reproduction in that way. Of course creationism could be correct but I assume most here are not trying that out at first. I know by personal observation that the community of biologist does not have a more sophisticated use of math to suggest I am simply naive in this.Maybe all this information would be good for is to prepare to write as hard for biology as Newton did physics, less creationism, for I certainly would rather see more research than stratgies against creationist thought but I still dont understand why physicists cant use Newton directly as a community and thus make contact with the triple intelligence of OQowK?This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-17-2005 19:26 AM

I would like to see the info on why it is not cell differentation too. It would be interesting to understand & how the following logic does not apply

My analysis would find the cilia of any kind within Davenports dotted lines and the zooids as figure rather than ground.

There is a slight problem at this level as it is not clear that one can ipso fact apply thoughts of animals to plants. A harvard neuroendocrinologist tranlated Dostal's work on plant phylogeny and ontogeny because he wanted to try to relate animal and plant ideas together chemically. There are others here who have a better handle on the current lit than me but I dont think Dostal's comments below dont apply("On Integraion in Plants Integraion at the Embryonal level)"The embryo is the primary source of the future plant, for, aside from one or more envelopes, it contains the rudiments of the root and stem. The directing forces that caused the arragement of cells into these fundamental organs of the plant, the root and stem are not clear if only because it is impossible to carry out experiments inside the seed as it develops on the mother plant without endangering its whole development. Studies of the development of an embryo are therefore more or less restricted to descriptions fo the normal process of division of the fertilized egg cell, as shown in microscopic preperations. Such work has brought to light a great variety in the configuration (topography) of the particular process, but the deep causes of these variations remain concealed."
bookonsaleThis message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-17-2005 21:45 AM

I agree with you here more than Quetzal post
message33
but seeing as how I am being asked to write things in plainer speech elsewhere (I will),that said, I am tempted in this discussion to pull together all the biophilosophy on classes and individuals, so as to speak to the phrase for instance "how natural selection shapes them today" etc, as the point of individuality is that of existence in a bound space and time and mere assertion of individuality is a sign of Darwinian thinking prima facie. If one is to be clear NOT to overstate/overgeneralize/oversocialize evolutionary biology initially
it seems to me NECESSARY to operate in the thread with the word "individual" lightly (and this would be less or not a problem if the question was on the lowest initial level of discussion that this thread started out on) because the relation of homology and analogy get difficult to keep univocal when ANY kind of organ vs tissue is being received by the individual as constituitive.Let me see first if I am at the point under discussion. We are talking NOT about genetic differences in lineages (sufficiently) but about the individuality of organ formation IN INDIVIDUALS over geological time? If one had already vested interests in Organacism(as to concepts of emergence etc) as opposed to more narrow molecular approaches then one can use the word "individual" as if it was scientific without realizing the "appearence from the outside"(opps I started to get opaque). That is included because I might understand what Quetzal is saying too but I just am not as sure.Ok,so Wilson said it. I saw Q mention that before. Big Deal. There are ecologists who worked with my grandfather who are still alive and dont believe any of Sociobiology and even wrote a textbook"Field Biology" in which that was said. The original poster said that the thread raised MORE questions and I dont see any change in this state since my last post on this thread.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-19-2005 07:57 AM

Sounds good to me. I would hate to be the behavorist translating the waggle dances into derived categories of morph differnces on the bugs'shaped differences. I know that is slightly fictional. I have been impressed with how mud wasps niche construct as well. I guess I am done here too.