Flies and Squids, and Humans, and Scorpions Kin-folk! Yes, we're cousins to arthropods (insects, say) and mollusks, (those giant squids and the like). How do we know? Well the scientists had thought any relationship was almost as remote as with seaweed and oak-trees. But they were wrong! Results of research into the genetics of simple arthropods (fruit-flies) produced some facts, with implications that `scientists' still haven't fully grasped, and so don't much talk about. Simply put: we, and squids, insects and all, share some basic DNA patterns. And we remain fairly close, even after all this time. And those DNA "patterns" - though altered by duplications in humans' case - still `work' (after a fashion) across all three phyla - arthropods, vertebrates and mollusks! Even after the 500,000,000 years (or more) since we went our separate ways! ------ WHAT'RE THE DETAILS We could think that humans and arthropods, insects say, have been widely different for millions and millions of years? After all, we vertebrates have four limbs, tied to a spine running down our back ("top-side" in most mammals), controlled / connected via a central nervous system (CNS) and brain. And we have a mouth-stomach-anus chute that runs in front of the spine - "under-side" in most mammals. Whereas the arthropods have no spine or skeleton, are multi-legged (the classic plan is: a pair of "legs" for each segment of what can be a many-segmented body). Their `central nervous system', maybe with one or more brain-like nodes, runs down the "under-side" of the body. And they have a mouth-stomach-anus channel lying along their "top-side" - where we'd have a spine. Even so, those genetic researchers have (maybe reluctantly) proved that the same DNA patterns intitiate the same processes in all three phyla - vertebrates, mollusks and arthropods. Although the actual form those processes take may look different in some cases. I.e the pattern that starts off the `make segments' in insects will start off some of a mammal's brain differentiations and the formation of cranial nodes along the `central nervous system' - which can tell us something interesting about our earliest ancestors. That is, one branch interpreted `movement control needed' as reason to start segmenting edges (+ body), while our branch used that same DNA pattern to initiate brain and CNS changes - from a standing start! [This might also tell us something about the probable timing for DNA - which was maybe an independent or `wild' replicator which became a parasite or symbiote - beginning to `help' with higher life in exchange for a free ride.] ------ WHAT DID THE `ANCESTOR' LOOK LIKE? A BLOB! A plate-like or pillow-like body, with no head, no limbs, no `central nervous system' (and no stomach), living on the sea bed. No stomach! How did it eat? One side, probably the "under-side" of the body, had an absorbent skin or maybe a gelatinous covering which could directly "digest" material it was in contact with. Early on it likely adapted its `digesting' surface into a slit or groove extending full length of the body. But our common ancestor did have eyes. An indeterminate number of rudimentary light-sensitive patches, probably on the top-side and probably most of them above one end of the `digestion groove' running underneath its body. And that edge therefore became the front or head - no other reason. The blob could move so as to place its body on fresh food. Its movements, whether to get away from its own eating residues (i.e. move to more food), or in spasmodic response to something `seen' above, would be about the same as the locomotion of a slime mould: no central nervous system. But its methods of moving and reacting were already beginning to make demands on the body structure; demands that would give to arthropods a segmented body, to mollusks a muscled edge (later tentacles in some), and side-fins to remaining proto-fish (later vertebrates' limbs). ------ HOW DO WE KNOW ALL THAT? Well, the research (plus info about `eyes' - below) led us to these conclusions (midnight 29th July '04). The mouth-stomach-anus plan is radically different in all three subsequent phyla. Ditto for segments-legs / brain-cranials / tentacles etc. So those different ways of doing things came later, after we split up. ------ WHAT ABOUT THOSE "EYES"? All three phyla have eyes. But many-faceted flies' eyes are nothing like the complex lenses that squids and mammals both have. And our vertebrate lenses are made of entirely different materials than a squid's mollusk eyes. So we might think, as the scientists did, that eyes arose independently in the three different animal types - like wings of all sorts can arise from widely different materials and at any time. That hypothesis, called `convergent evolution', was the scientists' choice - but it seems they were wrong! It turns out that there is a DNA pattern that starts eyes growing in all three phyla! [Of a type called `hox genes'.] That means our common ancestor already `grew' eyes as routine. QUOTE "the fly version will induce eyes in vertebrates, and vice versa" UNQUOTE. Although the author goes on to warn "The end results will vary substantially" - as you might imagine! ------ WHAT ARE OTHER `IMPLICATIONS' Modern science claims that it's finding `genes for one disease or another' in humans and genes for DDT resistance' in house-flies and mosquitoes etc. And that each `gene' is specific and usable - no danger of unintended consequences. Examine each claim - it's a paradox! E.g how can a `gene for DDT resistance' exist when DDT was just recently invented? From all above we're beginning to realize - a little late - that DNA is not a blueprint but merely a small and ancient toolkit, used as & when a body *wants* to do something extra. ------ The research results contradict the simple view. So there's no such thing as `one gene for a discrete attribute or condition' (e.g. in reality one `pattern' can switch on segments/legs in insects but alter brain shapes in mammals). The results prove that our deck of `gene-cards' is very, very old and overlaps all animal life; that our bodies, and those of our parasites, will `take cards from the deck', as and when; that an unknown number of `wild cards' exist, but have different values depending who gets them; and that unknown numbers of other DNA patterns are going to be involved in _any_ single effect - no matter how we try to prevent that happening. -------------------------------------------------- Some info from "Brotherhood by Inversion" essay (Natural History Magazine) by Stephen Jay Gould -------------------------------------------------- Along with www.perceptions.couk.com/equal2.txt www.perceptions.couk.com/dive-rge.txt evidence file for "Retribution" and "Blind Science" pages, and "Altruist Survivor" page 8 www.perceptions.couk.com/bbio1.html www.perceptions.couk.com/blinded.html www.perceptions.couk.com/genes8.html ------------------------------------------------ FURTHER REFERENCES GO - "search perceptions" - in SEARCH-ENGINE file-ID www.perceptions.couk.com/thefly.txt