Their numbers include the giant squid, cuttlefish, and the beautifully coiled shelled nautilus. Now that the first octopus genome has been sequenced, scientists are beginning to learn about the complex genetic information behind their capabilities.
Nature published the first genome of a cephalopod, the California two-spot octopus, Octopus bimaculoides. It was a massive undertaking. The octopus genome is comparable to the human genome in size and complexity. In fact, it has "a greater number of protein-coding genes — some 33,000, compared with fewer than 25,000 in Homo sapiens," says Alison Abbott in the same issue of Nature.
This excess results mostly from the expansion of a few specific gene families, Ragsdale says. One of the most remarkable gene groups is the protocadherins, which regulate the development of neurons and the short-range interactions between them. The octopus has 168 of these genes — more than twice as many as mammals. This resonates with the creature's unusually large brain and the organ's even-stranger anatomy. Of the octopus's half a billion neurons — six times the number in a mouse — two-thirds spill out from its head through its arms, without the involvement of long-range fibres such as those in vertebrate spinal cords. The independent computing power of the arms, which can execute cognitive tasks even when dismembered, have made octopuses an object of study for neurobiologists such as Hochner and for roboticists who are collaborating on the development of soft, flexible robots.Don't Ask the Geneticists
A gene family that is involved in development, the zinc-finger transcription factors, is also highly expanded in octopuses. At around 1,800 genes, it is the second-largest gene family to be discovered in an animal, after the elephant's 2,000 olfactory-receptor genes. [Emphasis added.]
Is this an example of the power of Darwinian evolution to progressively expand existing traits? Don't ask the geneticists; they're too busy trying to figure out where all the unique genes came from.
The analysis also turned up hundreds of other genes that are specific to the octopus and highly expressed in particular tissues. The suckers, for example, express a curious set of genes that are similar to those that encode receptors for the neurotransmitter acetylcholine. The genes seem to enable the octopus's remarkable ability to taste with its suckers.How could so many unique genes arise by blind neo-Darwinian processes? It's unsatisfying to hear scientists assume they "developed" somehow.
Scientists identified six genes for proteins called reflectins, which are expressed in an octopus's skin. These alter the way light reflects from the octopus, giving the appearance of a different colour — one of several ways that an octopus can disguise itself, along with changing its texture, pattern or brightness.
Another discovery hinted at the basis of an octopus's intelligence. The genome contains systems that can allow tissues to rapidly modify proteins to change their function. Electrophysiologists had predicted that this could explain how octopuses adapt their neural-network properties to enable such extraordinary learning and memory capabilities.
The octopus's position in the Mollusca phylum illustrates evolution at its most spectacular, Hochner says. "Very simple molluscs like the clam — they just sit in the mud, filtering food. And then we have the magnificent octopus, which left its shell and developed the most-elaborate behaviours in water."The Paper Is No Help
It just speaks of "cephalopod morphological innovations, including their large and complex nervous systems." And then, the authors find they cannot appeal to a favorite explanatory tool, gene duplication:
Based primarily on chromosome number, several researchers proposed that whole-genome duplications were important in the evolution of the cephalopod body plan, paralleling the role ascribed to the independent whole-genome duplication events that occurred early in vertebrate evolution. Although this is an attractive framework for both gene family expansion and increased regulatory complexity across multiple genes, we found no evidence for it. The gene family expansions present in octopus are predominantly organized in clusters along the genome, rather than distributed in doubly conserved synteny as expected for a paleopolyploid.... Although genes that regulate development are often retained in multiple copies after paleopolyploidy in other lineages, they are not generally expanded in octopus relative to limpet, oyster and other invertebrate bilaterians.With whole-genome duplication out, what's left? Essentially, magic:
Mechanisms other than whole-genome duplications can drive genomic novelty, including expansion of existing gene families, evolution of novel genes, modification of gene regulatory networks, and reorganization of the genome through transposon activity. Within the O. bimaculoides genome, we found evidence for all of these mechanisms, including expansions in several gene families, a suite of octopus- and cephalopod-specific genes, and extensive genome shuffling."Evolution of novel genes"? Isn't that the question at hand? Where do novel genes come from? They found "a suite of octopus-and cephalopod-specific genes" that seem to have appeared out of nowhere. As for mechanisms that "can drive genomic novelty," their list does little more than assume that making more of existing things and shuffling them around will create novel things that do something useful. Try that with a copy machine, a book, and scissors. "Modification of gene regulatory networks" is no help, either. Stephen Meyer documented in Darwin's Doubt how modifications to GRNs are almost always lethal, and never innovative.
A Perennial Cop-Out
Running out of options, the authors turn to a perennial cop-out: convergence.
A search of available transcriptome data from the longfin inshore squid Doryteuthis(formerly, Loligo) pealei also demonstrated an expanded number of protocadherin genes... Surprisingly, our phylogenetic analyses suggest that the squid and octopus protocadherin arrays arose independently. Unlinked octopus protocadherins appear to have expanded ~135 Mya, after octopuses diverged from squid. In contrast, clustered octopus protocadherins are much more similar in sequence, either due to more recent duplications or gene conversion as found in clustered protocadherins in zebrafish and mammals....Maybe octopus evolved from fish into mammals. I jest, of course, but the genomic data are not proving helpful to Darwin. After comparing the genome to other creatures near and far, finding more examples of unique genes and convergences, the authors close by trying to put the octopus in context with the family tree of lophotrochozoans ("crest-wheel" animals, a controversial supergroup of phyla that includes animals as diverse as worms, clams, and brachiopods). Watch again for the magical appearance of innovations:
Finally, the independent expansions and nervous system enrichment of protocadherins in coleoid cephalopods and vertebrates offers a striking example of convergent evolution between these clades at the molecular level.
Using a relaxed molecular clock, we estimate that the octopus and squid lineages diverged ~270 Mya, emphasizing the deep evolutionary history of coleoid cephalopods... Our analyses found hundreds of coleoid- and octopus-specific genes, many of which were expressed in tissues containing novel structures, including the chromatophore-laden skin, the suckers and the nervous system.... Taken together, these novel genes, the expansion of C2H2 ZNFs, genome rearrangements, and extensive transposable element activity yield a new landscape for both trans- and cis-regulatory elements in the octopus genome, resulting in changes in an otherwise 'typical' lophotrochozoan gene complement that contributed to the evolution of cephalopod neural complexity and morphological innovations.Maybe this is why Alison Abbott jokes about the octopus having the genome of an alien. "With its eight prehensile arms lined with suckers, camera-like eyes, elaborate repertoire of camouflage tricks and spooky intelligence, the octopus is like no other creature on Earth."
Over at Science, Dennis Normile has nothing new to offer. The octopus genome "surprises and teases," he says. He quotes a team member from the University of Chicago who speaks for the team: "We were really pretty surprised by a bunch of things we found." Another researcher offers this unhelpful comment on the implications for evolution: "there is more than one way to grow a genome."
Never Doubting Darwin
The popular media took all these surprises in stride, never doubting Darwin, but having little to say about him, either. Most pointed out that the genome-duplication trick doesn't work for the octopus. Discussion of evolution is remarkably scarce in the articles. One exception is Science Daily. Its write-up not only credits blind nature for all the octopus's innovations, but launches into a victory speech for cosmic Darwinism:
As humans, we like to think we are unique in evolutionary terms, but the octopus could reveal that this is not the case. One reason the octopus fascinates scientists is that its brain became organized to be able to carry out such incredible, complex tasks without adopting the principles of the vertebrate brain. Further examination will tell if the building blocks of its nervous system are as radically different from those of vertebrate landlubbers like us, as the octopus's abilities suggest.David Klinghoffer has pointed out how off-putting triumphalism like this can be. Can't reporters just be honest about the problems with traditional evolutionary explanations? In the Illustra documentary Living Waters, Discovery Institute's Richard Sternberg and Paul Nelson discuss how improbable it is to get two coordinated mutations for a new function. For the case of whale evolution, the time required for just two mutations for some adaptation vastly exceeds the time available for the transition. A similar problem is evident with octopus evolution from a "simple" mollusk.
This is not as unlikely as it sounds. Even if the octopus evolved in a completely different ecosystem, evolution can have only so many solutions to a given problem. If similarities are in fact found, this would significantly alter our perspective on the emergence of life elsewhere in the universe.
Science can observe and enjoy wonders of nature without a Darwinian narrative gloss. Though Live Science's coverage of the Nature paper was heavy on the gloss, a different Live Science article described another species, the large Pacific striped octopus (LPSO), with whimsical delight and very little talk about evolution. This species (despite its name, able to compact itself to the size of a tennis ball), tricks its prey the way a human jokester taps on a friend's opposite shoulder, making him turn the wrong way.
"One of the things that impresses me most about this species is its great diversity of predatory behavior," Caldwell told Live Science. Not only does this striped octopus trick unsuspecting shrimp, but it also eats snails by first boring small holes into their shells with the end of its arm and then injecting its prey with a deadly, digestive fluid, he said. And despite their diminutive size, LPSOs are strong enough to break apart a clam shell and spritely enough to pounce on a quick-footed crab.Scientific investigation can still be "very exciting" without the Darwinian angle. There are many more species of cephalopods worth investigating. Some live deep at hydrothermal vents. Some live in shallow tide pools. They come in all sizes. The mimic octopus amazes scientists. There is much to occupy biologists' time learning about these wonderful animals, without having to fit them into an evolutionary tree.
But the extraordinary eating habits of this critter don't end there. Once an LPSO catches its supper, it isn't above sharing the meal with others, said Caldwell, who notes that the animal's ability to peacefully share food with other octopuses is both unusual and very exciting to biologists.
"There are over 300 known species of octopus, and more are described every year. But the fact is that while we think we know a lot about octopus behavior and physiology, everything we know comes from a handful of species," Caldwell said. "So when I tell you the LPSO is an unusual species with very unique behavior, I really don't know that."Engineers Learning from Biology
Meanwhile, several of the articles mention that engineers are studying octopuses in search of ideas for soft robots, distributed networks, and propulsion techniques. "Humans invented flying machines by mimicking birds," Science Daily says. "We can look forward to octopuses inspiring robots that give us easy access to the ocean floor."
It's unlikely to be productive trying to trace an assumed evolutionary ancestry that requires heavy doses of "innovation" or "convergence" to accept. Why not tackle the questions amenable to observation and understanding? Biomimetics is showing the usefulness of a design approach. Let's follow that evidence where it leads.
This article was originally published in 2015.
David Coppedge is a freelance science reporter in Southern California. He has been a board member of Illustra Media since its founding and serves as their science consultant. He worked at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) for 14 years, on the Cassini mission to Saturn, until he was ousted in 2011 for sharing material on intelligent design, a discriminatory action that led to a nationally publicized court trial in 2012. Discovery Institute supported his case, but a lone judge ruled against him without explanation. A nature photographer, outdoorsman, and musician, David holds B.S. degrees in science education and in physics and gives presentations on ID and other scientific subjects.
Reader Comments
Schumann Resonance 7 83Hz Binaural With Om Carrier Frequency [Link]
The Schumann Resonance frequency spectrum ranges from about 7-50 Hz (with peak frequencies at about 8Hz, 15 Hz, 20 Hz and 32Hz), and its amplitude is in the pico Tesla range. No Schumann Resonance exists on the moon.
Could Absence of the Schumann Resonance be a Stressor for Cells?
Up until now, all Space Biology experiments that have been conducted in space have been carried out in Low Earth Orbit (LEO), where the Schumann Resonance is present.
When conducted on board the Space Shuttle and ISS, cellular experiments “feel” the Schumann Resonance just as they would on Earth. Soon, however, it may be possible to carry out cellular experiments that are beyond the reach of the Schumann Resonance: on the Earth’s moon. As part of the agency’s Artemis program, astronauts will soon return to the moon; it is expected that model organisms and cellular systems (prokaryotic and eukaryotic) for Space Biology research will not be far behind. The prospect of sending Space Biology experiments to the moon raises the question: How will these systems behave in the absence of the Schumann Resonance? Given NASA’s plans to return to the moon, ground experiments that address this question are well-warranted and timely.
Recommended Experiments In order to evaluate the behavior of cells in the absence of the Schuman Resonance, relevant to the moon (and beyond), where the Schumann Resonance does not exist, the authors of this white paper recommend that studies be done in yeast (at least initially), and that the BMSR facility (described above) be used, to provide the greatest possible shielding from ambient the Schumann Resonance and other ambient electromagnetic fields. For these ground-based studies, independent variables should include shielded versus un-shielded growth conditions, different culture media, and different yeast strains. Dependent variables should include measures of glucose metabolism, comprehensive gene expression studies and somatic mutation (genomic sequence variation) studies. Follow-on studies should be planned based on the results of these initial experiments.
Your making a quantum leap in logic assumptions with no facts to support your statement on the Sun thread by saying that Planets are hollow without proof of that & that Octopi (which do also function by the Schumann Resonance) are a species for space travel. The link says they have never done any experiments period to determine that.
The Sagan Standard or ECREE applies even more so today with all the NASA fraud & CGI/Green screen special FX’s.
I thought to provide a link to this information, but searching for the above-bolded text returned too many links for me to pick just one.
This article laments "we can't figure out where all of these genes are coming from."
This is like saying "We know Hemingway can type, but we can't figure out where all the books with his name on them are coming from."
Imagine a water planet loaded with life. Struck, the waters are cast into space as giant bubbles. Once they hit earth, the water evaporates on impact with our atmosphere. but enough gets through to bring us it's life, cephalopods and an abundance of water.
Borderline tongue in cheek, it's possible they are telepathic and communicated with the likes of H.P. Lovecraft to bring us Cthulhu, which is just a personified cephalopod.
They are fascinating, and I kind of wish some of the species were protected at least to the degree dolphins and chimps are, being that they are intelligent enough to communicate with us.
If you believe in intelligent design, or even the idea that "aliens" tooled with our genetics, what's to prevent those same designer forces from choosing other species to upgrade? Maybe octopi were are meant to be our replacements down the road. But another thought is, what if there are advanced octopi hidden in plain site? What if the cryptid sightings, even bigfoot, are terrestrial octopi who can camouflage themselves, and what if they're flying the UFOs seen leaving lakes and oceans around the world? And as diminished7 said, if they can edit their own genome, maybe those imagined octopi can edit ours as well? What if they're actually the dominant form of life on Earth?
SOTT Focus:Did Earth 'Steal' Martian Water?
While finalizing the writing of the article titled "Of Flash Frozen Mammoths and Cosmic Catastrophes", I encountered an unexpected anomaly. The time of the demise of the mammoths is also known as...Interesting stuff.
form the creation of the beginnings of the universe as we are aware of at this timee,
Have you had a drink? I’m not sure if you finished your comment?
I hope you are ok 👌
Thanks for you concerns.
I need to get an eye test but here I am pushing 40 thinking I have eyes of a hawk haha. Wishful thinking or what!?
Glad you’re ok Joan
Not a science, in other words. Again staring at a flagship species contradicting all their pet theories, and still not getting it.
Not very impressed after that condescending start:
Just leave it’s genes alone, and leave my genes alone while your at it.
There are things that evolved here and things that just don't quite fit the picture...much like homo-sapiens.
There’s a lot riding on this enigma. The PTB are well aware of its totality & ramifications.
“Ballistic panspermia is the idea that life can spread from planet to planet within a solar system using rocks ejected from the life bearing planet as seeds of life on the lifeless planet. These rocks with living organisms will be ejected from their planet by an impact with a large meteor.”
If it’s Directed that’s self explanatory & we go to Aliens potentiate as creators. If it’s Organic then it’s specific to the conditions only here & that opens another Pandora’s Box of Intelligent Design which opens the door to self organizing/self evolving/self aware/habits/laws/rules etc. It doesn’t necessarily kick Aliens out of the box just makes that possibility take a lesser probability. If it’s Lithopanspermia the Earth is the source & rocks ejected from earth carried life to other planets vs. Ballistic Panspermia is where the Earth’s life forms origin came from meteor strikes from space to Earth. Radiopanspermia has to do with radiation being the trigger etc. It’s a big deal so while people typically nonchalantly toss about the terms casually they should be aware of the differences & ramifications of what they actually mean/infer. Pseudo-panspermia is the well-supported hypothesis that many of the small organic molecules used for life originated in space, and were distributed to planetary surfaces. Life then emerged on Earth, and perhaps on other planets, by the processes of abiogenesis. Evidence for pseudo-panspermia includes the discovery of organic compounds such as sugars, amino acids, and nucleobases in meteorites and other extraterrestrial bodies, and the formation of similar compounds in the laboratory under outer space conditions. A prebiotic polyester system has been explored as an example.
I’m open to any & all notions/ideas but it/they has/have to make sense in a critical thinking process. The situation is dynamic, fluid & evolving & there’s the whole future of humanity’s understanding of our creation origin riding on this one. Imo, people better start to wake up about this b/c we can already see how many people don’t use their brains & took the Ziojab for a Hoax Live Exercise.
Zoroastrianism Bundahism Creator calls that source Creator ‘Ohrmazd’. Rig Veda Hindu’s call source of creation Brahman all of them Central to,the same conceptual origin source. They were all written long, long & long, way, way way before our contemporaneous organized religions were constructed.
I’ll be long dead returned back to the clay - earth from where I began on this planet before there is ever one scintilla of ever trusting what NASA or any GubMINT paid official says is truth.
Once you uncover any lie it should vitiate the whole narrative. But somehow humanity at large hasn’t realized this truth yet.
That's what i think, first, spiritual life energy intelligent wants to be on physical organic body, later, the deliberate organization of the components of the cell, based on the archetype of what the spiritual entity needs to be, and last, once the first prokariot was born, the other life forms based on carbon can be created by the alteration of the cell, because the cell it's a self replicated laboratory. The directed type of panspermia its the most possible once the first type of complex lifeform was created, using the Ballistic type to make directed panspermia, or using the organic type to make a new typo of cell that can life in a different environment, later directed panspermia to expansion of the new life form.
Sorry if you don't understand me, I don't speak English, have a nice day.
Ok no problem I understand thanks for reply. You said complex life from above. Can you explain what Irreducible Complexity is as it relates to Intelligent design concept & how the Flagella’s complexly designed rotary filament designed Tail works ? (keep in mind this is on a bacteria sized organism not visible to the human eye) Flagellum size are approx. 5-20 nm long & 10-30 nm wide comparative to a human being ?
I’ll provide you with a simple link in case you somehow cannot find one.
The Rotary Motor of Bacterial Flagella [Link]
Flagellated bacteria, such as Escherichia coli, swim by rotating thin helical filaments, each driven at its base by a reversible rotary motor, powered by an ion flux. A motor is about 45 nm in diameter and is assembled from about 20 different kinds of parts. It develops maximum torque at stall but can spin several hundred Hz. Its direction of rotation is controlled by a sensory system that enables cells to accumulate in regions deemed more favorable. We know a great deal about motor structure, genetics, assembly, and function, but we do not really understand how it works. We need more crystal structures. All of this is reviewed, but the emphasis is on function.
The motor contains two structural elements: stator and rotor (Fig. 1A). The L and P rings serve as a bushing for the rotating rod in the cell envelope. The stator includes up to 11 (3) MotA4MotB2 complexes (4) that anchor to the cell wall (5); they undergo proton-driven conformational changes to drive flagellar rotation. The rotor includes a cytoplasmic structure known as the C ring, which contains ≈26 FliG proteins, ≈34 FliM proteins (7), and ≥100 FliN proteins (8). It is connected to the rod via the MS ring. The distal end of the rod is attached to the helical flagellar filament via a flexible hook. Filament growth decreases with length, and a broken filament can regenerate. Unfolded flagellin subunits diffuse through the hollow center of the filament and assemble at its distal tip (9). Filaments extend several cell lengths and are quite fragile; their dynamic nature is necessary.Each flagellar motor functions for the lifetime of its cell. Mot complexes can assemble around preexisting rotors (10), and introduction of each Mot complex increases the rotational velocity of a tethered cell (Fig. 1B). The high torque required to turn a flagellum under heavy load (11) requires that Mot complexes attach firmly to the cell wall.Despite its anchoring, the stator is surprisingly dynamic (12). Fluorescence recovery after photobleaching (FRAP) showed that individual Mot complexes have a half-life of ≈30 s in an E. coli motor. Detached Mot complexes diffuse freely in the cell membrane, and their H+-conducting channels are plugged by a short, amphipathic helix (13). Pom complexes, the Mot equivalents in Na+-driven motors, assemble in a Na+-dependent fashion (14). In Shewanella oneidensis, a single rotor can be driven by proton-conducting Mot complexes or Na+-conducting Pom complexes (15). This ability to exchange stator elements probably arose by transfer of mot genes when a marine bacterium with a Na+-driven motor became isolated in a freshwater habitat.Recent FRAP studies (16) have shown that FliM and FliN in the rotor turn over much more rapidly than FliG, in keeping with their peripheral location on the C ring. Delalez et al. (1) used total internal reflection fluorescence (TIRF), coupled with FRAP and fluorescence loss in photobleaching (FLIP), to quantify FliM turnover in tethered and immobilized E. coli cells.Cells expressing YFP-labeled FliM (FliM-YPet) are chemotactic. Fluorescence–decay curves allow a calculation of 30 ± 6 FliM-YPet molecules at the base of each tethered flagellum, a value that agrees with prior estimates of the number of copies of FliM per C ring (7).The distribution of FliM within immobilized whole cells was also assessed. Extrapolation from the fluorescent spots in TIRF images indicates that there are ≈24 FliM-YPet spots per cell. Of these spots, 40% have ≈32 FliM-YPet molecules, the same number as in tethered motors. The remaining 60% form a unimodal population with ≈18 FliM-YPet molecules.E. coli cells typically have four to eight flagella, some of which are presumably still being assembled. The function of the spots with ≈18 copies of FliM-YPet is unknown. The sum of FliM-YPet molecules in all spots is ≈600. An equal number of FliM-YPet proteins diffuse freely within the cells, providing a pool of replacement parts.Reciprocal FRAP and FLIP measurements show that FliM turnover is complete within 10 min and occurs only in intact C rings. Approximately two thirds of the FliM-YPet molecules in C rings turn over, with a half-life of ≈40 s. This ratio may reflect two different populations of FliM that have been described (17): ≈26 FliM exchangeable molecules in a peripheral location and a core of ≈8 FliM molecules. It seems likely that FliN associated with FliM (18) turns over as well.FRAP and FLIP data show no FliM–YPet exchange in cells that do not contain CheY. Exchange occurs in cells that produce constitutively active CheY (the D13K, Y106W mutant) but decreases in cells containing unphosphorylated CheY (the D57A mutant). These results suggest that CheY binding induces turnover of FliM.One of the most notable properties of the E. coli flagellar motor is its high degree of cooperativity (19). One model to explain this cooperativity envisions FliM subunits acting like a dynamic circle of “dominos” (20). If a few tip in the CW direction after binding CheY-P, the whole ring goes CW (Fig. 1C).
Dynamic motors for bacterial flagella [Link]
Thanks in advance
Thanks for you concerns. also keyboards sticking
All is left, we will be relegated to the Alaska Boneyard.