Where did bone come from?

[Deamiter]

I was reluctant to open new thread for the fur problem because it is just one problem among multitude which cast serious doubt to the evolution theory. I am not going to open another thread, but here is another biological one interested me.

What is the origin of bone? It seems that none of the "early" creatures had bone. Today, there are still many creatures have no bone.

I'm not trying to be rude or anything by posting this in a new thread. I'm curious myself and I simply think the question is good enough to warrant its own thread.

 

[juvenissun]

I'm not trying to be rude or anything by posting this in a new thread. I'm curious myself and I simply think the question is good enough to warrant its own thread.

I guess no one can say anything about this specific science question. (I am surprised it is a hard one, at all)

If so, how could anyone still insist the evolution is so correct that even the Genesis creation "must" not be real?

 

[Mallon]

I guess no one can say anything about this specific science question. (I am surprised it is a hard one, at all)

If so, how could anyone still insist the evolution is so correct that even the Genesis creation "must" not be real?

Asking a rather specific evolutionary biology question on a Christian forum and not getting an answer right away does not equate to "science has no answer," juvenissun. You might try broadening your scope to, say, the scientific literature.
In any case, there's a section in Chapter 2 of Carroll's Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution that discusses the origin of bone. The earliest evidence of bone occurs in the Upper Cambrian ostracoderms (jawless fish), like Astraspis. Carroll writes, "It consists of a basal layer of laminar tissue that resembles bone except for the absence of lacunae, which in later vertebrates mark the position of bone cells, or osteocytes. Because of its acellular nature, this primitive bony tissue is given a distinct name, aspidin."
I think the explanatory power of the evolutionary literature is underestimated, by both creationists and laymen alike.

 

[Dannager]

I guess no one can say anything about this specific science question. (I am surprised it is a hard one, at all)

If so, how could anyone still insist the evolution is so correct that even the Genesis creation "must" not be real?

How can they not?

I don't know about you, but I'm not in the habit of being presented with mountains of evidence for one thing, and then deciding that the opposite is true.

 

[hithesh]

I guess no one can say anything about this specific science question. (I am surprised it is a hard one, at all)

"Bone plays such a huge role in evolution: ultimately, it is one of the features that allowed the first tetrapods to hold themselves up on land without the buoyancy of water to support them against gravity. As a structural tissue, its capacity for flexibility of structure has made possible a huge number of shapes, sizes, and adaptations in movement and locomotion between species and allows one tissue to take on a number of functions within a single individual. ...

The possibilities of bone tissue itself for flexibility, strength, and most importantly remodeling and growth over other structural tissues gave the structures it made up the advantage of adaptability, which lead to the vast diversity of bone shapes and functions seen across the vertebrates"

wwww.harunyahya.com/

If so, how could anyone still insist the evolution is so correct that even the Genesis creation "must" not be real?

Well, brother I do not care if evolutionary theory at some point in time falls apart completely, but as of now it is the only comprehensive theory explaining the evidence. I wait a day when YE can provide a comprehensive analyses of even a 10th of the evidence, such as the genome relationship among species, but that day does not seem as if it will ever come.

I do not build my house on sand, I build it on a rock, I do not base my belief on the age of the earth, or dinosaurs brother, or men, or science, because these are all temporal. My faith is based on the eternal love, and presence of God.

I question the faith of men, who feel they need to erect multimillion dollar museums, and use sunday school to teach kids that dinosaurs walked with man, it seems desperate to me, and an utter abomination of the temple of God.

If Christ were to walk into such a temple today, you better be sure there would be some tables being tossed.

 

[juvenissun]

Asking a rather specific evolutionary biology question on a Christian forum and not getting an answer right away does not equate to "science has no answer," juvenissun. You might try broadening your scope to, say, the scientific literature.
In any case, there's a section in Chapter 2 of Carroll's Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution that discusses the origin of bone. The earliest evidence of bone occurs in the Upper Cambrian ostracoderms (jawless fish), like Astraspis. Carroll writes, "It consists of a basal layer of laminar tissue that resembles bone except for the absence of lacunae, which in later vertebrates mark the position of bone cells, or osteocytes. Because of its acellular nature, this primitive bony tissue is given a distinct name, aspidin."
I think the explanatory power of the evolutionary literature is underestimated, by both creationists and laymen alike.

It is not surprise at all that paleontologist HAS addressed this matter in many literatures. I am not a paleontologist. And I do not have time to read their (boring) stuff. I am not asking for real analysis from paleontologist either. If I want to know more, I won't spend time on this forum.

What I want to say is: you people (evolution Christian) should do some self reflection: if you do not really know evolution, then you should be careful in using the revolution "news" or "idea" to criticize creationism. I believe in YE even I don't have all the answers. But I never say OE is all wrong. In fact, I argue with YE people based on OE understanding. The significance of the bone question is: Don't be so sure on your scientific understanding. We haven't seen anything yet.

Paleontologist described the occurrence of bone. Do they also "explain" why should bone develop? I don't think so. I don't have to read their stuff to say this. Because if having bone is so advantageous, then why do we have so many animals still have no bone?

 

[juvenissun]

How can they not?

I don't know about you, but I'm not in the habit of being presented with mountains of evidence for one thing, and then deciding that the opposite is true.

Just try to watch some long morning TV commercials (sometimes half hour long). Then you can give a reply to your own statement.

 

[juvenissun]

Well, brother I do not care if evolutionary theory at some point in time falls apart completely, but as of now it is the only comprehensive theory explaining the evidence. I wait a day when YE can provide a comprehensive analyses of even a 10th of the evidence, such as the genome relationship among species, but that day does not seem as if it will ever come.

A "comprehensive theory" only means the theory has a structure. It does not mean all the contents in the theory are solid. If enough contents in the structure are fluffy, the structure may not stand for long. Yes, YEC does not even have a structure yet. But they are gathering their contents. And they do have the correct blueprint.

I do not build my house on sand, I build it on a rock, I do not base my belief on the age of the earth, or dinosaurs brother, or men, or science, because these are all temporal. My faith is based on the eternal love, and presence of God.

Bless you. I am different. My faith is built on the understanding of the nature of science.

I question the faith of men, who ... use sunday school to teach kids that dinosaurs walked with man,

You don't have to. People are doing the opposite to many more kids in public school and make most of them into atheists. If Jesus came, there are simply too many tables to thrown. And I believe when the time is up, He will do that.

 

[Citanul]

People are doing the opposite to many more kids in public school and make most of them into atheists.

Teaching someone that evolution occured will not turn them into an atheist. But teaching them that the only way you can be a Christian is to accept that the Earth was created in 6 days 6,000 years ago, regardless of all the scientific evidence to the contrary will do so.

 

[Mallon]

What I want to say is: you people (evolution Christian) should do some self reflection: if you do not really know evolution, then you should be careful in using the revolution "news" or "idea" to criticize creationism.

Young earth creationism isn't being attacked, juvenissun. The people who teach and practice evolution are happy with what it is -- a robust and well-evidenced scientific theory. Nobody is trying to tout it as being more than that. Rather, it is the evolution-denyers on the attack, trying to have the theory removed from the classroom because they don't want their tax dollars paying for something they don't believe in or what have you. Just read the words of creationist leaders like Phillip Johnson:
"The objective (of the wedge strategy) is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus.'"
I believe it was Johnson himself who also said that he set out originally to destroy the "godless theory of evolution." (Or was that Dembski?) Either way, no one is fighting to have the theory of evolution pushed into the churches.

Paleontologist described the occurrence of bone. Do they also "explain" why should bone develop? I don't think so. I don't have to read their stuff to say this. Because if having bone is so advantageous, then why do we have so many animals still have no bone?

I think your obvious disinterest in the ("boring") theory of evolution has caused you not to understand it, juvenissun. You're very quick to criticise something you admit to having no interest in. There are numerous reasons why an osseous endoskeleton might have evolved in the first fish, but we cannot ultimately know why it "should" have evolved. That is a question that science is incapable of answering. Evolution describes how things have evolved, not how they should evolve.
In any case, there are a number of advantages that bony endoskeletons have over exoskeletons. For one, they provide better structural support. They also do not need to be molted the way exoskeletons do so that the animal can grow. A bony skeleton grows with its body.
And as for your question as to why not all animals have bone: because bone is costly to maintain and would not necessarily benefit small insects or worms who don't need much in the way of structural support. As the saying goes, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

 

[juvenissun]

Teaching someone that evolution occured will not turn them into an atheist. But teaching them that the only way you can be a Christian is to accept that the Earth was created in 6 days 6,000 years ago, regardless of all the scientific evidence to the contrary will do so.

You missed the point.
The reason kids (as well as adults) were told about the six-"day" creation is becasue it is only right to understand the scripture "literally". The six-"day" interpretation is just a consequence of that critical principle. We do not have to emphasize that to Christian unless the issue is raised because we do not know the answer.

Once we start to "interpret" the Genesis 1 as we think what it "should" mean, then we could start to interpret the whole Bible anyway we want. That is why we have all sorts of cults.

 

[Assyrian]

You missed the point.
The reason kids (as well as adults) were told about the six-"day" creation is becasue it is only right to understand the scripture "literally". The six-"day" interpretation is just a consequence of that critical principle. We do not have to emphasize that to Christian unless the issue is raised because we do not know the answer.

Once we start to "interpret" the Genesis 1 as we think what it "should" mean, then we could start to interpret the whole Bible anyway we want. That is why we have all sorts of cults.

Congratulations. You have just defined Young Earth Creationism as a cult.

 

[gluadys]

You missed the point.
The reason kids (as well as adults) were told about the six-"day" creation is becasue it is only right to understand the scripture "literally".

Who says it is only right to understand the scripture literally? What is the basis for this claim? Do you know that for a thousand years the church considered the literal meaning to be the least important of the meanings of scripture, even when they did not doubt its accuracy? The theologians of medieval times believed it was right, and their duty, to find the allegorical meanings of every text.

You are basing your understanding of scripture on a hermeneutic principle of doubtful worth.

Once we start to "interpret" the Genesis 1 as we think what it "should" mean, then we could start to interpret the whole Bible anyway we want.

A literal reading is just as much an interpretation as any other reading of scripture, and often it is the wrong interpretation.

There are better means of avoiding interpreting scripture "anyway we want" than using a mechanical rule that in itself has no merit.

But we should indeed interpret the whole Bible, not anyway we want, nor by any mechanical rule, but as each passage warrants and as other relevant factors guide. Otherwise we are not seeking to understand it.

 

[juvenissun]

Young earth creationism isn't being attacked... Rather, it is the evolution-denyers on the attack

Unfortunately, 99% of people do not separate the two. When I give a possibility of YE, in most case, people responded with an attitude as if I deny evolution. Practically, your separation on these two situations does not work.

I believe it was Johnson himself who also said that he set out originally to destroy the "godless theory of evolution."

Theoretically, this attitude is wrong. But practically, it is correct. Most people do not understand what does evolution mean. A vivid picture in people's mind is: evoution suggests we are evolved from apes. Hence the idea denies God's creation. Hence evolution denies God. This argument is logicaly fraudulent. However, it is accepted by 99% of those who believe in God. Johnson is not trying to talk to us, he is talking to the general public.

You're very quick to criticise something you admit to having no interest in.

No. I try very hard not to criticize things I do not know. I only question them. You should know the difference.

And as for your question as to why not all animals have bone: because bone is costly to maintain and would not necessarily benefit small insects or worms who don't need much in the way of structural support. As the saying goes, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

This explanation is good. As you said, the study of evolution today is mostly descriptive. Interpretation is only an add-on part and is questionable. I agree with that and I hope many people could understand that. However, practically, this is not the case at all. Even professionals usually take the interpretation as truth.

I can continue to question the origin of bone. But I will stop.

 

[Dannager]

Unfortunately, 99% of people do not separate the two. When I give a possibility of YE, in most case, people responded with an attitude as if I deny evolution. Practically, your separation on these two situations does not work.

I think you mis-read the quote you cited. You might want to read it again. The quote said that YECs aren't under attack. Instead, they're the ones doing the attacking.

Theoretically, this attitude is wrong. But practically, it is correct. Most people do not understand what does evolution mean. A vivid picture in people's mind is: evoution suggests we are evolved from apes. Hence the idea denies God's creation. Hence evolution denies God. This argument is logicaly fraudulent. However, it is accepted by 99% of those who believe in God. Johnson is not trying to talk to us, he is talking to the general public.

99% of those who believe in God? I'm not sure if you've seen the statistics, but most Christians accept evolution. Creationists are the minority.

No. I try very hard not to criticize things I do not know. I only question them. You should know the difference.

Then question them legitimately. Don't question them in order to cast doubt upon something that doesn't deserve the doubt.

 

[lucaspa]

I guess no one can say anything about this specific science question. (I am surprised it is a hard one, at all)

If so, how could anyone still insist the evolution is so correct that even the Genesis creation "must" not be real?

Having unanswered questions in a theory is not the same as having evidence to show a theory is wrong.

Creationism has data that can't be there if creationism were true. Therefore it is wrong.

Not knowing the evolutionary origin of every organ does not mean that organ doesn't have one. Thinking it does is simply poor logic.

When you have one of these "how did it happen" questions, I suggest you always go to PubMed before you post.

I did find this:

"1: Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 1990 Aug;65(3):277-373.

Development and evolutionary origins of vertebrate skeletogenic and odontogenic tissues.

Smith MM, Hall BK.

Unit of Anatomy in Relation to Dentistry, United Medical School, Guy's Hospital,
London Bridge, U.K.

This review deals with the following seven aspects of vertebrate skeletogenic and odontogenic tissues. 1. The evolutionary sequence in which the tissues appeared amongst the lower craniate taxa. 2. The topographic association between skeletal (cartilage, bone) and dental (dentine, cement, enamel) tissues in the
oldest vertebrates of each major taxon. 3. The separate developmental origin of the exo- and endoskeletons. 4. The neural-crest origin of cranial skeletogenic
and odontogenic tissues in extant vertebrates. 5. The neural-crest origin of trunk dermal skeletogenic and odontogenic tissues in extant vertebrates. 6. The
developmental processes that control differentiation of skeletogenic and odontogenic tissues in extant vertebrates. 7. Maintenance of developmental
interactions regulating skeletogenic/odontogenic differentiation across vertebrate taxa. We derive twelve postulates, eight relating to the earliest vertebrate skeletogenic and odontogenic tissues and four relating to the development of these tissues in extant vertebrates and extrapolate the developmental data back to the evolutionary origin of vertebrate skeletogenic and odontogenic tissues. The conclusions that we draw from this analysis are as follows. 8. The dermal exoskeleton of thelodonts, heterostracans and
osteostracans consisted of dentine, attachment tissue (cement or bone), and bone. 9. Cartilage (unmineralized) can be inferred to have been present in heterostracans and osteostracans, and globular mineralized cartilage was present in Eriptychius, an early Middle Ordovician vertebrate unassigned to any established group, but assumed to be a stem agnathan. 10. Enamel and possibly also enameloid was present in some early agnathans of uncertain affinities. The majority of dentine tubercles were bare. 11. The contemporaneous appearance of cellular and acellular bone in eterostracans and osteostracans during the
Ordovician provides no clue as to whether one is more primitive than the other. 12. We interpret aspidin as being developmentally related to the odontogenic
attachment tissues, either closer to dentine or a form of cement, rather than as derived from bone. 13. Dentine is present in the stratigraphically oldest (Cambrian) assumed vertebrate fossils, at present some only included as Problematica, and is cladistically primitive, relative to bone. 14. The first vertebrate exoskeletal skeletogenic ability was expressed as denticles of dentine. 15. Dentine, the bone of attachment associated with dentine, the basal bone to which dermal denticles are fused and cartilage of the Ordovician agnathan dermal exoskeleton were all derived from the neural crest and not from mesoderm. Therefore the earliest vertebrate skeletogenic/odontogenic tissues
were of neural-crest origin."

There are also papers looking at the origin of some of the specific proteins involved in the formation of bone.

1: J Exp Zoolog B Mol Dev Evol. 2006 May 15;306(3):295-316.

Evolutionary genetics of vertebrate tissue mineralization: the origin and
evolution of the secretory calcium-binding phosphoprotein family.

Kawasaki K, Weiss KM.

Department of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park,
Pennsylvania 16802, USA.

Three principal mineralized tissues are present in teeth; a highly mineralized surface layer (enamel or enameloid), body dentin, and basal bone. Similar tissues have been identified in the dermal skeleton of Paleozoic jawless
vertebrates, suggesting their ancient origin. These dental tissues form on
protein matrix and their mineralization is controlled by distinctive proteins.
We have shown that many secretory calcium-binding phosphoproteins (SCPPs) are
involved in tetrapod tissue mineralization. These SCPPs all originated from the
common ancestral gene SPARCL1 (secreted protein, acidic, cysteine-rich like 1)
that initially arose from SPARC. The SCPP family also includes a bird eggshell
matrix protein, mammalian milk casein, and salivary proteins. The eggshell SCPP
plays crucial roles in rigid eggshell production, milk SCPPs in efficient
lactation and in the evolution of complex dentition, and salivary SCPPs in
maintaining tooth integrity. A comparative analysis of the mammalian, avian, and
amphibian genomes revealed a tandem duplication history of the SCPP genes in
tetrapods. Although these tetrapod SCPP genes are fewer in teleost genomes,
independent parallel duplication has created distinct SCPP genes in this
lineage. These teleost SCPPs are also used for enameloid and dentin
mineralization, implying essential roles of SCPPs for dental tissue
mineralization in osteichthyans. However, the SCPPs used for tetrapod enamel and
teleost enameloid, as well as tetrapod dentin and teleost dentin, are all
different. Thus, the evolution of vertebrate mineralized tissues seems to be
explained by phenogenetic drift: while mineralized tissues are retained during
vertebrate evolution, the underlying genetic basis has extensively drifted.

 

[lucaspa]

It is not surprise at all that paleontologist HAS addressed this matter in many literatures. I am not a paleontologist. And I do not have time to read their (boring) stuff.

Then why do you post as tho no one knows the evolutionary origin of bone? You admit you won't read the information, and then try to tell us the information is not there. You do realize you just confessed to false witness, don't you?

I believe in YE even I don't have all the answers. But I never say OE is all wrong.

Unfortunately, the converse is not true. YE is all wrong.

I'm sorry, but that is the truth. There is a difference in not having all the answers in a theory and having evidence that directly contradicts a theory.

When you have the latter, then the theory is wrong.

Paleontologist described the occurrence of bone. Do they also "explain" why should bone develop? I don't think so. I don't have to read their stuff to say this. Because if having bone is so advantageous, then why do we have so many animals still have no bone?

Because their lifestyles don't require it and there is a cost to making bone. Juvenissen, you seem to think that some traits are universally "good" and desirable. Not so. Every trait has a cost and many traits only work in particular environments. Why don't horses have the same shape as fish if that shape is so advantageous to fish? Simple. The fish shape is not advantageous to animals moving on land.

Also you overlook the ancestor-descendent relationship and filled ecological niches. Why are so few vertebrate species evolving from living in water to living on land? Because there already are vertebrate species adapted to living on land. Those species have a competitive edge and have filled all the available ecological niches.

Once one lineage had evolved bone and endoskeletons, they occupied all the ecological niches available to that. Any other lineage with individuals evolving bones from scratch could not compete.

Or just look at one famous example in evolutionary history: why were there only large mammals after the dinos went extinct? Because dinos evolved size first and occupied all the large animal ecological niches. Mammals had to wait until those niches were empty before they could evolve larger size.

 

[shernren]

You missed the point.
The reason kids (as well as adults) were told about the six-"day" creation is becasue it is only right to understand the scripture "literally". The six-"day" interpretation is just a consequence of that critical principle. We do not have to emphasize that to Christian unless the issue is raised because we do not know the answer.

Once we start to "interpret" the Genesis 1 as we think what it "should" mean, then we could start to interpret the whole Bible anyway we want. That is why we have all sorts of cults.

Cults come about when theological content is adduced to the Bible. The Mormons have their Book of Mormon and Pearls of Great Wisdom; the JWs have their Watchtower tracts.

TEs have their science? But science has no theological content. An atheist and a TE can look at the same science and yet hold wildly different theological viewpoints; a YEC furthermore finds his theological viewpoints comfortable not when science is right but when it is wrong. Science does not teach us anything about God that we could not have found out from the Bible, contrary to cultic extrabiblical sources. Hence there is no way science can make a cult.

And a non-literal interpretation of Scripture is often far more stringent and incisive than a literal interpretation.