27 April 2015

Notes - what else? / cars / sponges / here we are then

         Morning light. You had breakfast, read the paper and are enjoying the crisp Spring morning with a bounty of bright green leaves of trees and foliage. – Amorella

         0800 hours. It is a joy to see the dogwood and Hawthorns in bright white flowers contrasting the green. We are not surrounded by trees but are so by at least half. We have an odd shaped lot in front by nobody can tell because we neighbors blend our yards rather than make them distinctly individual.

         After noon. You did your forty minutes of exercises after you checked you recent blood tests for Dr. B and found you A1c is down to 6.6. The rest of the tests appear to be in the normal range. – Amorella

         1242 hours. I suppose we will go to lunch within the hour and Carol will want to hit the community center for laps. We have errands to do.

         Orndorff you keep debating wearing that CIA hat. Last week you wore it to Smashburgers because you were angry with yourself for not wearing it to Smashburgers. What does that tell you? – Amorella

         1245 hours. I see men with baseball styled caps all the time, most have something on the front but I don’t pay any attention and I figure no one is going to pay any attention to any hat I wear so why not wear it. I could wear my old red Otterbein hat too but it looks old and probably is. To your question, what does this behavior tell me, it tells me – I don’t know what it tells me.

         You are arrogant and stubborn and not fully civilized. You care and don’t give a damn at the same time. Bud bought you the hat and you feel entitled to wear it. In fact you were thinking of how you probably could represent the modern CIA (as an icon) – old, overweight, balding, arrogant and stubborn and not as bright as you would hope you could be at one time. Why the brightness? Just to show people you are not as stupid as your parents once thought you were. How’s that, boy? – Amorella

         1259 hours. That’s pretty specific, Amorella.

         What else? – Amorella

         1301 hours. It is more correct than I would like it to be.

         Post. – Amorella

         1302 hours. I would like to come up with a rebuttal but I cannot.

         Your honesty shields you in glass, my man. – Amorella

         1305 hours. This comment of yours is embarrassing.

         You wanted to write, “I am not honest,” but you cannot bring yourself to do it. – Amorella

         1307 hours. Amorella, I just have to accept myself as I am and let it go.

         Good. - Amorella


         You had lunch at Chipotle/Panera, stopped at the bank and are waiting for Carol at Kroger’s for cat food that is on sale. You compromised and wore your black beret, but forgot to change and are wearing shorts. – Amorella

         I509 hours. I am too old to be wearing shorts in public at least out to eat. I didn’t think about it until Norm, a retired Kroger butcher who works at Panera part time, said something.

         What do you think about butchers, orndorff? – Amorella

         1513 hours. My first experience with butchers was when I was sixteen and worked the produce department at Albers (food chain) near Linden in 1958. They were tough union fellows and I kept my distance. I somehow associated them with the Teamsters, another group I would just as soon have avoided in those days. The next year I worked at Hamilton’s an independent grocery in Westerville. One brother ran the store and the other was the butcher. They were both kind and pleasant people.

         You spent the last hour leisurely reading the June issues of Automobile and Motor Trend. The most interesting article was in Automobile and was about the eventual iCar by Apple Motors. The best line was in Motor Trend: ‘If you can afford a Bentley SUV your boat is too big to tow.’ – Amorella

         1711 hours. I have only one more issue of Automobile before the subscription ends. The whole idea was to bone up on cars before buying one a year and a half ago. It was a cheap subscription for two years. Motor Trend, on the other hand was cheap for three years so I have another year to go. No need for further research. If we do buy another to replace the 2005 Accord one of these days, I am up to date. If not, then there will be no more new cars for us. I can live with that. Gas prices are way down compared to what they were and even though we are only getting 20 mpg in town on the Honda that’s okay. It was a pretty Sunday afternoon yesterday so we took out the Avalon. Today we are back to old reliable. The new car bug has gone dormant. We have a new car, well, a newer car. We love our 2013 Toyota Avalon Limited Hybrid. We have never had a more comfortable car to drive; and the most fun, the red 1985 VW.GTI. The second most fun (owner) car to drive was my dark green 1965 VW Beetle.

         Is that it? You are still in a car mode. – Amorella

         1729 hours. No, I’ have no more specific thoughts on cars.

         What if your fictional brother, Robert, was thinking on a new car? What would he be thinking about? – Amorella

         1733 hours. I don’t know. I’ve never thought about it.

         Post. - Amorella


        1831 hours. I was wondering on evolution and found a good article on BBC.

** **
BBC - Earth: “Why Would an Animal Lose its Brain”

Some extremely simple animals may have got rid of their brains because they simply had no need for one. And this could have been key to their success

                Presented by
                Melissa Hogenboom

Sponges don't ponder about the meaning or origin of life. But in some ways they are better at the whole life thing than we are. They have lived for millions more years, surviving on the sea floor by taking in nutrients through their porous bodies.

To our eyes, they look almost laughably simple. They have no brain, and indeed no nerve cells. But they get along just fine without either.

Sponges' brainlessness might even be a positive thing, something that evolution has favoured. Some scientists now believe that they once had a brain, or at least something much like it, but then got rid of it. And they are not the only ones. To us the brain seems like a necessity, but it may be that some animals actually do better without them.

A brain is what you get when many nerve cells, known as neurons, cluster together into one big lump. Many organisms do not have true brains, but rather a "nerve net" of neurons scattered through their bodies. However, sponges do not even have that.

The origin of our brain starts almost four billion years ago, when life first sprang into being. Our earliest ancestors were single-celled organisms, and it would be another few billion years later before more complex organisms appeared. It's not clear whether they had any nerve cells.

The oldest known fossil with a complex brain is about 520 million years old. This was a time when life became much more abundant and diverse, often referred to as the Cambrian explosion.

Discovered in China, the animal looked like a woodlouse with claws. It seems to have had an elaborate brain-like structure consisting of a fore-, mid- and hind-brain, all of which had specialised neural circuits.

This suggests that complex brains were in place as early as 520 million years ago. But they may not have stayed.

In their ancient evolutionary past, sea sponges did have neurons, according to Frank Hirth of Kings College London in the UK. He says the sponges have experienced "evolved loss" of these structures, an argument he laid out in a paper in the journal Brain, Behaviour and Evolution in 2010.

There is plenty of precedent for this. Many species have lost seemingly vital organs. For instance, crustaceans living in dark caves are losing their eyes.

The key piece of evidence that sponges have lost their brains comes from phylogenetics: the attempt to figure out how all the different animal groups are related to each other. Researchers have drawn up a "tree of life", just like a family tree, showing the relationships.
Sponges were long thought to be the sister group to all other living animals, having branched off early on. This would imply that, of all the living animals, sponges are the most similar to the ancestral animals.

This was thrown into disarray by research published in the journal Nature in 2008.

Researchers analysed snippets of genes from many organisms, including a second group of marine animals called comb jellies or sea gooseberries. These have now taken the sponges' place as the sister group to all other animals, and our best representation of the ancestral animals.

The strange thing is that comb jellies have an intricate nervous system. This means that their ancestors, which must also have been the ancestor of sponges, probably did too. If that's true, somewhere along the way sponges lost their nerves.

There is some genetic evidence to support that. Sponges have many of the genes needed to build a nervous system, says Joseph Ryan of the University of Florida in St. Augustine. But they do not do so.

Getting rid of your brain sounds like a bad idea. So why would sponges ditch theirs?

First of all, the brain eats up an enormous amount of energy. In humans, up to 20% of our energy is spent feeding our brain.

Meanwhile sponges are clearly masters at what they do: filtering water and picking out only the useful, nutritious particles. Adding a nervous system might not help with that.

"If you are sitting on the sea bed and just filtering food that comes along, you don't need a brain," says Hirth. "It would be a waste of energy and you wouldn't be able to maintain this energy demand."

"For a long time we thought that sponges are primitively simple, that they never had a nervous system at all," says Ryan. "It may take a while to see that [idea] shifting."

Sponges may not be the only creatures that have lost, or at least simplified, their nervous systems. Some parasites, such as fluke worms that have only very basic neural cells, also seem to have lost complexity compared to close relatives, says Hirth. "One would assume that their parasitic lifestyle does not require a complex brain."

Another group called the placozoa, simple animals that are close relatives of sponges, have also lost their nervous systems according to Ryan and Hirth.

Meanwhile, sea squirts simplify their brains during their lifetimes. The larvae have well-developed brains, but once they settle on the sea ground and metamorphose into adults, these structures are reduced.

Still, not everyone believes that these animals have lost their neurons and brains.
Neuroscientist Leonid Moroz, who is also at the University of Florida in St. Augustine, believes that sponges never had neurons to start with.

They simply do not need any, he says, and nor did their ancestors. "We have 500 million years of the same ecology, the same filtering behaviour, with limited types of movement."

Neither the sponges nor the placozoa have any genes that Moroz would categorise as neuronal. And there are no fossils to indicate they ever had neurons, he points out.

The question then becomes how the comb jelly could have evolved such an intricate nervous system when their ancestors, and the ancestors of sponges, did not have one.
The answer, Moroz believes, is that the brain evolved more than once.

When the comb jelly genome was fully sequenced in 2013, researchers found that genetically they are unique.  Moroz calls them "aliens". "They have a completely different molecular make-up from any other animal on our planet," he says.
Yet somehow, they had also created a nervous system. "Nature shows us that there is more than one way to make neurons," says Moroz. "We can design neurons using completely different principles. Nature is much more innovative than we think."
There is precedent for organs evolving more than once. Some organs, such as eyes, are known to have evolved many times over in different species. For instance, the eyes of octopuses are quite different from ours. This shows, says Moroz, that it's clearly possible to make a complex structure more than once.

This argument came to a head at a meeting at the Royal Society in London, UK in March 2015. Moroz and Hirth presented their differing viewpoints, each backed up by published research. Each remains adamant that they are correct.

Right now we don't know either way, says Angelika Stollewerk of Queen Mary University of London in the UK. With the evidence we have, either story is possible: maybe the nervous system has evolved twice, or maybe it was reduced in sponges.

It won't be easy to settle this disagreement. Quite possibly it will take high-quality fossils of early sponges and comb jellies to settle whether or not their ancestors had brains.

Either way, the tale of the sponges' brains is a reminder that one of the standard myths about evolution is wrong.

Many of us have the idea that evolution takes simple organisms and makes them more complex. It does sometimes do that, but it can also do the exact opposite and simplify things – and sometimes it keeps animals virtually unchanged for millions of years.

Sponges are a case in point. They have survived, without a thought or even a brain to think with, for hundreds of millions of years. They have never needed to get any more complicated, and intelligence wouldn't have helped them.*

Selected and edited from http://www.bbcDOTcom/earth/story/20150424-animals-that-lost-their-brains

** **

         2120 hours. * I underlined for a reminder that evolution does not always go forward. This is something I had not realized. Not only could humans theoretically (if this is correct) stay as they are, they could possibly regress though I find this quite improbable. If I were to work ‘evolution’ into the story [GMG] then I would have to bring up the other side of the argument. Maybe I should just leave well enough alone.

         Who is the ‘well enough’ you are speaking of, boy. – Amorella

         2120 hours. Your story concepts, Amorella. Why do I think to change or to add to or to delete when I don’t know consciously what I am doing in terms of 'creating' the story. This is still an experiment in writing after all and always has been since its original inception. 

         You are researching. You are the editor-in-chief. You are the human being. Your concepts of me range from your pure imagination to angelic-like and possibly even angelic since you have no idea what an angel really is. – Amorella

         2128 hours. You are so blunt, and it seems even more so because I cannot honestly deny what you ‘say’.

         You one time hoped and wished you could finish your life here as an honest man. Imaginary or not, I am here to help you do that where it counts most in heartansoulanmind. Post. – Amorella

         2131 hours. I accept and respect this, Amorella. Thank you. I can stand up and see and accept who and what I am. – rho

         Imaginary or not, what else would you expect a real Angel to do in your circumstance, actually in any human’s circumstance? – Amorella

         2135 hours. I would expect no less and wish for no more.

         Here we are then, young man. Post. - Amorella

No comments:

Post a Comment