Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo and the Making of the Animal Kingdom

frog-3428988_1920 pixabay crop
Pixabay

For me as a biologist, evolutionary and developmental biology – evo devo for short – is one of the most wonderful, illuminating, useful areas of study. In the last few decades we have gone from guessing at how things might have evolved, to having some actual mechanisms of how organs, and even whole organisms, can change. As a Christian, I am interested in this subject first of all because it’s fascinating. Having been freed by Biblical Scholars from feeling that I need to read the Bible as a science book, I can now go and explore God’s world using the tools of science, thanking him for all the incredible things I find. Secondly, this knowledge is incredibly useful. The more we learn about how our bodies develop and grow, the more we can treat disease.

Sean Carroll was heavily involved in the evo devo revolution, and his 2005 book Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo and the Making of the Animal Kingdom, is still one of the iconic popular texts about the subject. To give you a flavour of this bestseller, I’ll summarise some of the introduction.

“Simply put, development is the process that transforms an egg into a growing embryo and eventually into an adult form. The evolution of form occurs through changes in development. Both processes are breathtaking”, writes Carroll. Darwin invited his readers to think about how small changes in development – perhaps the length of a forelimb or beak – that affect a particular type of animal at different stages in its life, and in different parts of the body, could accumulate over countless generations to cause massive differences in form and function.

We accept the process of development from egg to adult without blinking an eye. We might marvel at the process, but it happens right in front of our eyes so we accept it as one of the facts of nature. For Carrol, “Evolution is as natural as development.” Darwin’s friend Thomas Huxley thought that a bit of imagination was all it took to realise that changes in development, building up over the aeons, are what gives life such diversity.

But for more than a hundred years after Darwin published The Origin of Species, we had very little idea about how embryonic development might happen, let alone the modifications that could turn a leg into a fin, or vice-versa. The study of embryos, heredity and evolution became three separate fields of biology. Scientists made great discoveries in genetics and palaeontology, and came up with the ‘modern synthesis’ of evolution: the idea that an accumulation of small genetic changes can drive large changes in form and function – but we were no clearer on the question of how exactly an embryo develops or a species changes over time.

In the 1970’s, some scientists began to call for bringing embryology and evolutionary biology back together. The palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould started writing about how changes in developmental processes in an embryo could affect evolutionary processes in a species, and pointing out the gaps on our understanding of evolution. It would, however, take a revolution in embryology to move things forward.

The revolution that eventually happened centred around the humble fruit fly. In the 1980’s a group of incredibly resourceful geneticists discovered the set of genes that control development – master-switches if you like. They then realised that these genes were not just there in flies, but in humans, mice, and in fact other type of animal studied so far. So we now know that eyes develop because the gene that regulates eye development tells them to. It doesn’t matter if they eyes in question are an insect’s compound eyes or a human’s camera eyes – eye development in general is controlled by a gene called Pax6. The way in which these genes are organised, which I have described in another post,  is wonderful in its own right. But the fact that they are shared across the animal kingdom was, writes Carrol, “a bombshell”.

At last, biologists were able to compare these developmental genes between different species. If you studied a regulator of limb development in a mouse, that would give you some big clues about limb development in humans. We could get a much clearer idea of how animals were related to each other, and how they might have evolved. For example cave fish have no eyes, but they are just like normal fish – only with a broken Pax6 gene.

Now that the DNA of whole species has been decoded, we know that it’s not differences in our DNA that makes us different – it’s when genes are switched on and off during development. So rather than a blueprint, DNA is more like a set of switches, or the sequence that must be planned out for every major firework display. Each component needs to be set off at the right time, and any change in the sequence will produce a visible difference. In fact, with a large enough set of fireworks, you could produce a number of quite different displays – as different as a human is to a mouse, for instance.

So evo devo has unravelled many of the mysteries of evolutionary biology. It has not by any means solved all the problems – which is good, because it means there is so much more to explore. But when I learned as a student about some of these mechanisms underlying development, and the ways in which modifications in those mechanisms have caused whole new species to evolve, I was filled with a sense of wonder that has never left me. There truly is, to quote Darwin, “grandeur in this view of life…that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved”.

R Bancewicz 2015 mugshot small
© Faraday Institute

Ruth Bancewicz is a Senior Research Associate at The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion, where she works on the positive interaction between science and faith. After studying Genetics at Aberdeen University, she completed a PhD at Edinburgh University. She spent two years as a part-time postdoctoral researcher at the Wellcome Trust Centre for Cell Biology at Edinburgh University, while also working as the Development Officer for Christians in Science. Ruth arrived at The Faraday Institute in 2006, and is currently a trustee of Christians in Science.

 

Guest Post: A hostile start to life on Earth

volcano-1784656_1280-pixabay.jpg
Pixabay

Life on Earth had a rocky start – literally. For hundreds of thousands of years the planet was a hellish place. This period in geological history is called ‘Hadean’, and it was thought that no living thing could have survived. Life emerged so soon after Earth cooled that scientists have wondered how it could have been possible – but new results this year tell a different story. Continue reading

Guest Post: How can messy and disordered processes produce complexity and life?

ultra-scan-of-SupraPolak
© Suprapolak, freeimages.com

How are babies made in the womb? From a sperm cell and an egg cell, an embryo is formed, which then becomes a fetus, and ultimately a baby. Different cell types for bones, skin, muscles, blood, and brain are just a small part of the complexity of human life. Unimaginable numbers of proteins, nucleic acids, and lipids (fats) of just the right kinds are also precisely located in exactly the right locations. Without knowing any of these scientific details, the psalmist wrote, “Thank you for making me so wonderfully complex! Your workmanship is marvelous—how well I know it. You watched me as I was being formed in utter seclusion, as I was woven together in the dark of the womb” (Psalm 139:14-15, New Living Translation). In a certain sense, God makes each baby; in another sense, the baby makes itself—with help from the mother and father, of course! Continue reading

Book Preview: NT Wright on Science, Jesus, and Natural Theology

buttercup field IMG_2553 crop
© Ruth M. Bancewicz

Few today would argue that we can straightforwardly begin with the natural world and argue our way up to a view of God that corresponds more or less to the Christian one. … Natural theology as popularly conceived, that is, the attempt to reason up to God without the use of revelation, was always a strange and culturally conditioned thought experiment. Most humans do not work like that most of the time. I think—although a forceful presentation of this argument would take many more words than I have space for here—that this contrast of two types of knowledge, that which we have by revelation and that which we have by unaided observation and reason, makes two mistakes. Continue reading

Guest Post: Making the Molecules of Life

geothermal ChampagnePool-Wai-O-Tapu_rotated_MC Christian Mehlführer wikimedia ccc2.5 crop
© Christian Mehlführer, Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Generic license

At what point did chemistry become biology? In what type of environment did this transformation take place? These are major questions for those seeking to understand the origins of life on Earth. Continue reading

Guest Post: Conversation Piece

a messy desk
© DG Empl, Flickr, cropped. CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

“Come in.” He looked at me over the top of his glasses as I entered the office. “And who have we here.”

“I was looking for Dr. Purcell,” I said. “I’m George, her new PhD student.”

“Ah.” The man put down his pen and folded his arms on the desk. “Trish has just popped out for vital caffeine supplies. She won’t be long. Make yourself comfortable.”

I took the only chair that wasn’t covered in paper. The room was small and stuffy. One of the two desks – the one my companion was sitting behind – was covered in files and pens and folders. The other, presumably belonging to my new supervisor, was empty apart from a laptop and fountain pen. I glanced at the man. He was the epitome of a mad professor, all wild hair and half-moon glasses, but there had been no name on the door other than Dr. T. Purcell. Continue reading

The Myth of the Holy Hierarchy

Remembering UK scientist R. J. “Sam” Berry (1934–2018), a real scientist with real faith

“As a Christian at university, I was faced with a hierarchy of possibilities. The really holy people became missionaries, the rather holy people were ordained, and the fairly holy people became teachers; the ‘also rans’ did all the other jobs in the world,” so wrote R. J. Berry in his book Real Science, Real Faith. Having discovered that he either couldn’t or shouldn’t do any of the “holy” jobs, Berry, known to most as Sam, eventually realized “that we have all been given different talents and callings, and that there is not (and should not be) such a thing as a typical or normal Christian.”

Sam Berry was anything but a normal Christian. He attended his local church regularly, went to the monthly prayer meetings whenever he could, and served on the church council. For the last 30 years of his life he was licensed to preach, and for about 20 years he took part in national synod meetings. This would have been a huge commitment on top of a regular job and raising three children, but Sam was a high-capacity person who was not content to conform to the stereotype of “also-ran”—those who run races but never win. He demonstrated to the best of his ability that every single Christian is in full-time ministry.

Continue reading this article now (free, no signup required) in Christianity Today.

R Bancewicz 2015 mugshot small
© Faraday Institute

Ruth Bancewicz is a Senior Research Associate at The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion, where she works on the positive interaction between science and faith. After studying Genetics at Aberdeen University, she completed a PhD at Edinburgh University. She spent two years as a part-time postdoctoral researcher at the Wellcome Trust Centre for Cell Biology at Edinburgh University, while also working as the Development Officer for Christians in Science. Ruth arrived at The Faraday Institute in 2006, and is currently a trustee of Christians in Science.