evolutionnewsandviews--2020-09-10--Webinar: The Promise of Design Triangulation

This Saturday , September 12 at 6 pm Pacific time , Discovery Institute ’ s Science & Culture Network Chapter in Colorado is sponsoring an online seminar , with me , about an ID proposal , design triangulation .
Details are here : “ The Promise of Design Triangulation.
” Please join me .
For the past few years , I have been telling myself , and students , “ Conceive of design as a scientific theory as if Charles Darwin had never lived.
” By that , I mean that we must imagine ourselves confronting the task of understanding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a polemical or argumentative context , but simply facing the data with all the causal possibilities on the table .
“ Boo Darwin ” is relatively easy , and often fun .
“ Boo Darwin , ” however , is not the same enterprise as “ Now here is my design theory.
” I want to make sure that as intelligent design matures — and , slowly , ID is maturing — that we have empirical content of our own to offer science .
That ’ s all .
A thought on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ e.g.
, to construct sequence specificity , or it does not .
If it does not , there ’ s no point in attaching the phrase “ intelligent design ” to it , as if that will make the process magically sufficient .
A defective naturalistic theory is not repaired by positing design as its behind-the-scenes assistant .
Scrap the process , and try something else .

This Saturday, September 12 at 6 pm Pacific time, Discovery Institute’s Science & Culture Network Chapter in Colorado is sponsoring an online seminar, with me, about an ID proposal, design triangulation. Details are here: “The Promise of Design Triangulation.” Please join me.
For the past few years, I have been telling myself, and students, “Conceive of design as a scientific theory as if Charles Darwin had never lived.” By that, I mean that we must imagine ourselves confronting the task of understanding and explaining the biological world NOT chiefly in a polemical or argumentative context, but simply facing the data with all the causal possibilities on the table.
“Boo Darwin” is relatively easy, and often fun. “Boo Darwin,” however, is not the same enterprise as “Now here is my design theory.” I want to make sure that as intelligent design matures — and, slowly, ID is maturing — that we have empirical content of our own to offer science. That’s all.
A thought on processes. Either a process works, e.g., to construct sequence specificity, or it does not. If it does not, there’s no point in attaching the phrase “intelligent design” to it, as if that will make the process magically sufficient. A defective naturalistic theory is not repaired by positing design as its behind-the-scenes assistant. Scrap the process, and try something else.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-09-10--In Cells, Proofreading and Repair Testify to Intelligent Design and Foresight

Rocks don ’ t care if they break .
The very concepts of proofreading and repair imply accuracy for a purpose .
In cells , complex multi-part machines find errors and fix them .
Is this not evidence of intentionality and programming ?
As these new research papers show , the machines involved show exquisite craftsmanship and efficient action to keep other parts — machines outside their own structural needs — humming along .
How can they do that ?
How do they know ?
They bear an uncanny resemblance to surgeons or linemen that are trained as first responders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they work robotically in the dark without eyes or brains .
Such things do not just appear by blind material processes .
Proofreading and repair systems had to be operational from the beginning of life , because considering the lethal consequences without them , it ’ s hard to conceive of any primitive organism surviving , let alone progressing up an evolutionary ladder .
Now , behold in wonder what is going on in our cells .
Before cells divide , billions of DNA base pairs must be precisely duplicated .
About one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ base is inserted into the copy .
Researchers at North Carolina State University found “ genome guardians ” that “ stop and reel in DNA ” during this important operation .
Two enzymes cooperate to proofread the copy .
They halt the duplication when a mismatch is found until more machines can fix the error .
A pair of proteins known as MutS and MutL work together to initiate repair of these mismatches .
MutS slides along the newly created side of the DNA strand after it ’ s replicated , proofreading it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it locks into place at the site of the error and recruits MutL to come and join it .
MutL marks the newly formed DNA strand as defective and signals a different protein to gobble up the portion of the DNA containing the error .
Then the nucleotide matching starts over , filling the gap again .
The entire process reduces replication errors around a thousand-fold , serving as one of our body ’ s best defenses against genetic mutations that can lead to cancer .
[ Emphasis added . ]
Well , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Evolutionists need those mutations to build eyes and wings !
When cells divide , double-stranded breaks can occur .
These are particularly dangerous , often associated with cancer .
Medical researchers at University of Texas Health in San Antonio confirm that DNA repair requires multiple tools .
Drs .
Daley , Sung , and Burma at UT knew that the repair operation , called homologous recombination , is done by resection enzymes , but they were curious why so many different enzymes were involved .
Why does the cell “ need three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accomplish the same task in repairing double-strand breaks ” ?
The “ perceived redundancy , ” they concluded , “ is really a very naïve notion.
” Like a skilled workman , the cell maintains “ An array of tools , each one finely tuned.
” Another type of error can occur when a gene is being transcribed .
If RNA polymerase ( RNAP , the transcribing machine ) hits a lesion caused by UV radiation or some other mutagen , the transcription can stall .
Thankfully , there is a programmed response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) that knows what to do .
That ’ s a good thing , because faulty repair can lead to “ the severe neurological disorder Cockayne syndrome , ” characterized by microcephaly , delayed development , short stature , low weight gain , and numerous other problems like oversensitivity to sunlight , “ hearing loss , vision loss , severe tooth decay , bone abnormalities , hands and feet that are cold all the time , and changes in the brain that can be seen on brain scans ” ( Genetics Home Reference @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , publishing in PNAS1 , learned more about the poorly understood process of TC-NER , and revealed a plethora of molecular machines and factors involved .
“ The initiation of TC-NER upon RNAP stalling requires specific factors , ” they begin .
“ These factors respond rapidly to transcription-blocking DNA damage , binding to stalled RNAP to coordinate assembly of downstream NER factors.
” Moreover , the repair program must be able to handle a variety of situations .
The technical details are too inscrutable for most readers to describe here ( and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) ; suffice it to say that TC-NER is a well-choreographed , irreducibly complex process that , fortunately , works most of the time .
Children with Type 2 Cockayne Syndrome may only live up to age 7 ( NIH ) .
The cell has mechanisms for preventing errors , too .
Research at Mt .
Sinai Medical Center in New York City “ has unraveled for the first time the three-dimensional structure and mechanism of a complex enzyme that protects cells from constant DNA damage , opening the door to discovery of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cancers.
” They used cryo-electron microscopy to study DNA polymerase ζ at a near-atomic level .
This important enzyme ’ s “ architecture and mechanism have been a mystery to scientists for years.
” Could any primitive life-form get by without something like this ?
Didn ’ t the Darwinians tell us that UV light and ionizing radiation were sources of the “ building blocks of life ” and the mutations that nature can select to build humans from bacteria ?
No way .
These findings are published in Nature Structural & Molecular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ connect via hydrogen bonds , but sometimes a protein interloper makes a bogus connection .
“ Covalent cross-links between proteins and DNA are among the most hazardous types of DNA damage , ” says the Ludwig-Maximilian University of Munich .
Fortunately ( again ) , there ’ s an app for that .
DPCs can occur during natural metabolism or by contact with synthetic chemicals .
SPRTN has a challenging job , they say , because it must be able to tackle a variety of situations ; “ the enzyme has to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aberrant.
” Its two domains must engage for it to recognize the error and fix it .
Julian Stingele explains this fail-safe system : When this system isn ’ t working properly , patients are subject to liver cancer and early aging .
We have just looked at five different types of errors that are repaired by five different systems of molecular machines .
Each system must first recognize the error and then know what to do ; otherwise , the consequences can be catastrophic .
In each case , the machinery is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the problem , and it does so rapidly and efficiently .
That takes foresight , and foresight implies intelligent design .
As Marcos Eberlin says in his book Foresight : How the Chemistry of Life Reveals Planning and Purpose , “ This act of anticipation — foresight — is not a characteristic of blind material processes .
It is an act of intelligence , of a mind ” ( p. 81 ) .
• Duan et al.
, “ Genome-wide role of Rad26 in promoting transcription-coupled nucleotide excision repair in yeast chromatin.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 31 ) 18608-18616. https : //doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2003868117 • Malik et al.
, “ Structure and mechanism of B-family DNA polymerase ζ specialized for translesion DNA synthesis.
” Nature Structural & Molecular Biology , 17 August 2020. https : //doi.org/10.1038/s41594-020-0476-7

Photo credit: Cesar Carlevarino Aragon, via Unsplash.
Rocks don’t care if they break. The very concepts of proofreading and repair imply accuracy for a purpose. In cells, complex multi-part machines find errors and fix them. Is this not evidence of intentionality and programming? As these new research papers show, the machines involved show exquisite craftsmanship and efficient action to keep other parts — machines outside their own structural needs — humming along.
How can they do that? How do they know? They bear an uncanny resemblance to surgeons or linemen that are trained as first responders to potentially catastrophic situations, and yet they work robotically in the dark without eyes or brains. Such things do not just appear by blind material processes. Proofreading and repair systems had to be operational from the beginning of life, because considering the lethal consequences without them, it’s hard to conceive of any primitive organism surviving, let alone progressing up an evolutionary ladder. Now, behold in wonder what is going on in our cells.
Stop and Reel
Before cells divide, billions of DNA base pairs must be precisely duplicated. About one time in 10 million, a wrong base is inserted into the copy. Researchers at North Carolina State University found “genome guardians” that “stop and reel in DNA” during this important operation. Two enzymes cooperate to proofread the copy. They halt the duplication when a mismatch is found until more machines can fix the error.
A pair of proteins known as MutS and MutL work together to initiate repair of these mismatches. MutS slides along the newly created side of the DNA strand after it’s replicated, proofreading it. When it finds a mismatch, it locks into place at the site of the error and recruits MutL to come and join it. MutL marks the newly formed DNA strand as defective and signals a different protein to gobble up the portion of the DNA containing the error. Then the nucleotide matching starts over, filling the gap again. The entire process reduces replication errors around a thousand-fold, serving as one of our body’s best defenses against genetic mutations that can lead to cancer. [Emphasis added.]
Well, is that not a tragedy for Darwin? Evolutionists need those mutations to build eyes and wings!
Repair Squads
When cells divide, double-stranded breaks can occur. These are particularly dangerous, often associated with cancer. Medical researchers at University of Texas Health in San Antonio confirm that DNA repair requires multiple tools. Drs. Daley, Sung, and Burma at UT knew that the repair operation, called homologous recombination, is done by resection enzymes, but they were curious why so many different enzymes were involved. Why does the cell “need three or four different enzymes that seem to accomplish the same task in repairing double-strand breaks”? The “perceived redundancy,” they concluded, “is really a very naïve notion.” Like a skilled workman, the cell maintains “An array of tools, each one finely tuned.”
“It’s like an engine mechanic who has a set of tools at his disposal,” Dr. Sung said. “The tool he uses depends on the issue that needs to be repaired. In like fashion, each DNA repair tool in our cells is designed to repair a distinctive type of break in our DNA.”
Surgical Team
Another type of error can occur when a gene is being transcribed. If RNA polymerase (RNAP, the transcribing machine) hits a lesion caused by UV radiation or some other mutagen, the transcription can stall. Thankfully, there is a programmed response called transcription-coupled nucleotide excision repair (TC-NER) that knows what to do. That’s a good thing, because faulty repair can lead to “the severe neurological disorder Cockayne syndrome,” characterized by microcephaly, delayed development, short stature, low weight gain, and numerous other problems like oversensitivity to sunlight, “hearing loss, vision loss, severe tooth decay, bone abnormalities, hands and feet that are cold all the time, and changes in the brain that can be seen on brain scans” (Genetics Home Reference).
Four researchers from Washington University, publishing in PNAS1, learned more about the poorly understood process of TC-NER, and revealed a plethora of molecular machines and factors involved. “The initiation of TC-NER upon RNAP stalling requires specific factors,” they begin. “These factors respond rapidly to transcription-blocking DNA damage, binding to stalled RNAP to coordinate assembly of downstream NER factors.” Moreover, the repair program must be able to handle a variety of situations. The technical details are too inscrutable for most readers to describe here (and this was about research on yeast!); suffice it to say that TC-NER is a well-choreographed, irreducibly complex process that, fortunately, works most of the time. Children with Type 2 Cockayne Syndrome may only live up to age 7 (NIH).
Preventive Repair
The cell has mechanisms for preventing errors, too. Research at Mt. Sinai Medical Center in New York City “has unraveled for the first time the three-dimensional structure and mechanism of a complex enzyme that protects cells from constant DNA damage, opening the door to discovery of new therapeutics for the treatment of chemotherapy-resistant cancers.” They used cryo-electron microscopy to study DNA polymerase ζ at a near-atomic level. This important enzyme’s “architecture and mechanism have been a mystery to scientists for years.” Could any primitive life-form get by without something like this?
DNA polymerase ζ is the crucial enzyme that allows cells to battle the more than 100,000 DNA-damaging events that occur daily from normal metabolic activities and environmental intrusions like ultraviolet light, ionizing radiation, and industrial carcinogens. The Mount Sinai team, which included first author Radhika Malik, PhD, Assistant Professor of Pharmacological Sciences, learned how the enzyme protects the cells from natural and manmade environmental as well cellular stresses through an intricate structure of four different proteins that connect to each other in a pentameric, or daisy chain-like, configuration.
Didn’t the Darwinians tell us that UV light and ionizing radiation were sources of the “building blocks of life” and the mutations that nature can select to build humans from bacteria? No way. These findings are published in Nature Structural & Molecular Biology2.
Genetic Bouncers
DNA bases on opposite strands connect via hydrogen bonds, but sometimes a protein interloper makes a bogus connection. “Covalent cross-links between proteins and DNA are among the most hazardous types of DNA damage,” says the Ludwig-Maximilian University of Munich. Fortunately (again), there’s an app for that.
Chemical lesions in the genetic material DNA can have catastrophic consequences for cells, and even for the organism concerned. This explains why the efficient identification and rapid repair of DNA damage is vital for survival. DNA-protein crosslinks (DPCs), which are formed when proteins are adventitiously attached to DNA, are particularly harmful. DPCs are removed by the action of a dedicated enzyme — the protease SPRTN — which cleaves the bond between the protein and the DNA.
DPCs can occur during natural metabolism or by contact with synthetic chemicals. SPRTN has a challenging job, they say, because it must be able to tackle a variety of situations; “the enzyme has to be able to identify many different structures as aberrant.” Its two domains must engage for it to recognize the error and fix it. Julian Stingele explains this fail-safe system:
One binds to double-stranded, and the other to single-stranded DNA. “So the protein uses a modular system for substrate recognition. Only when both domains are engaged is the enzyme active — and DNA in which double-stranded and single-stranded regions occur in close proximity is often found in the vicinity of crosslinks,” says Stingele.
When this system isn’t working properly, patients are subject to liver cancer and early aging.
An Act of Mind
We have just looked at five different types of errors that are repaired by five different systems of molecular machines. Each system must first recognize the error and then know what to do; otherwise, the consequences can be catastrophic. In each case, the machinery is well designed and finely tuned to solve the problem, and it does so rapidly and efficiently. That takes foresight, and foresight implies intelligent design. As Marcos Eberlin says in his book Foresight: How the Chemistry of Life Reveals Planning and Purpose, “This act of anticipation — foresight — is not a characteristic of blind material processes. It is an act of intelligence, of a mind” (p. 81).
Notes


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-09-10--Kimberella — Interpreting the Fossils

Kimberella — Interpreting the Fossils

Editor ’ s note : We are delighted to present a series of posts by paleontologist Günter Bechly on the Ediacaran organism Kimberella .
If identified as an animal , it would “ predate the Cambrian explosion of bilaterian animal phyla as a kind of ‘ advance guard.
’ ” The question is of interest for debates about evolution and arguments about intelligent design raised by Stephen Meyer , among others .
Find the full series about Kimberella here .
As I have already mentioned , the hundreds of fossils of Kimberella provide more anatomical details than any other Ediacaran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case that Ivantsov ( 2017 ) said “ the abundance of fossils allows us to reconstruct it with an exceptional precision for Precambrian organisms.
” However , the proper interpretation of these visible structures remained so controversial and open to discussion that the attribution of Kimberella to bilaterian animals is still mainly based on the following few uncontroversial characters ( Xiao & Laflamme 2009 , Vinther 2015 , Cunningham et al .
2017 , Budd & Jensen 2017 , Giribet & Edgecombe 2020 ) : large size , bilaterally symmetric body , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( polarity ) , and the apparent differentiation of tissues , as well as the associated trace fossil evidence for motility and active radular grazing upon microbial mats .
Of course , this might well be considered good enough .
Apart from the most general characteristics of Kimberella fossils , such as body shape and zonation , one of the few features that are uncontroversial is the body size : The fossils measure usually 1-5 cm in length .
The smallest specimens measure only 2-3 mm , and in the largest ones the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in length and 5-7 cm in width with height of 3-4 cm ( see : Gehling et al .
1995 , Martin et al .
2000 , Fedonkin et al .
2007b ) .
There are no obvious morphological differences between small juvenile specimens and large adult specimens , thus implying gradual growth without metamorphosis , and there is no indication of sexual dimorphism either ( Fedonkin & Waggoner 1997 , Fedonkin et al .
2007b ) .
Next , “ Kimberella — Four Phases of Interpretation .
”

Photo: Kimberella quadrata, by Ghedoghedo / CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0).
Editor’s note: We are delighted to present a series of posts by paleontologist Günter Bechly on the Ediacaran organism Kimberella. If identified as an animal, it would “predate the Cambrian explosion of bilaterian animal phyla as a kind of ‘advance guard.’” The question is of interest for debates about evolution and arguments about intelligent design raised by Stephen Meyer, among others. Find the full series about Kimberella here.
As I have already mentioned, the hundreds of fossils of Kimberella provide more anatomical details than any other Ediacaran organism. This is so much the case that Ivantsov (2017) said “the abundance of fossils allows us to reconstruct it with an exceptional precision for Precambrian organisms.”
However, the proper interpretation of these visible structures remained so controversial and open to discussion that the attribution of Kimberella to bilaterian animals is still mainly based on the following few uncontroversial characters (Xiao & Laflamme 2009, Vinther 2015, Cunningham et al. 2017, Budd & Jensen 2017, Giribet & Edgecombe 2020): large size, bilaterally symmetric body, which shows evidence for anterior–posterior and dorsal–ventral differentiation (polarity), and the apparent differentiation of tissues, as well as the associated trace fossil evidence for motility and active radular grazing upon microbial mats. Of course, this might well be considered good enough.
Apart from the most general characteristics of Kimberella fossils, such as body shape and zonation, one of the few features that are uncontroversial is the body size: The fossils measure usually 1-5 cm in length. The smallest specimens measure only 2-3 mm, and in the largest ones the shell could reach up to 15 cm in length and 5-7 cm in width with height of 3-4 cm (see: Gehling et al. 1995, Martin et al. 2000, Fedonkin et al. 2007b). There are no obvious morphological differences between small juvenile specimens and large adult specimens, thus implying gradual growth without metamorphosis, and there is no indication of sexual dimorphism either (Fedonkin & Waggoner 1997, Fedonkin et al. 2007b).
Next, “Kimberella — Four Phases of Interpretation.”


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-09-11--“Poor Design”? Human Versus Biological Invention

According to a common refrain from ID critics , the theory of intelligent design is defeated by observations of “ @ @ @ @ @ own biology .
Smart humans could have done it much better , we are told @ @ @ @ @ bungling evolution over the work of a purposeful designer outside nature .
Does this challenge @ @ @ @ @ let ’ s say you compare the most ingenious technological inventions — from Silicon Valley @ @ @ @ @ the inventions inscribed in carbon , not silicon , in “ simple cells.
” On @ @ @ @ @ the Future , molecular biologist Douglas Axe and philosopher of science Stephen Meyer discussed the @ @ @ @ @ against “ Carbon Valley.
” Guess which one beats the other for inspired design ?
@ @ @ @ @ to it here .

Photo: A view of Silicon Valley, San Jose, California, by Coolcaesar / CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0).
According to a common refrain from ID critics, the theory of intelligent design is defeated by observations of “poor design” in our own biology. Smart humans could have done it much better, we are told, so this points to bungling evolution over the work of a purposeful designer outside nature. Does this challenge hold water?
Well, let’s say you compare the most ingenious technological inventions — from Silicon Valley, for example — with the inventions inscribed in carbon, not silicon, in “simple cells.” On a classic episode of ID the Future, molecular biologist Douglas Axe and philosopher of science Stephen Meyer discussed the question, weighing Silicon Valley against “Carbon Valley.” Guess which one beats the other for inspired design? Download the podcast or listen to it here.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-09-11--Are Darwinists Backing Away from Falsification?

It ’ s got to be a coincidence , right ?
Back in March , the prominent science journal BioEssays called for government-backed Internet censorship of intelligent design proponents , mentioning those at Evolution News in particular .
What set off the author of the article , Dave Speijer ?
It was a post here by Paul Nelson on “ Popperian falsification.
” Dr. Nelson had the temerity to observe that Darwinian theory is in trouble : One should want SOME consequences , however , if a theory asserts that “ According to our theory , A is the case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” If the rooster stands on the manure pile , as the folk saying goes , it will rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow .
We ’ ve got all the possibilities covered : our theory is fully general and comprehensive .
That ’ s not knowledge .
And that is not a healthy theory .
Nelson was responding to another article by Dr. Speijer , who in turn went ballistic .
Paul had criticized evolutionists for “ rationaliz [ ing ] departures from prediction.
” Now an article by theoretical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out declares , “ The Idea That a Scientific Theory Can Be ‘ Falsified ’ Is a Myth.
” Singham discusses the field of science studies , “ comprising the history , philosophy and sociology of science , ” which “ has shown that falsification can not work even in principle.
” He regrets , “ Unfortunately , some scientists have disparaged the entire field of science studies.
” That fact is unfortunate , he feels , because this knowledge equips people to better argue against antiscience forces that use the same strategy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is about the dangers of tobacco , climate change , vaccinations or evolution .
Their goal is to exploit the slivers of doubt and discrepant results that always exist in science in order to challenge the consensus views of scientific experts .
It could be a coincidence that , in his mild and reasonable way , Paul Nelson provoked the outburst from BioEssays over “ Popperian falsification , ” saying that evolutionary couldn ’ t meet the standard — and now Scientific American comes along , pointing to challenges from “ anti-evolutionists , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says that the standard itself is to be dropped as a “ myth-story.
” [ I ] f you propagate a “ myth-story ” enough times and it gets passed on from generation to generation , it can congeal into a fact , and falsification is one such myth-story .
It is time we abandoned it .
It could be a coincidence , but I don ’ t much believe in coincidences .
Backing away from falsification would be useful for evolutionists and their theory .
It must be tempting to them to @ @ @ @ @ @

Photo: Will this rooster stand on the manure pile? By Remi Jouan / CC BY-SA (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/).
It’s got to be a coincidence, right? Back in March, the prominent science journal BioEssays called for government-backed Internet censorship of intelligent design proponents, mentioning those at Evolution News in particular. What set off the author of the article, Dave Speijer? It was a post here by Paul Nelson on “Popperian falsification.”
An Unhealthy Theory
Dr. Nelson had the temerity to observe that Darwinian theory is in trouble:
One should want SOME consequences, however, if a theory asserts that “According to our theory, A is the case except if A is not the case.” If the rooster stands on the manure pile, as the folk saying goes, it will rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow. We’ve got all the possibilities covered: our theory is fully general and comprehensive. That’s not knowledge. And that is not a healthy theory.
Nelson was responding to another article by Dr. Speijer, who in turn went ballistic. Paul had criticized evolutionists for “rationaliz[ing] departures from prediction.” Now an article by theoretical physicist Mano Singham for Scientific American flat out declares, “The Idea That a Scientific Theory Can Be ‘Falsified’ Is a Myth.”
Science Studies
Singham discusses the field of science studies, “comprising the history, philosophy and sociology of science,” which “has shown that falsification cannot work even in principle.” He regrets, “Unfortunately, some scientists have disparaged the entire field of science studies.” That fact is unfortunate, he feels, because
this knowledge equips people to better argue against antiscience forces that use the same strategy over and over again, whether it is about the dangers of tobacco, climate change, vaccinations or evolution. Their goal is to exploit the slivers of doubt and discrepant results that always exist in science in order to challenge the consensus views of scientific experts.
It could be a coincidence that, in his mild and reasonable way, Paul Nelson provoked the outburst from BioEssays over “Popperian falsification,” saying that evolutionary couldn’t meet the standard — and now Scientific American comes along, pointing to challenges from “anti-evolutionists,” as Singham puts it, and says that the standard itself is to be dropped as a “myth-story.”
[I]f you propagate a “myth-story” enough times and it gets passed on from generation to generation, it can congeal into a fact, and falsification is one such myth-story. It is time we abandoned it.
It could be a coincidence, but I don’t much believe in coincidences. Backing away from falsification would be useful for evolutionists and their theory. It must be tempting to them to do so. Very tempting.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-09-11--Kimberella — Four Phases of Interpretation

Editor ’ s note : We are delighted to present a series of posts by paleontologist Günter Bechly on the Ediacaran organism Kimberella .
If identified as an animal , it would “ predate the Cambrian explosion of bilaterian animal phyla as a kind of ‘ advance guard.
’ ” The question is of interest for debates about evolution and arguments about intelligent design raised by Stephen Meyer , among others .
Find the full series about Kimberella here .
In the quite checkered history of the detailed reconstruction of Kimberella , we can distinguish four distinct successive phases : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the Ediacara locality in Australia , deposited at the South Australian Museum in Adelaide , the early authors suggested that Kimberella was a jellyfish ( Glaessner & Daily 1959 , Glaessner & Wade 1966 , Wade 1972 , Glaessner 1984 , Jenkins 1984 , 1992 ) .
It was described as medusoid organism , up to 65 mm long and 36 mm wide , with a bell-shaped body with a rounded end and a tapered ( presumably open ) end and a frilled margin surrounding a smooth central region .
Apparently segmented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as gonads and gastric pouches .
A late proponent of a medusoid interpretation was Dzik ( 2003 ) , who suggested that Kimberella could have comb jelly affinities .
Based on 35 new specimens from the White Sea region , Fedonkin & Waggoner ( 1997 ) , Fedonkin ( 1998 ) , and Waggoner ( 1998 ) reconstructed Kimberella as a bilaterally symmetrical , benthic animal with an oval-to-pear-shaped , seriated body architecture .
Several zones are arranged concentrically , including a U-shaped band of about 30 crenellated structures ( mostly absent in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with larger specimens ) .
These authors suggested that Kimberella was “ resembling a mollusc in many respects , ” such as a creeping foot and a non-mineralized , univalved , oval shell that was “ fairly stiff , at least in its central part.
” This reconstruction was accepted by many authors at the time ( e.g.
, Martin et al .
2000 ) .
Third Phase — “ Soft Limpet with Eversible Proboscis and Tuberculate Shell ” This revised reconstruction by Fedonkin et al .
( 2007b ) was based on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Andrey Ivantsov in the White Sea region and deposited at the Paleontological Institute ( PIN ) in Moscow .
These fossils showed that the bilaterally symmetrical body had an elongate , boat-shaped form with complex internal structure .
It had a rounded broader end that was interpreted as posterior ( aboral ) end and a tapered narrower end interpreted as anterior ( oral ) end of the organism .
Besides the foot that could be extended and contracted , and a mantle , the revised reconstruction included an unmineralized single stiff but flexible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) and a long pro- and retractable proboscis with a single pair of teeth or thin hook-like organs articulated at its end .
The axial structure was interpreted as gut and stomach .
A pair of grooves near the arrow-like head was interpreted as pharyngeal glands .
The conspicuous crenulated zone was interpreted as a circumpedal band of 34-36 non-overlapping folds with respiratorial function .
( Fedonkin et al .
2007a said that the frill-like rim around outside of the shell may have been a circular tubular structure with protruding “ finger-like structures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) Fedonkin also saw “ evidence of dorso-ventral musculature and fine transverse ventral musculature , ” which “ suggests arrangement in a metameric pattern ” ( in contrast to Ivantsov 2017 , who explicitly emphasized that “ there are no signs of a body metamery in Kimberella “ ) .
He considered the elongation and contraction of the body and proboscis as indicating a complex system of lacunae and thus a genuine coelom .
Fedonkin agreed that the trace fossil evidence documented active movement and grazing on bacterial mats .
Fedonkin et al @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the animal moved backwards away from the oral end .
A new reconstruction by Ivantsov ( 2009 , 2010a , 2010b , 2012 , 2013 , 2017 ) was mainly based on the discovery of very different types of preservation in Kimberella , including strongly elongated specimens .
These specimens suggested a highly contractible , extendable , and flexible worm-like body that was complex but non-metameric .
This reconstruction features a bilateral symmetric organism with an elongated oval body , in which two parts are distinguished : a large trunk and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ able to completely retract into the body , and could be stretched out as a spatulate extension with a foldable series of simple spike-like structures or denticles ( not homologous to a molluscan radula ) on both sides of the ventral pharynx , used to tear off pieces of the bacterial mat as food .
The animal had a dorsal integumental cover , which was flexible and able to stretch , presumably armored with numerous fine mineral ( aragonitic ? )
sclerites embedded in the dorsal cuticular body wall ( but there was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The dorsal cover had a scalloped margin ( “ mantle ” ) with a gill cavity beneath .
A flat ventral structure , which is represented by the smooth outer margin of the imprints , was interpreted as similar to a gastropod foot , used for crawling .
The central part of the body was occupied by bundles of transverse muscles and a strong dorsal longitudinal muscular band , representing a retractor connecting the head with the aboral end of the body .
This revised reconstruction was accepted by some other contemporary authors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Grazhdankin 2014 , Parkhaev 2017 , Ivantsov et al .
2019 ) .
Some other scientists like Gehling et al ( 2014 ) rejected Ivantsov ’ s new reconstruction of “ a spatulate extension of the body , armed with multiple spikes enabling each fan array to be made in a single stroke , ” because it is not consistent with the fan-shaped sets of scratches in the associated trace fossils .
Instead they rehabilitated Fedonkin ’ s reconstruction with a short eversible proboscis armed with a single pair of stylets or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — The Anatomy in Detail .
”

Photo: Kimberella, via Wikimedia Commons.
Editor’s note: We are delighted to present a series of posts by paleontologist Günter Bechly on the Ediacaran organism Kimberella. If identified as an animal, it would “predate the Cambrian explosion of bilaterian animal phyla as a kind of ‘advance guard.’” The question is of interest for debates about evolution and arguments about intelligent design raised by Stephen Meyer, among others. Find the full series about Kimberella here.
In the quite checkered history of the detailed reconstruction of Kimberella, we can distinguish four distinct successive phases:
First Phase — “Jellyfish”
Based on only seven poorly preserved specimens from the Ediacara locality in Australia, deposited at the South Australian Museum in Adelaide, the early authors suggested that Kimberella was a jellyfish (Glaessner & Daily 1959, Glaessner & Wade 1966, Wade 1972, Glaessner 1984, Jenkins 1984, 1992). It was described as medusoid organism, up to 65 mm long and 36 mm wide, with a bell-shaped body with a rounded end and a tapered (presumably open) end and a frilled margin surrounding a smooth central region. Apparently segmented zones were (incorrectly?) interpreted as gonads and gastric pouches. A late proponent of a medusoid interpretation was Dzik (2003), who suggested that Kimberella could have comb jelly affinities.
Second Phase — “Soft Limpet”
Based on 35 new specimens from the White Sea region, Fedonkin & Waggoner (1997), Fedonkin (1998), and Waggoner (1998) reconstructed Kimberella as a bilaterally symmetrical, benthic animal with an oval-to-pear-shaped, seriated body architecture. Several zones are arranged concentrically, including a U-shaped band of about 30 crenellated structures (mostly absent in small specimens, hardly increasing in number with larger specimens). These authors suggested that Kimberella was “resembling a mollusc in many respects,” such as a creeping foot and a non-mineralized, univalved, oval shell that was “fairly stiff, at least in its central part.” This reconstruction was accepted by many authors at the time (e.g., Martin et al. 2000).
Third Phase — “Soft Limpet with Eversible Proboscis and Tuberculate Shell”
This revised reconstruction by Fedonkin et al. (2007b) was based on about 800 specimens, mostly collected by Andrey Ivantsov in the White Sea region and deposited at the Paleontological Institute (PIN) in Moscow. These fossils showed that the bilaterally symmetrical body had an elongate, boat-shaped form with complex internal structure. It had a rounded broader end that was interpreted as posterior (aboral) end and a tapered narrower end interpreted as anterior (oral) end of the organism. Besides the foot that could be extended and contracted, and a mantle, the revised reconstruction included an unmineralized single stiff but flexible dorsal shell (tuberculate in juvenile specimens) and a long pro- and retractable proboscis with a single pair of teeth or thin hook-like organs articulated at its end. The axial structure was interpreted as gut and stomach. A pair of grooves near the arrow-like head was interpreted as pharyngeal glands. The conspicuous crenulated zone was interpreted as a circumpedal band of 34-36 non-overlapping folds with respiratorial function. (Fedonkin et al. 2007a said that the frill-like rim around outside of the shell may have been a circular tubular structure with protruding “finger-like structures” rather than a true frill.) Fedonkin also saw “evidence of dorso-ventral musculature and fine transverse ventral musculature,” which “suggests arrangement in a metameric pattern” (in contrast to Ivantsov 2017, who explicitly emphasized that “there are no signs of a body metamery in Kimberella“). He considered the elongation and contraction of the body and proboscis as indicating a complex system of lacunae and thus a genuine coelom. Fedonkin agreed that the trace fossil evidence documented active movement and grazing on bacterial mats. Fedonkin et al. (2007b) also first suggested that the animal moved backwards away from the oral end.
Fourth Phase — “Slug-Like”
A new reconstruction by Ivantsov (2009, 2010a, 2010b, 2012, 2013, 2017) was mainly based on the discovery of very different types of preservation in Kimberella, including strongly elongated specimens. These specimens suggested a highly contractible, extendable, and flexible worm-like body that was complex but non-metameric. This reconstruction features a bilateral symmetric organism with an elongated oval body, in which two parts are distinguished: a large trunk and a relatively small head. The head was able to completely retract into the body, and could be stretched out as a spatulate extension with a foldable series of simple spike-like structures or denticles (not homologous to a molluscan radula) on both sides of the ventral pharynx, used to tear off pieces of the bacterial mat as food. The animal had a dorsal integumental cover, which was flexible and able to stretch, presumably armored with numerous fine mineral (aragonitic?) sclerites embedded in the dorsal cuticular body wall (but there was no single dense shell!). The dorsal cover had a scalloped margin (“mantle”) with a gill cavity beneath. A flat ventral structure, which is represented by the smooth outer margin of the imprints, was interpreted as similar to a gastropod foot, used for crawling. The central part of the body was occupied by bundles of transverse muscles and a strong dorsal longitudinal muscular band, representing a retractor connecting the head with the aboral end of the body. This revised reconstruction was accepted by some other contemporary authors (e.g., Seilacher & Hagadorn 2010, Grazhdankin 2014, Parkhaev 2017, Ivantsov et al. 2019).
Some other scientists like Gehling et al (2014) rejected Ivantsov’s new reconstruction of “a spatulate extension of the body, armed with multiple spikes enabling each fan array to be made in a single stroke,” because it is not consistent with the fan-shaped sets of scratches in the associated trace fossils. Instead they rehabilitated Fedonkin’s reconstruction with a short eversible proboscis armed with a single pair of stylets or teeth.
Next, “Reconstructing Kimberella — The Anatomy in Detail.”


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-09-12--Reconstructing Kimberella — The Disputed Anatomy in Detail

Editor ’ s note : We are delighted to present a series of posts by paleontologist Günter Bechly on the Ediacaran organism Kimberella .
If identified as an animal , it would “ predate the Cambrian explosion of bilaterian animal phyla as a kind of ‘ advance guard.
’ ” The question is of interest for debates about evolution and arguments about intelligent design raised by Stephen Meyer , among others .
Find the full series about Kimberella here .
In my opinion the third phase reconstruction of Kimberella , by Fedonkin ( 2007b ) and described here yesterday , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than the new reconstruction of Ivantsov ( 2009 ) .
Not only is Fedonkin more likely correct concerning the head and feeding apparatus with a medium sized proboscis armed with two teeth .
He also successfully addressed all the arguments that Ivantsov listed against a single shell .
You can find a pretty decent life-reconstruction and animation of Kimberella at the PalaeoZoo website .
With their revolutionary new interpretation of Kimberella as a benthic bilaterian animal , Fedonkin & Waggoner ( 1997 ) first recognized the presence of a creeping ventral locomotory organ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by most subsequent authors ( a notable exception was Dzik 2003 ) .
Fedonkin et al .
( 2007b ) explicitly identified this structure as “ a true foot , possibly comparable in structure with that of monoplacophorans.
” Fedonkin et al .
( 2007b ) also described fine transverse wrinkles on the sole of the foot , which they interpreted as transverse ventral musculature ( compare Seilacher et al .
2003 who likewise described the “ flat foot with a ring of segmental muscles , whose contraction upon death produced equidistant wrinkles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by peristaltic waves and also suggested that the foot was contracted in some specimens in a manner similar to modern limpets .
It was again Fedonkin et al .
( 2007b ) who first explicitly suggested the presence of a mantle and mantle cavity in Kimberella .
Ivantsov ( 2009 ) agreed , but consistently used the term “ mantle ” with quotation marks because he doubted a homology with the molluscan mantle or pallium , which is the technical term for their protruding dorsal body wall .
More recent authors all affirmed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ example , Gehling et al .
( 2014 : fig .
9 ) mentioned that “ the serrate zone has been interpreted as a corrugated mantle frill overlying a wider central muscular foot.
” According to Wanninger & Wollensen ( 2019 ) Kimberella has an “ elongated , slender foot surrounded by a mantle that is separated from the former by a circumpedal mantle cavity ” ( also see Vinther 2015 ) .
In the most recent textbook on invertebrate phylogeny , by Giribet & Edgecombe ( 2020 ) , the authors say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the softer ventral side has been described as a sole and compared to a molluscan foot .
The body is certainly zoned laterally , this zonation viewed as representing the foot and mantle separated by a groove in the mollusc model.
” It is safe to say that since the redescription of Kimberella as a benthic bilaterian animal , the functional interpretation of foot and mantle has met with a broad consensus among the specialists and represents one of the less controversial issues of its anatomy .
However , what remains highly disputed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these structures with the foot and mantle in modern mollusks .
According to esteemed Russian expert Mikhail Fedonkin , Kimberella had a non-mineralized univalved shell with an elongated oval , shield-like outline ( Fedonkin & Waggoner 1997 , Fedonkin 2001 , 2003 , Fedonkin et al .
2007b ) .
Likewise , Fedonkin ( 1998 , 2001 ) and Waggoner ( 1998 ) said that Kimberella “ bore a highly compaction-resistant structure that we interpret as a stiff but un-mineralized shell , ” and Fedonkin ( 2003 ) specified that the “ elongated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made of flexible and rigid organic material.
” Fedonkin et al .
( 2007b ) found that “ the outer surface of the dorsal side of the smaller specimens is covered with numerous round protuberances , uniformly spaced over the major part of the shell , ” which they interpreted as outgrowths , or bases of mineral spines , or as “ separate initial nodules of shell formation.
” This latter hypothesis might explain why these structures are not visible in the larger adult specimens .
Finally , Fedonkin et al .
( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ often are strongly elongated , and suggested that “ these individuals represent a phase when the formation of the shell had not yet begun or was just incipient.
” They explained that “ the taphonomic varieties of the shell imprints clearly demonstrate that the shell was stiff , but thin and flexible , particularly in juveniles , ” which explains why stretched and laterally bent specimens are generally small .
Based on further new material , the other Russian expert Andrey Ivantsov ( 2009 , 2010b ) suggested a new reconstruction with “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ … rather than a complete consolidated shell.
” Because of the very different contracted and stretched morphs of Kimberella , Ivantsov ( 2009 : pls I-II , 2010b : pl .
1 , 2013 ) claimed that a rigid shell was not a possibility , and instead suggested a soft-bodied and extremely flexible organism with multiple dorsal mineralized sclerites .
He said that “ many characters of the imprints contradict the hypothesis of a single shell , ” including the many stretched and strongly bent specimens .
This is somewhat strange , because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ al .
( 2007b ) had already explained this phenomenon ontogenetically .
Ivantsov also claimed that the absence of any growth lines is very much unlike molluscan shells , even though Fedonkin et al .
( 2007b ) suggested that “ the absence of any growth zonation in the shell structure suggests that the shell of Kimberella was the homologue of the periostracum of later Mollusca.
” Again and again we find opposite conclusions about the same evidence .
Finally , Ivantsov mentioned that the head possessed tubercles similar to the body and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no doubt that Kimberella had no single dense shell.
” Ivantsov ( 2017 ) suggested that the dorsal body cover was “ armored with fine sclerites , apparently mineral , but rapidly dissolving after burial , ” but this taphonomic hypothesis does not explain why the tubercles are only visible in small specimens .
Most later authors followed the single shell interpretation of Fedonkin : Seilacher et al .
( 2003 ) mentioned that the “ dorsal shield , … was soft enough to become deformed during burial.
” Scheltema & Schander ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ single , stiff , unmineralized dorsal exoskeleton , ” which was formed by the mantle cuticle alone , “ although there may have been a zone of spines beneath the dorsum.
” Gehling et al .
( 2014 ) featured a reconstruction of Kimberella as a molluscan grade organism with a single shell and said that “ this reconstruction of Kimberella includes an inferred stiff but flexible unmineralized shield that enclosed internal organs.
” Vinther ( 2015 ) remarked that Kimberella had a dorsal “ cuticular shield with tubercular nodes.
” Finally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claimed that the presence of a single non-mineralized shell in Kimberella fits well with the hypothetical ground plan of mollusks , since the discovery of the Ordovician fossil Calvapilosa suggested that the two-shelled state of halkieriids and the multi-shelled state of polyplacophoran mollusks represents a derived condition .
Nevertheless , some later authors rather agreed with Ivantsov ’ s new interpretation .
For example , Seilacher & Hagadorn ( 2010 ) concurred that “ Kimberella lacked a rigid shell , while being covered by small sclerodermites ” ( Bengtson 2005 , Fedonkin et @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
” Even more recently , Parkhaev ( 2017 ) concluded that “ in contrast to the first reconstructions … , it was shown that Kimberella had no firm and solid shell , otherwise it would be difficult to explain the observed variability in the shape and proportions of the body in known specimens.
” Lay people must be left quite confused by this controversy and might even conclude that paleontology often seems to boil down to an esoteric exercise in “ reading tea leaves.
” Unfortunately , sometimes this is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ always make an inference to the best explanation .
In my view the original interpretation of Fedonkin is better supported and he also sufficiently explained the evidence that allegedly supports the alternative interpretation of Ivantsov .
Therefore , I conclude that Kimberella more likely possessed a non-mineralized integument , a quasi-leathery shell with a characteristic ornamentation , which was flexible in juvenile specimens but rather stiff in adult ones .
But this is just my humble opinion and it is quite clear that this issue is controversial and far from settled .
Fedonkin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the crenellated structures may have had a respiratory function and even mentioned the possibility that the crenellations may have hosted microbial symbionts .
Fedonkin et al .
( 2007b ) said that “ there is no evidence of gills in Kimberella , while the large surface of the multifolded crenulated zone could effectively perform the respiration function.
” Fedonkin considered these circumpedal respiratorial folds as “ possible predecessor of the ctenidia ” ( meaning , feathery gills ) in aquatic mollusks .
Even though there are indeed no traces of respiratory organs preserved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such gills were proposed by Ivantsov ( 2009 , 2012 ) as possibly attached to the scallops along the frilled margin , similar to the serially repeated gills in the Cambrian stem mollusk Odontogriphus ( Butterfield 2006 ) and in the circumpedal mantle cavity of primitive living mollusks ( Serialia ) ( Stöger et al .
2013 ) .
However , Ivantsov also mentioned the alternative possibility that gas exchange occurred across the general body surface .
Likewise , Seilacher & Hagadorn ( 2010 ) concurred with Fedonkin et al .
( 2007b @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2007 ) that “ the serial impressions between the foot and the cap probably correspond to flap- or gill-like structures … as in modern chitons and Neopilina , and in the Cambrian Odontogriphus from the Burgess Shale.
” However , all this is of course mere speculation in the absence of any conclusive empirical evidence .
Dzik ( 2003 ) mentioned that “ the most prominent aspect of Kimberella fossils is a voluminous depression in their center ” and proposed that “ the most likely interpretation is that this was a gut content.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ interpreted as simple digestive tract and pharynx ( Fedonkin et al .
2007b , Knoll 2011 , Vinther 2015 ) .
A notable exception was Seilacher ( 1999 ) , who thought that “ the deep cleft along the midline of the foot is clearly a secondary feature ” related to the burial process and fossilization as ventral death mask ( Gehling 1999 ) .
Gehling et al .
( 2014 ) concurred that the median keel or grove , which is most prominent in smaller specimens , most likely corresponds to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Déjà-vu , anyone ?
Many authors have suggested that the tapered end of Kimberella corresponded to a kind of proboscis as a feeding apparatus .
The alignment between the feeding traces and the tapered “ open ” end of the body with the assumed proboscis clearly suggests that this was the anterior ( oral ) end with the pharynx .
Based on the trace fossil evidence , Ivantsov & Fedonkin ( 2001b ) and Fedonkin ( 2001 , 2003 ) first speculated that the “ feeding tracks may reflect the work of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its end.
” Fedonkin ( 2003 ) thought that a comparison of the body size of Kimberella and of the size and pattern of the feeding traces suggests that the hypothetical proboscis could be extended as long as the whole body of Kimberella , and that there were two sharp teeth at its end .
Seilacher et al .
( 2003 , 2005 ) also speculated that Kimberella was a stationary grazer that repeatedly fed with a long proboscis .
Dzik ( 2003 ) mentioned that “ in all well preserved specimens of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of the proposed gut , perhaps representing a muscular oesophagus or even evertible proboscis.
” Gehling ( 1996 ) and Gehling et al .
( 2005 : fig .
12 ) were the first to clearly document actual fossil evidence for such an extensible head or everted proboscis at the anterior end of the Kimberella animal .
Years later , Gehling et al .
( 2014 : fig .
7 ) featured more specimens with an everted proboscis , which is never longer than about a fourth of the remaining body length @ @ @ @ @ @ @ & Hagadorn ( 2010 ) and others had speculated .
The fact that in most specimens this proboscis is not visible was inferred by these authors “ to be a result of its retraction within the circumference of the body , ” but this is completely ad hoc .
This proboscis was described in detail by Fedonkin et al .
( 2007b ) , who also described a pair of bag-like structures lateral at the base of the proboscis ( and thus the assumed pharynx ) at the anterior end of the body @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or “ pharyngeal glands ( comparable with those found in many extant molluscs ) ” ( Fedonkin et al .
2007b : fig .
15 ; also see : Ivantsov 2009 : pl .
1 figs 7-8 , Vinther et al .
2012 , Vinther 2015 : fig .
3E ) .
Fedonkin suggested that the feeding traces were “ left by a solitary conjugate pair of teeth located at the end of a long proboscis that stretched far forward beyond the main body ” ( Ivantsov & Fedonkin 2001b , Fedonkin 2003 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ et al .
2007b ) .
In the paper by Fedonkin et al .
( 2007b ) an alternative interpretation by co-author Ivantsov is mentioned : “ instead of an elongate proboscis , there could have been a rather wide feeding organ , which could spread like a fan .
Equipped with numerous teeth this organ scratched a large surface area of the sea floor in one simultaneous sweep.
” However , Fedonkin et al .
concluded that “ mechanical constraints and the absence of morphological evidence do not allow us to accept @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likewise claimed that the very flexible organism , which must have lacked a hard shell , made a long proboscis unnecessary .
Indeed , no such long proboscis is visible in any of the fossil specimens .
His alternative view was further elaborated by Ivantsov ( 2010b , 2012 , 2013 ) , who claimed that : “ The mobile animal with a long , flexible proboscis freely bending in all directions should leave more chaotic traces .
This implies that the animal got deeper into the mat using a larger structure with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bending , rather than separate teeth located at the end of the flexible proboscis .
Such a structure was most likely represented by the entire anterior part of the Kimberella body together with a large head , which was able to extend and widen ( Ivantsov , 2009 , 2010 , 2011 ) .
” He suggested that the tooth battery was folded on both sides of the pharynx , and that the expandable spatulate head was at least partly retracted in the fossil specimens .
Nevertheless , Ivantsov ( 2013 ) admitted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ distinct pairs of ridges in the trace fossils .
In his most recent paper , Ivantsov et al .
( 2019 ) apparently addressed this problem and now says that “ the head of Kimberella was wide and spatulate in a straightened state , and it bore two or more sclerotic teeth.
” Other authors have added various further speculations about this feeding apparatus .
Trusler et al .
( 2007 ) warned that “ instead of an elongate proboscis bearing only a pair of resistant structures , Kimberella may have possessed a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , again analogous to that present in monoplacophorans … , which did not require a lengthy extension of the feeding organ .
In fact , it may well be that the feeding structure was entirely beneath the organism or only slightly extended when it ‘ farmed ’ the microbial mat and its contents , and only protruded beyond the main body in death when compressed.
” However , this view is contradicted by the fact that the only known resting trace does not overlap with the surrounding feeding traces ( see below ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggested that “ hydrostatics and muscles likely operated this extendable and flexible proboscis .
… Hypothetically , such a proboscis could have handed food particles to a proximally situated mouth , in the mode of an elephant ’ s trunk or the antennae of the amphipod Corophium .
Alternatively , and more likely , the mouth was at the very tip of the proboscis , with radular teeth delivering their crop directly into the esophagus.
” Grazhdankin ( 2014 ) added that “ the retractable anterior end of Kimberella quadrata possessed a peculiar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least superficially , is remarkably similar to individual representatives of the genera Parvancorina and Temnoxa.
” which are both problematic Ediacaran organisms of uncertain affinity .
Budd & Jensen ( 2017 ) correctly remarked that the production of the fan-shaped scratch marks “ would have required a very long introvert in order to create the observed pattern , and this has not been seen.
” Therefore , they concluded that “ considerable uncertainty remains as to how the scratches were formed and by what type of device.
” I fear this is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who believe that the teeth of Kimberella were really homologous to a molluscan radula ( e.g.
, Seilacher 1999 , Caron et al .
2006 , Seilacher & Hagadorn 2010 , Vinther et al .
2012 , Stöger et al .
2013 ) , there is another fundamental problem : the apparatus is postulated at the end of an everted tubular proboscis ( Gehling et al .
2005 ) , which is never the case in mollusks and would rather resemble the introvert in scalidophoran nemathelminths ( Cephalorhyncha ) ( Budd & Jensen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ body plan of such nemathelminths like Priapulida does not agree with the morphology seen in Kimberella ( Gehling et al .
2014 ) .
Finally , another severe problem remains : even though many of the fossil specimens from the White Sea region are quite well-preserved , there is not a single one that clearly shows a toothed radula-like organ .
However , in two specimens ( figured by Fedonkin et al .
2007b : fig .
15j , Ivantsov 2009 : figs 2c and pl .
1 fig .
6 , 2010b @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2013 : pl .
II figs 1-2 , and 2017 : fig .
2-2 ) there is a series of deep grooves near the end of the short proboscis , which may or may not correspond to teeth .
Actually , in my view their structure does not fit well with the bifid pattern of the Kimberichnus traces , and Gehling et al .
( 2014 ) had similar reservations .
Budd & Jensen ( 2017 ) mentioned that these grooves look very similar to structures at the posterior end of the body @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence for longitudinal muscles .
Ivantsov explained the general absence of imprints of teeth as an artifact of preservation , based on their covering by the muscular part of the head and the dense “ mantle , ” but of course this is just another ad hoc hypothesis .
Thus , as in most other structures of Kimberella the interpretation of the feeding apparatus turns out to be very controversial : Was there a long or a short proboscis , or no proboscis at all but a broad expandable head ?
Was there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two sets of small teeth , or no teeth at all ?
Were the paired bag-like structure muscles , or glands , or something else entirely ?
Fossils often leave much room for very different interpretations of relatively poor evidence , so that paleontologists always should be very careful not to stack elaborate hypotheses like a house of cards , which of course happens anyway and even quite often so .

Photo: Kimberella, by the paleobear from Lontananza, Loreto, Peru / CC BY (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0).
Editor’s note: We are delighted to present a series of posts by paleontologist Günter Bechly on the Ediacaran organism Kimberella. If identified as an animal, it would “predate the Cambrian explosion of bilaterian animal phyla as a kind of ‘advance guard.’” The question is of interest for debates about evolution and arguments about intelligent design raised by Stephen Meyer, among others. Find the full series about Kimberella here.
In my opinion the third phase reconstruction of Kimberella, by Fedonkin (2007b) and described here yesterday, is better supported by the fossil evidence than the new reconstruction of Ivantsov (2009). Not only is Fedonkin more likely correct concerning the head and feeding apparatus with a medium sized proboscis armed with two teeth. He also successfully addressed all the arguments that Ivantsov listed against a single shell. You can find a pretty decent life-reconstruction and animation of Kimberella at the PalaeoZoo website.
Foot and Mantle
With their revolutionary new interpretation of Kimberella as a benthic bilaterian animal, Fedonkin & Waggoner (1997) first recognized the presence of a creeping ventral locomotory organ (foot), which was accepted by most subsequent authors (a notable exception was Dzik 2003). Fedonkin et al. (2007b) explicitly identified this structure as “a true foot, possibly comparable in structure with that of monoplacophorans.” Fedonkin et al. (2007b) also described fine transverse wrinkles on the sole of the foot, which they interpreted as transverse ventral musculature (compare Seilacher et al. 2003 who likewise described the “flat foot with a ring of segmental muscles, whose contraction upon death produced equidistant wrinkles”). They suggested backward movement by peristaltic waves and also suggested that the foot was contracted in some specimens in a manner similar to modern limpets.
It was again Fedonkin et al. (2007b) who first explicitly suggested the presence of a mantle and mantle cavity in Kimberella. Ivantsov (2009) agreed, but consistently used the term “mantle” with quotation marks because he doubted a homology with the molluscan mantle or pallium, which is the technical term for their protruding dorsal body wall.
More recent authors all affirmed the presence of a mantle: For example, Gehling et al. (2014: fig. 9) mentioned that “the serrate zone has been interpreted as a corrugated mantle frill overlying a wider central muscular foot.”
According to Wanninger & Wollensen (2019) Kimberella has an “elongated, slender foot surrounded by a mantle that is separated from the former by a circumpedal mantle cavity” (also see Vinther 2015).
In the most recent textbook on invertebrate phylogeny, by Giribet & Edgecombe (2020), the authors say about Kimberella‘s anatomy that “the softer ventral side has been described as a sole and compared to a molluscan foot. The body is certainly zoned laterally, this zonation viewed as representing the foot and mantle separated by a groove in the mollusc model.”
It is safe to say that since the redescription of Kimberella as a benthic bilaterian animal, the functional interpretation of foot and mantle has met with a broad consensus among the specialists and represents one of the less controversial issues of its anatomy. However, what remains highly disputed is the question of the homology of these structures with the foot and mantle in modern mollusks.
Shell
According to esteemed Russian expert Mikhail Fedonkin, Kimberella had a non-mineralized univalved shell with an elongated oval, shield-like outline (Fedonkin & Waggoner 1997, Fedonkin 2001, 2003, Fedonkin et al. 2007b). Likewise, Fedonkin (1998, 2001) and Waggoner (1998) said that Kimberella “bore a highly compaction-resistant structure that we interpret as a stiff but un-mineralized shell,” and Fedonkin (2003)specified that the “elongated and high dorsal shell [was] made of flexible and rigid organic material.” Fedonkin et al. (2007b) found that “the outer surface of the dorsal side of the smaller specimens is covered with numerous round protuberances, uniformly spaced over the major part of the shell,” which they interpreted as outgrowths, or bases of mineral spines, or as “separate initial nodules of shell formation.” This latter hypothesis might explain why these structures are not visible in the larger adult specimens. Finally, Fedonkin et al. (2007b) also recognized that small specimens often are strongly elongated, and suggested that “these individuals represent a phase when the formation of the shell had not yet begun or was just incipient.” They explained that “the taphonomic varieties of the shell imprints clearly demonstrate that the shell was stiff, but thin and flexible, particularly in juveniles,” which explains why stretched and laterally bent specimens are generally small.
Based on further new material, the other Russian expert Andrey Ivantsov (2009, 2010b) suggested a new reconstruction with “hard sclerites, probably of aragonite, … rather than a complete consolidated shell.” Because of the very different contracted and stretched morphs of Kimberella, Ivantsov (2009: pls I-II, 2010b: pl. 1, 2013) claimed that a rigid shell was not a possibility, and instead suggested a soft-bodied and extremely flexible organism with multiple dorsal mineralized sclerites. He said that “many characters of the imprints contradict the hypothesis of a single shell,” including the many stretched and strongly bent specimens. This is somewhat strange, because we have just seen that Fedonkin et al. (2007b) had already explained this phenomenon ontogenetically. Ivantsov also claimed that the absence of any growth lines is very much unlike molluscan shells, even though Fedonkin et al. (2007b) suggested that “the absence of any growth zonation in the shell structure suggests that the shell of Kimberella was the homologue of the periostracum of later Mollusca.” Again and again we find opposite conclusions about the same evidence. Finally, Ivantsov mentioned that the head possessed tubercles similar to the body and claimed that all “these considerations leave no doubt that Kimberella had no single dense shell.” Ivantsov (2017) suggested that the dorsal body cover was “armored with fine sclerites, apparently mineral, but rapidly dissolving after burial,” but this taphonomic hypothesis does not explain why the tubercles are only visible in small specimens.
Most later authors followed the single shell interpretation of Fedonkin: Seilacher et al. (2003) mentioned that the “dorsal shield, … was soft enough to become deformed during burial.” Scheltema & Schander (2006) said that Kimberella had a “single, stiff, unmineralized dorsal exoskeleton,” which was formed by the mantle cuticle alone, “although there may have been a zone of spines beneath the dorsum.” Gehling et al. (2014) featured a reconstruction of Kimberella as a molluscan grade organism with a single shell and said that “this reconstruction of Kimberella includes an inferred stiff but flexible unmineralized shield that enclosed internal organs.” Vinther (2015) remarked that Kimberella had a dorsal “cuticular shield with tubercular nodes.” Finally, Wanninger & Wollesen (2019) claimed that the presence of a single non-mineralized shell in Kimberella fits well with the hypothetical ground plan of mollusks, since the discovery of the Ordovician fossil Calvapilosa suggested that the two-shelled state of halkieriids and the multi-shelled state of polyplacophoran mollusks represents a derived condition.
Nevertheless, some later authors rather agreed with Ivantsov’s new interpretation. For example, Seilacher & Hagadorn (2010) concurred that “Kimberella lacked a rigid shell, while being covered by small sclerodermites” (Bengtson 2005, Fedonkin et al. 2007b, Ivantsov, 2009).” Even more recently, Parkhaev (2017) concluded that “in contrast to the first reconstructions …, it was shown that Kimberella had no firm and solid shell, otherwise it would be difficult to explain the observed variability in the shape and proportions of the body in known specimens.”
Lay people must be left quite confused by this controversy and might even conclude that paleontology often seems to boil down to an esoteric exercise in “reading tea leaves.” Unfortunately, sometimes this is the case indeed. Nevertheless, one should always make an inference to the best explanation. In my view the original interpretation of Fedonkin is better supported and he also sufficiently explained the evidence that allegedly supports the alternative interpretation of Ivantsov. Therefore, I conclude that Kimberella more likely possessed a non-mineralized integument, a quasi-leathery shell with a characteristic ornamentation, which was flexible in juvenile specimens but rather stiff in adult ones. But this is just my humble opinion and it is quite clear that this issue is controversial and far from settled.
Gills
Fedonkin & Waggoner (1997) speculated that the crenellated structures may have had a respiratory function and even mentioned the possibility that the crenellations may have hosted microbial symbionts. Fedonkin et al. (2007b) said that “there is no evidence of gills in Kimberella, while the large surface of the multifolded crenulated zone could effectively perform the respiration function.” Fedonkin considered these circumpedal respiratorial folds as “possible predecessor of the ctenidia” (meaning, feathery gills) in aquatic mollusks.
Even though there are indeed no traces of respiratory organs preserved in any of the Kimberella fossils, such gills were proposed by Ivantsov (2009, 2012) as possibly attached to the scallops along the frilled margin, similar to the serially repeated gills in the Cambrian stem mollusk Odontogriphus (Butterfield 2006) and in the circumpedal mantle cavity of primitive living mollusks (Serialia) (Stöger et al. 2013). However, Ivantsov also mentioned the alternative possibility that gas exchange occurred across the general body surface. Likewise, Seilacher & Hagadorn (2010) concurred with Fedonkin et al. (2007b) and Trusler et al. (2007) that “the serial impressions between the foot and the cap probably correspond to flap- or gill-like structures … as in modern chitons and Neopilina, and in the Cambrian Odontogriphus from the Burgess Shale.”
However, all this is of course mere speculation in the absence of any conclusive empirical evidence.
Digestive System
Dzik (2003) mentioned that “the most prominent aspect of Kimberella fossils is a voluminous depression in their center” and proposed that “the most likely interpretation is that this was a gut content.” This median groove indeed was generally interpreted as simple digestive tract and pharynx (Fedonkin et al. 2007b, Knoll 2011, Vinther 2015). A notable exception was Seilacher (1999), who thought that “the deep cleft along the midline of the foot is clearly a secondary feature” related to the burial process and fossilization as ventral death mask (Gehling 1999). Gehling et al. (2014) concurred that the median keel or grove, which is most prominent in smaller specimens, most likely corresponds to a “flexible, unmineralized outer integument.” Déjà-vu, anyone?
Feeding Apparatus
Many authors have suggested that the tapered end of Kimberella corresponded to a kind of proboscis as a feeding apparatus. The alignment between the feeding traces and the tapered “open” end of the body with the assumed proboscis clearly suggests that this was the anterior (oral) end with the pharynx.
Based on the trace fossil evidence, Ivantsov & Fedonkin (2001b) and Fedonkin (2001, 2003) first speculated that the “feeding tracks may reflect the work of the proboscis that bears the hook-like organs on its end.” Fedonkin (2003) thought that a comparison of the body size of Kimberella and of the size and pattern of the feeding traces suggests that the hypothetical proboscis could be extended as long as the whole body of Kimberella, and that there were two sharp teeth at its end. Seilacher et al. (2003, 2005) also speculated that Kimberella was a stationary grazer that repeatedly fed with a long proboscis. Dzik (2003) mentioned that “in all well preserved specimens of Kimberella there is a distinctly delimited narrower part of the proposed gut, perhaps representing a muscular oesophagus or even evertible proboscis.”
Gehling (1996) and Gehling et al. (2005: fig. 12) were the first to clearly document actual fossil evidence for such an extensible head or everted proboscis at the anterior end of the Kimberella animal. Years later, Gehling et al. (2014: fig. 7) featured more specimens with an everted proboscis, which is never longer than about a fourth of the remaining body length, thus not as long as Seilacher & Hagadorn (2010) and others had speculated. The fact that in most specimens this proboscis is not visible was inferred by these authors “to be a result of its retraction within the circumference of the body,” but this is completely ad hoc.
This proboscis was described in detail by Fedonkin et al. (2007b), who also described a pair of bag-like structures lateral at the base of the proboscis (and thus the assumed pharynx) at the anterior end of the body, which they interpreted as oesophageal pouches or “pharyngeal glands (comparable with those found in many extant molluscs)” (Fedonkin et al. 2007b: fig. 15; also see: Ivantsov 2009: pl. 1 figs 7-8, Vinther et al. 2012, Vinther 2015: fig. 3E). Fedonkin suggested that the feeding traces were “left by a solitary conjugate pair of teeth located at the end of a long proboscis that stretched far forward beyond the main body” (Ivantsov & Fedonkin 2001b, Fedonkin 2003, Fedonkin & Vickers-Rich 2007, Fedonkin et al. 2007b).
In the paper by Fedonkin et al. (2007b) an alternative interpretation by co-author Ivantsov is mentioned: “instead of an elongate proboscis, there could have been a rather wide feeding organ, which could spread like a fan. Equipped with numerous teeth this organ scratched a large surface area of the sea floor in one simultaneous sweep.” However, Fedonkin et al. concluded that “mechanical constraints and the absence of morphological evidence do not allow us to accept this model.” Ivantsov (2009) likewise claimed that the very flexible organism, which must have lacked a hard shell, made a long proboscis unnecessary. Indeed, no such long proboscis is visible in any of the fossil specimens. His alternative view was further elaborated by Ivantsov (2010b, 2012, 2013), who claimed that: “The mobile animal with a long, flexible proboscis freely bending in all directions should leave more chaotic traces. This implies that the animal got deeper into the mat using a larger structure with several teeth and limited ability for lateral bending, rather than separate teeth located at the end of the flexible proboscis. Such a structure was most likely represented by the entire anterior part of the Kimberella body together with a large head, which was able to extend and widen (Ivantsov, 2009, 2010, 2011).” He suggested that the tooth battery was folded on both sides of the pharynx, and that the expandable spatulate head was at least partly retracted in the fossil specimens. Nevertheless, Ivantsov (2013) admitted that his hypothesis could not explain the distinct pairs of ridges in the trace fossils. In his most recent paper, Ivantsov et al. (2019) apparently addressed this problem and now says that “the head of Kimberella was wide and spatulate in a straightened state, and it bore two or more sclerotic teeth.”
Other authors have added various further speculations about this feeding apparatus.
Trusler et al. (2007) warned that “instead of an elongate proboscis bearing only a pair of resistant structures, Kimberella may have possessed a much more complex ‘radular’ morphology, again analogous to that present in monoplacophorans …, which did not require a lengthy extension of the feeding organ. In fact, it may well be that the feeding structure was entirely beneath the organism or only slightly extended when it ‘farmed’ the microbial mat and its contents, and only protruded beyond the main body in death when compressed.” However, this view is contradicted by the fact that the only known resting trace does not overlap with the surrounding feeding traces (see below).
Seilacher & Hagadorn (2010) suggested that “hydrostatics and muscles likely operated this extendable and flexible proboscis. … Hypothetically, such a proboscis could have handed food particles to a proximally situated mouth, in the mode of an elephant’s trunk or the antennae of the amphipod Corophium. Alternatively, and more likely, the mouth was at the very tip of the proboscis, with radular teeth delivering their crop directly into the esophagus.”
Grazhdankin (2014) added that “the retractable anterior end of Kimberella quadrata possessed a peculiar sagittate structure …, which, at least superficially, is remarkably similar to individual representatives of the genera Parvancorina and Temnoxa.” which are both problematic Ediacaran organisms of uncertain affinity.
Budd & Jensen (2017) correctly remarked that the production of the fan-shaped scratch marks “would have required a very long introvert in order to create the observed pattern, and this has not been seen.” Therefore, they concluded that “considerable uncertainty remains as to how the scratches were formed and by what type of device.” I fear this is a fair characterization.
For those scientists, who believe that the teeth of Kimberella were really homologous to a molluscan radula (e.g., Seilacher 1999, Caron et al. 2006, Seilacher & Hagadorn 2010, Vinther et al. 2012, Stöger et al. 2013), there is another fundamental problem: the apparatus is postulated at the end of an everted tubular proboscis (Gehling et al. 2005), which is never the case in mollusks and would rather resemble the introvert in scalidophoran nemathelminths (Cephalorhyncha) (Budd & Jensen 2017). However, the worm-like body plan of such nemathelminths like Priapulida does not agree with the morphology seen in Kimberella (Gehling et al. 2014).
Finally, another severe problem remains: even though many of the fossil specimens from the White Sea region are quite well-preserved, there is not a single one that clearly shows a toothed radula-like organ. However, in two specimens (figured by Fedonkin et al. 2007b: fig. 15j, Ivantsov 2009: figs 2c and pl. 1 fig. 6, 2010b: pl. 1 figs 4-5, 2013: pl. II figs 1-2, and 2017: fig. 2-2) there is a series of deep grooves near the end of the short proboscis, which may or may not correspond to teeth. Actually, in my view their structure does not fit well with the bifid pattern of the Kimberichnus traces, and Gehling et al. (2014) had similar reservations. Budd & Jensen (2017) mentioned that these grooves look very similar to structures at the posterior end of the body, which were interpreted by Ivantsov as evidence for longitudinal muscles. Ivantsov explained the general absence of imprints of teeth as an artifact of preservation, based on their covering by the muscular part of the head and the dense “mantle,” but of course this is just another ad hoc hypothesis.
Thus, as in most other structures of Kimberella the interpretation of the feeding apparatus turns out to be very controversial: Was there a long or a short proboscis, or no proboscis at all but a broad expandable head? Was there a pair of large teeth, or two sets of small teeth, or no teeth at all? Were the paired bag-like structure muscles, or glands, or something else entirely? Fossils often leave much room for very different interpretations of relatively poor evidence, so that paleontologists always should be very careful not to stack elaborate hypotheses like a house of cards, which of course happens anyway and even quite often so.
Next, “Kimberella — Controversial Scratch Marks.”


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-09-14--Human Blood Flow — A Darwinian Explanation?

On a classic episode of ID the Future , physician Howard Glicksman explains the hugely complex blood flow systems required @ @ @ @ @ alive even while doing everything from gymnastics to simply getting up in the morning .
@ @ @ @ @ to it here .
There are various methods the heart and blood vessels use to @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s also about hormones and nervous-system signaling .
Does Darwinism provide a @ @ @ @ @ intricately coordinated system ?
Dr. Glicksman argues that it does not , and that a @ @ @ @ @ design .

Photo credit: Eugene Lim, via Unsplash.
On a classic episode of ID the Future, physician Howard Glicksman explains the hugely complex blood flow systems required to keep us clear-headed and alive even while doing everything from gymnastics to simply getting up in the morning. Download the podcast or listen to it here.
There are various methods the heart and blood vessels use to keep the body properly supplied. It’s also about hormones and nervous-system signaling. Does Darwinism provide a satisfactory explanation for such an intricately coordinated system? Dr. Glicksman argues that it does not, and that a far better explanation is intelligent design.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-09-14--Tour, Meyer: Some Very Hard Problems Facing Origin-of-Life Research

On a new episode of ID the Future , James Tour and Stephen Meyer begin a discussion of the hard @ @ @ @ @ discover how the first life could have come about naturalistically .
Meyer is director of @ @ @ @ @ Culture ; Tour is a world-renowned chemist at Rice University with over 700 research publications @ @ @ @ @ recognized by Thomson Reuters in 2014 as among “ The World ’ s Most Influential @ @ @ @ @ podcast or listen to it here .
Though Professor Tour doesn ’ t sign on @ @ @ @ @ says he ’ s sympathetic to the idea , and certainly not impressed by any @ @ @ @ @ of life .
In today ’ s episode he and Tour explore problems ranging from @ @ @ @ @ protein assembly , to what precisely has gone missing in the nanosecond when a cell @ @

Image credit: Arek Socha, via Pixabay.
On a new episode of ID the Future, James Tour and Stephen Meyer begin a discussion of the hard problems facing researchers trying to discover how the first life could have come about naturalistically. Meyer is director of the Center for Science & Culture; Tour is a world-renowned chemist at Rice University with over 700 research publications and multiple major awards, recognized by Thomson Reuters in 2014 as among “The World’s Most Influential Scientific Minds.” Download the podcast or listen to it here.
Though Professor Tour doesn’t sign on to ID theory, he says he’s sympathetic to the idea, and certainly not impressed by any naturalistic explanations for the origin of life. In today’s episode he and Tour explore problems ranging from the extreme improbabilities associated with protein assembly, to what precisely has gone missing in the nanosecond when a cell dies. The episode is excerpted from a longer interview Dr. Tour conducted with Dr. Meyer as part of his excellent new video series, The Science & Faith Podcast: Follow the Evidence.