evolutionnewsandviews--2020-03-30--What Astrobiology Teaches about the Origin of Life

Editor ’ s note : As an alternative to what you are getting everywhere else now in the media , Evolution News is proud to offer inspiration , pointing to purpose and meaning in life .
The profoundest mystery and thus the deepest inspiration is life itself .
Discovery Institute Press has just published a greatly expanded edition of the 1984 classic of intelligent design science literature , The Mystery of Life ’ s Origin .
Below is an excerpt adapted from a brand new chapter in the book .
Dr. Gonzalez , the author of the chapter , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Science & Culture .
He received his PhD in Astronomy from the University of Washington and is a world-class expert on the astrophysical requirements for planetary habitability .
The modern era of astrobiology research began in 1995–96 with two momentous events : the discovery of the first planet around another Sun-like star ( October 1995 ) and the announcement of evidence of ancient Martian life in the meteorite ALH84001 ( July 1996 ) .
While the case for Martian life has not fared well in the intervening years , the field of exoplanetary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be sure , there were astrobiologists before astrobiology became a “ thing.
” For example , as Jonathan Wells helpfully reviews in his chapter on the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment , geophysicists and geochemists chimed in on the composition of the early Earth ’ s atmosphere to evaluate the plausibility of the experiment .
But the field of astrobiology leapt into prominence after the discoveries of 1995–1996 , as the exciting prospect of being able to address the topic of life in the universe scientifically caused many scientists — myself included — to bring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ field .
One of the main areas of research within astrobiology is the problem of the origin of life .
It attracts scientists with backgrounds in astronomy , biochemistry , chemistry , geology , and atmospheric physics .
Most astrobiologists working in this area are focused on the more narrow question of the origin of life on Earth .
In the following I will explore the current state of origin-of-life research from the perspective of astrobiology .
I will review recent literature on the time window available for the origin of life on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the origin of life on other worlds in the solar system , and then end with a discussion of panspermia .
Time Window for the Origin of Life on Earth In 1953 Harold Urey and Stanley Miller sought to create some of the simplest building blocks of life from a mix of gases they believed to have dominated in the early Earth ’ s atmosphere .
The assumed setting was a “ warm little pond ” at some indeterminate time soon after Earth ’ s formation .
Geological dates were not well known @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but this situation has much improved in the intervening years .
The Age of the Solar System The age of the solar system is well dated at 4.5682 +/- 0.0003 billion years from radiometric analyses of primitive meteorites .
Theoretical stellar evolutionary models of the Sun applied to its present observed properties yields an age of 4.569 to 4.587 billion years , depending on the model used .
These estimates set a hard limit on the earliest date for the origin of life in the solar system .
The oldest dated rocks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Earth ’ s active geological and hydrological cycles have severely altered rocks from the Hadean ( the period prior to ~4 billion years ago ) .
However , tiny but tough zircon crystals can survive the violent geologic upheavals that destroy other rocks and crystals .
What ’ s more , individual major geological events can cause zircons to grow rings , like a tree .
Zircons have been described as “ time capsules , ” preserving in a datable time-ordered manner some of the earliest geologic events in Earth ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( from Western Australia ) has an age of 4.374 +/- 0.006 billion years .
The evidence from zircons has pushed back the period in the Hadean when Earth ’ s surface was a hot molten magma sea to before ~4.4 billion years ago .
Given this , the “ cool early Earth ” theory has displaced the earlier view that Earth could not have been habitable prior to about 3.8 billion years ago , after which the bombardment from asteroids and comets declined from its prior high rate .
The evidence from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continents and oceans as early as ~4.4 billion years ago .
The oldest undisputed fossil evidence for life dates to 3.47 billion years ago .
Less convincing fossil and isotopic evidence dates back to 3.7 billion years ago .
Given the extreme rarity and alteration of rocks from this period , it is difficult to place a firm date on the first life on Earth .
It is possible that there is no surviving evidence anywhere on Earth of our planet ’ s first life .
But there may be evidence on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mystery of Life ’ s Origin : The Continuing Controversy , from Discovery Institute Press .

Editor’s note: As an alternative to what you are getting everywhere else now in the media, Evolution News is proud to offer inspiration, pointing to purpose and meaning in life. The profoundest mystery and thus the deepest inspiration is life itself. Discovery Institute Press has just published a greatly expanded edition of the 1984 classic of intelligent design science literature, The Mystery of Life’s Origin. Below is an excerpt adapted from a brand new chapter in the book. Dr. Gonzalez, the author of the chapter, is a Senior Fellow with the Center for Science & Culture. He received his PhD in Astronomy from the University of Washington and is a world-class expert on the astrophysical requirements for planetary habitability.
The modern era of astrobiology research began in 1995–96 with two momentous events: the discovery of the first planet around another Sun-like star (October 1995) and the announcement of evidence of ancient Martian life in the meteorite ALH84001 (July 1996). While the case for Martian life has not fared well in the intervening years, the field of exoplanetary research has exploded with discoveries.
To be sure, there were astrobiologists before astrobiology became a “thing.” For example, as Jonathan Wells helpfully reviews in his chapter on the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment, geophysicists and geochemists chimed in on the composition of the early Earth’s atmosphere to evaluate the plausibility of the experiment. But the field of astrobiology leapt into prominence after the discoveries of 1995–1996, as the exciting prospect of being able to address the topic of life in the universe scientifically caused many scientists — myself included — to bring their specialties to bear on this new field.
One of the main areas of research within astrobiology is the problem of the origin of life. It attracts scientists with backgrounds in astronomy, biochemistry, chemistry, geology, and atmospheric physics. Most astrobiologists working in this area are focused on the more narrow question of the origin of life on Earth.
In the following I will explore the current state of origin-of-life research from the perspective of astrobiology. I will review recent literature on the time window available for the origin of life on Earth, examine proposed scenarios, discuss the origin of life on other worlds in the solar system, and then end with a discussion of panspermia.
Time Window for the Origin of Life on Earth
In 1953 Harold Urey and Stanley Miller sought to create some of the simplest building blocks of life from a mix of gases they believed to have dominated in the early Earth’s atmosphere. The assumed setting was a “warm little pond” at some indeterminate time soon after Earth’s formation. Geological dates were not well known at the time of the Miller-Urey experiment, but this situation has much improved in the intervening years.
The Age of the Solar System
The age of the solar system is well dated at 4.5682 +/- 0.0003 billion years from radiometric analyses of primitive meteorites. Theoretical stellar evolutionary models of the Sun applied to its present observed properties yields an age of 4.569 to 4.587 billion years, depending on the model used. These estimates set a hard limit on the earliest date for the origin of life in the solar system.
Evidence from Rocks on Earth
The oldest dated rocks on Earth are 4.03 billion years old. Earth’s active geological and hydrological cycles have severely altered rocks from the Hadean (the period prior to ~4 billion years ago). However, tiny but tough zircon crystals can survive the violent geologic upheavals that destroy other rocks and crystals. What’s more, individual major geological events can cause zircons to grow rings, like a tree. Zircons have been described as “time capsules,” preserving in a datable time-ordered manner some of the earliest geologic events in Earth’s history. The oldest well-dated zircon crystal (from Western Australia) has an age of 4.374 +/- 0.006 billion years. The evidence from zircons has pushed back the period in the Hadean when Earth’s surface was a hot molten magma sea to before ~4.4 billion years ago. Given this, the “cool early Earth” theory has displaced the earlier view that Earth could not have been habitable prior to about 3.8 billion years ago, after which the bombardment from asteroids and comets declined from its prior high rate. The evidence from the zircons also implies the presence of continents and oceans as early as ~4.4 billion years ago.
The oldest undisputed fossil evidence for life dates to 3.47 billion years ago. Less convincing fossil and isotopic evidence dates back to 3.7 billion years ago. Given the extreme rarity and alteration of rocks from this period, it is difficult to place a firm date on the first life on Earth. It is possible that there is no surviving evidence anywhere on Earth of our planet’s first life.
But there may be evidence on the Moon.
Read the rest in The Mystery of Life’s Origin: The Continuing Controversy, from Discovery Institute Press.
Photo: Meteorite ALH84001 from Mars, by TK.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-03-29--An Artist Examines Evolution

An Artist Examines Evolution

Merion West is an online news source that dubs itself “ a journal where all perspectives are welcome.
” They tout the fact that they have been rated by Media Bias/Fact Check as a “ Least Biased ” source .
Generally , their articles seem to have deeper analysis than you will find in much of the mainstream media .
For example , recent headlines include , “ The Fraught Relationship Between Religion and Epidemiology , ” “ The Critics of ‘ Social Justice , ’ from Jonah Goldberg to Jordan Peterson , ” and “ Hannah Arendt ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They regularly interview newsmakers , and authors often include professors in relevant fields and others well qualified to comment .
Articles are explicitly labeled by viewpoint : left , center , or right .
This makes for interesting reading .
To date , I haven ’ t seen much about evolution and intelligent design on the site , but there is a recent article entitled “ When We Oversimplify Darwin.
” I was curious to see what Merion West would say .
The article is labeled as representing a “ View from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trying to make peace between all sides .
Interestingly , the author , artist Chris Augusta , acknowledges that there is scientific debate over evolutionary theory .
That ’ s a plus .
The article links to last year ’ s Hoover Institution-sponsored discussion “ Mathematical Challenges to Darwin ’ s Theory of Evolution ” among Stephen Meyer , David Gelernter , and David Berlinski , led by Peter Robinson , and to a Socrates in the City conversation between Dr. Meyer and Eric Metaxas .
Augusta argues that Darwin was confused about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t come to firm conclusions regarding the existence of a designer or a central role for chance .
Augusta , whose website includes some weird and spooky “ Art of Evolution , ” advocates for “ paradoxical reality ” : I find this conclusion absurd .
Darwin clearly derived from his theory a materialistic view of the world .
He wrote in his Autobiography , “ There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection , than in the course which the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the result of fixed laws.
” For Darwin , this had sinister implications .
In a poignant Evolution News article , science historian Michael Flannery noted , “ Writing to William Graham ( 1839-1911 ) on July 3 , 1881 , Darwin saw the march of human progress in blatantly racist terms .
Civilization would advance even at the cost of inevitable racial extermination.
” Darwin wrote : Lastly I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilisation than you seem inclined to admit .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ran , not so many centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the Turks , and how ridiculous such an idea now is .
The more civilised so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence .
Looking to the world at no very distant date , what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilised races throughout the world .
We may dispute what Darwin felt or thought in the privacy of his study — but the bulk of his writings fall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ naturalism .
Why else would atheist Daniel Dennett have written that Darwinism was a “ universal acid ” that “ eats through just about every traditional concept ” ?
Dennett was not wrong .
That does not sound too “ paradoxical ” to me .
Augusta says poets too grapple with this “ paradoxical reality ” and then goes on to liken science to poetry .
He offers comfort to those who , unlike Darwin and poets , are “ intimidated ” by paradox — but gently points out that our insistence on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ atheism à la Percy Shelley is childlike .
Pardon me , Augusta , I think I might vomit .
Needless to say , poetry is very different from science .
It operates by entirely different rules .
We don ’ t let poets ( or artists ) make rules for us ; I don ’ t think they were consulted about how to respond to the coronavirus .
Poets and artists don ’ t have that kind of power , and it ’ s probably a good thing .
As part of his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ universe is better described as creative than created.
” Really ?
Actually , let ’ s take a look at that whole paragraph : This materialistic Darwinism has dominated for more than a century-and-a-half , but its own explanatory power may be waning .
Proponents of Intelligent Design insist that the very complexity of life can not be explained by essentially random mechanistic processes .
But Intelligent Design is perhaps a poor choice of words that tends to shift attention away from the thing ( or event ) observed to some pre-existing designer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the notion of an Intelligent Designer to acknowledge the existence of order and pattern in nature .
The universe may be apprehended , as it was by Albert Einstein among many others , as embodying intelligence insofar as the human mind can apprehend order and harmony .
For Einstein , doing science was nothing less than an attempt to understand this intelligence .
Sticking to what we actually experience , the universe is better described as creative rather than created .
I am at a loss .
In what way is the universe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have mounted strained defenses against the evidence of cosmic design .
But the multiverse hypothesis is bankrupt — truly a fantasy .
String theory is a delusional apparition .
Stephen Meyer ’ s forthcoming The Return of the God Hypothesis makes these things clear .
Augusta seeks to encourage tolerance and agreement .
What he has written , though , is a mess .
I ’ m baffled to see that Merion West thinks this is “ centrist .
”

Merion West is an online news source that dubs itself “a journal where all perspectives are welcome.” They tout the fact that they have been rated by Media Bias/Fact Check as a “Least Biased” source.
Generally, their articles seem to have deeper analysis than you will find in much of the mainstream media. For example, recent headlines include, “The Fraught Relationship Between Religion and Epidemiology,” “The Critics of ‘Social Justice,’ from Jonah Goldberg to Jordan Peterson,” and “Hannah Arendt’s Concept of ‘Impotent Bigness.’” They regularly interview newsmakers, and authors often include professors in relevant fields and others well qualified to comment.
Left, Center, or Right
Articles are explicitly labeled by viewpoint: left, center, or right. This makes for interesting reading. To date, I haven’t seen much about evolution and intelligent design on the site, but there is a recent article entitled “When We Oversimplify Darwin.” I was curious to see what Merion West would say. The article is labeled as representing a “View from the Center.”
It is too concerned with trying to make peace between all sides. Interestingly, the author, artist Chris Augusta, acknowledges that there is scientific debate over evolutionary theory. That’s a plus. The article links to last year’s Hoover Institution-sponsored discussion “Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution” among Stephen Meyer, David Gelernter, and David Berlinski, led by Peter Robinson, and to a Socrates in the City conversation between Dr. Meyer and Eric Metaxas.
“Paradoxical Reality”
Augusta argues that Darwin was confused about the nature of reality and didn’t come to firm conclusions regarding the existence of a designer or a central role for chance. Augusta, whose website includes some weird and spooky “Art of Evolution,” advocates for “paradoxical reality”:
Charles Darwin, that greatest of empiricists, bears witness to the raw spectacle of paradoxical nature. He sees clearly manifestations of design, and he sees clearly manifestations of chance. Reading Darwin’s letters to Asa Gray reveals a man transfixed by the blinding spectacle of contrary forces. Darwin is a deer in the headlights: He can’t move forward; he can’t move backward.
I find this conclusion absurd. Darwin clearly derived from his theory a materialistic view of the world. He wrote in his Autobiography, “There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows. Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws.” For Darwin, this had sinister implications. In a poignant Evolution News article, science historian Michael Flannery noted, “Writing to William Graham (1839-1911) on July 3, 1881, Darwin saw the march of human progress in blatantly racist terms. Civilization would advance even at the cost of inevitable racial extermination.” Darwin wrote:
Lastly I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilisation than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risks the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is. The more civilised so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilised races throughout the world.
Dennett Was Not Wrong
We may dispute what Darwin felt or thought in the privacy of his study — but the bulk of his writings fall clearly into advocating for one perspective: naturalism. Why else would atheist Daniel Dennett have written that Darwinism was a “universal acid” that “eats through just about every traditional concept”? Dennett was not wrong. That does not sound too “paradoxical” to me.
Augusta says poets too grapple with this “paradoxical reality” and then goes on to liken science to poetry. He offers comfort to those who, unlike Darwin and poets, are “intimidated” by paradox — but gently points out that our insistence on resolving these paradoxes through Christianity or militant atheism à la Percy Shelley is childlike. Pardon me, Augusta, I think I might vomit.
Needless to say, poetry is very different from science. It operates by entirely different rules. We don’t let poets (or artists) make rules for us; I don’t think they were consulted about how to respond to the coronavirus. Poets and artists don’t have that kind of power, and it’s probably a good thing.
As part of his closing, Augusta notes that “the universe is better described as creative than created.” Really? Actually, let’s take a look at that whole paragraph:
This materialistic Darwinism has dominated for more than a century-and-a-half, but its own explanatory power may be waning. Proponents of Intelligent Design insist that the very complexity of life cannot be explained by essentially random mechanistic processes. But Intelligent Design is perhaps a poor choice of words that tends to shift attention away from the thing (or event) observed to some pre-existing designer. You do not have to introduce the notion of an Intelligent Designer to acknowledge the existence of order and pattern in nature. The universe may be apprehended, as it was by Albert Einstein among many others, as embodying intelligence insofar as the human mind can apprehend order and harmony. For Einstein, doing science was nothing less than an attempt to understand this intelligence. Sticking to what we actually experience, the universe is better described as creative rather than created.
This Is Centrist?
I am at a loss. In what way is the universe creative? To be sure, materialists have mounted strained defenses against the evidence of cosmic design. But the multiverse hypothesis is bankrupt — truly a fantasy. String theory is a delusional apparition. Stephen Meyer’s forthcoming The Return of the God Hypothesis makes these things clear.
Augusta seeks to encourage tolerance and agreement. What he has written, though, is a mess. I’m baffled to see that Merion West thinks this is “centrist.”
Photo credit: JJ Ying via Unsplash.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-03-28--Wesley J. Smith on the March for Science and Rights Gone Wild

On a classic episode of ID the Future , hear Discovery Institute Senior Fellow Wesley J. Smith ’ s talk @ @ @ @ @ Discovery and the Heritage Foundation : “ March for Science or March for Scientism ?
@ @ @ @ @ Science in America.
” Listen in as he discusses how science has been conflated with @ @ @ @ @ animal and plant rights .
Download the podcast or listen to it here .
Photo @ @ @ @ @ the “ March for Science or March for Scientism ?
Understanding the Real Threats to @ @ @ @ @ ( screenshot ) .

On a classic episode of ID the Future, hear Discovery Institute Senior Fellow Wesley J. Smith’s talk at an event hosted by Discovery and the Heritage Foundation: “March for Science or March for Scientism? Understanding the Real Threats to Science in America.” Listen in as he discusses how science has been conflated with ethics, and talks about animal and plant rights. Download the podcast or listen to it here.
Photo: Wesley Smith speaking at the “March for Science or March for Scientism? Understanding the Real Threats to Science in America” event (screenshot).


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-03-27--More Hints of Order in the Genome

More Hints of Order in the Genome

Genomics has come a long way since the central dogma ( the notion that DNA is the master controller that calls all the shots ) and junk DNA ( the expectation that much of the genome is non-functional ) .
If scientists ditch those old dogmas and approach the genome expecting to find reasons for things , they often do .
To-may-to or to-mah-to ?
The British write flavour ; the Americans write flavor , but generally each understands the other without too much difficulty .
Genomes , too , have alternate ways of spelling things : GGU and GGC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ No big deal , thought geneticists ; these “ silent ” mutations cause no change in the resulting protein .
At the University of Notre Dame , however , biochemists are finding that the differences in spelling are not just background noise ; they alter the protein ’ s folding .
Is that good or bad ?
Surely many of these mutations are harmful , as are random mutations in humans that cause genetic disease .
But E. coli has been around for a long time .
Wouldn ’ t the species have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of defective spellings if they are always deleterious ?
Other work has suggested a “ secret code ” in synonymous variations that fine-tunes expression rates or regulates the supply of a given protein based on environmental conditions .
The news release only mentions impairments caused by synonymous variations , but Notre Dame team ’ s paper in PNAS suggests some possible advantages : A design perspective would consider every possible function before rendering a judgment that all synonymous variations reduce fitness .
Keeping the genome accurate to a high degree preserves it from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the time of cell division , proofreading enzymes ( what a concept ! )
perform this vital function .
Chelsea R. Bulock et al.
, writing in PNAS , have found one duplication enzyme that proofreads itself while proofreading its partner !
“ DNA polymerase δ proofreads errors made by DNA polymerase ε , ” the paper is titled .
In other words , Polδ is a proofreader of a proofreader .
The paper says that Polδ is a “ versatile extrinsic proofreading enzyme.
” One could think of it as a supervisor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or better yet , as an auditor or inspector able to fix errors before they cause harm to the product .
Why would this be necessary during replication ?
The authors see a seniority system : One proofreader is amazing to consider “ evolving ” by a Darwinian mechanism .
A proofreader of a proofreader is astonishing .
Consider , too , that this proofreading operation occurs in the dark by feel , automatically , without eyes to see .
Now that genetics is long past the heady days of finding that DNA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ additional discoveries continue to show additional “ codes ” and factors that contribute to genomic function .
One factor is the high-order structure of DNA .
Researchers at South Korea ’ s UNIST center have explored further into the formation of this structure , which involves chromatin wrapping around histone proteins so that long strands of DNA can fit within the compact space of the cell nucleus .
As with everything else in genomics , the structure doesn ’ t just happen .
It requires a lot of help .
Cryo-EM imaging allowed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of some of these chaperone proteins .
Their paper in Nature Communications begins , “ The fundamental unit of chromatin , the nucleosome , is an intricate structure that requires histone chaperones for assembly.
” Their cryo-EM images of one particular chaperone named Abo1 reveals a six-fold symmetry with precise locations for docking to histones , its hexameric ring “ thus creating a unique pocket where histones could bind ” with energy from ATP .
“ Not only is Abo1 distinct as a histone chaperone , ” they write , “ but Abo1 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ AAA+ protein structures.
” Like Lego blocks , Abo1 features “ tight knob-and-hole packing of individual subunits ” plus linkers and other binding sites , such as for ATP .
And unlike static blocks , these blocks undergo conformational changes as they work .
Such sophistication is far beyond the old picture of DNA as a master molecule directing all the work .
It couldn ’ t work without the help of many precision machines like this .
More Samples from the Literature These stories are mere samples from a vast and growing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than expected .
Here are some more samples readers may wish to investigate : Researchers at the University of Seville found additional factors involved in the repair of DNA strand breaks .
These repairs are essential for the maintenance of genome integrity .
The factors they discovered help maintain the right tension in cohesin molecules that hold the chromosomes together until the right time to separate .
The news was relayed by EurekAlert !
and published in Nature Communications .
Remember Paley ’ s Watch ?
Researchers at the University of Basel discovered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the time for cell division in bacteria.
” In PNAS and in Nature Communications , the Basel team elucidates the structure and function of a small signaling molecule that starts the “ clock , ” which then informs the cell about the right time to reproduce .
They report in the news release : Proteins must fold properly to perform their functions .
Small proteins usually fold successfully on their own , but large ones can fall into several misfolding traps that are equally likely as the canonical fold .
It appears that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a gene has something to do with this .
“ Interestingly , many of these proteins ’ sequences contain conserved rare codons that may slow down synthesis at this optimal window , ” explain Amir Bitran et al .
in a January 21 paper in PNAS , discovering that “ Cotranslational folding ” ( i.e.
, folding that begins as the polypeptide exits the ribosome ) “ allows misfolding-prone proteins to circumvent deep kinetic traps.
” Design advocates and evolutionists need to fathom what they are dealing with when discussing origins .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ detail to put the challenge in perspective .
Image credit : Caulobacter crescentus , by University of Basel , Swiss Nanoscience Institute/Biozentrum , via EurekAlert !

Genomics has come a long way since the central dogma (the notion that DNA is the master controller that calls all the shots) and junk DNA (the expectation that much of the genome is non-functional). If scientists ditch those old dogmas and approach the genome expecting to find reasons for things, they often do.
Synonymous Mutations
To-may-to or to-mah-to? The British write flavour; the Americans write flavor, but generally each understands the other without too much difficulty. Genomes, too, have alternate ways of spelling things: GGU and GGC in messenger RNA both spell glycine. No big deal, thought geneticists; these “silent” mutations cause no change in the resulting protein. At the University of Notre Dame, however, biochemists are finding that the differences in spelling are not just background noise; they alter the protein’s folding. Is that good or bad?
“Synonymous mutations were long considered to be genomic background noise, but we found they do indeed lead to altered protein folding, and in turn impair cell function,” said Patricia Clark, the Rev. John Cardinal O’Hara professor of biochemistry at the University of Notre Dame, and lead author of the study. “Our results show that synonymous variations in our DNA sequences — which account for most of our genetic variation — can have a significant impact on shaping the fitness level of cellular proteins.”
Surely many of these mutations are harmful, as are random mutations in humans that cause genetic disease. But E. coli has been around for a long time. Wouldn’t the species have gone extinct by now with the accumulation of defective spellings if they are always deleterious? Other work has suggested a “secret code” in synonymous variations that fine-tunes expression rates or regulates the supply of a given protein based on environmental conditions. The news release only mentions impairments caused by synonymous variations, but Notre Dame team’s paper in PNAS suggests some possible advantages:
Synonymous codon substitutions alter the mRNA coding sequence but preserve the encoded amino acid sequence. For this reason, these substitutions were historically considered to be phenotypically silent and often disregarded in studies of human genetic variation. In recent years, however, it has become clear that synonymous substitutions can significantly alter protein function in vivo through a wide variety of mechanisms that can change protein level, translational accuracy, secretion efficiency, the final folded structure and posttranslational modifications. The full range of synonymous codon effects on protein production is, however, still emerging, and much remains to be learned regarding the precise mechanisms that regulate these effects. [Emphasis added.]
A design perspective would consider every possible function before rendering a judgment that all synonymous variations reduce fitness.
Proofreading
Keeping the genome accurate to a high degree preserves it from collapsing due to error catastrophe. At the time of cell division, proofreading enzymes (what a concept!) perform this vital function. Chelsea R. Bulock et al., writing in PNAS, have found one duplication enzyme that proofreads itself while proofreading its partner! “DNA polymerase δ proofreads errors made by DNA polymerase ε,” the paper is titled.
Polδ and Polε are the two major replicative polymerases in eukaryotes, but their precise roles at the replication fork remain a subject of debate. A bulk of data supports a model where Polε and Polδ synthesize leading and lagging DNA strands, respectively. However, this model has been difficult to reconcile with the fact that mutations in Polδ have much stronger consequences for genome stability than equivalent mutations in Polε. We provide direct evidence for a long-entertained idea that Polδ can proofread errors made by Polε in addition to its own errors, thus, making a more prominent contribution to mutation avoidance. This paper provides an essential advance in the understanding of the mechanism of eukaryotic DNA replication.
In other words, Polδ is a proofreader of a proofreader. The paper says that Polδ is a “versatile extrinsic proofreading enzyme.” One could think of it as a supervisor checking the work of a subordinate, or better yet, as an auditor or inspector able to fix errors before they cause harm to the product. Why would this be necessary during replication? The authors see a seniority system:
Thus, the high efficiency of Polδ at correcting errors made by Polε may result from a combination of two factors: the high proclivity of Polε to yield to another polymerase and the greater flexibility and robustness of Polδ when associating with new primer termini.
One proofreader is amazing to consider “evolving” by a Darwinian mechanism. A proofreader of a proofreader is astonishing. Consider, too, that this proofreading operation occurs in the dark by feel, automatically, without eyes to see.
High-Order Structure
Now that genetics is long past the heady days of finding that DNA forms a code that is translated, additional discoveries continue to show additional “codes” and factors that contribute to genomic function. One factor is the high-order structure of DNA. Researchers at South Korea’s UNIST center have explored further into the formation of this structure, which involves chromatin wrapping around histone proteins so that long strands of DNA can fit within the compact space of the cell nucleus. As with everything else in genomics, the structure doesn’t just happen. It requires a lot of help.
Regulation of histone proteins allows the DNA strands become more tightly or loosely coiled during the processes of DNA replication and gene expression. However, problems may arise when histones clump together or when DNA strands intertwine. Indeed, the misregulation of chromatin structures could result in aberrant gene expression and can ultimately lead to developmental disorders or cancers. Histone chaperones are those proteins, responsible for adding and removing specific histones [found] at the wrong time and place during the DNA packaging process. Thus, they also play a key role in the assembly and disassembly of chromatin.
Cryo-EM imaging allowed the team to envision the molecular structure of some of these chaperone proteins. Their paper in Nature Communications begins, “The fundamental unit of chromatin, the nucleosome, is an intricate structure that requires histone chaperones for assembly.” Their cryo-EM images of one particular chaperone named Abo1 reveals a six-fold symmetry with precise locations for docking to histones, its hexameric ring “thus creating a unique pocket where histones could bind” with energy from ATP. “Not only is Abo1 distinct as a histone chaperone,” they write, “but Abo1 is also unique compared to other canonical AAA+ protein structures.” Like Lego blocks, Abo1 features “tight knob-and-hole packing of individual subunits” plus linkers and other binding sites, such as for ATP. And unlike static blocks, these blocks undergo conformational changes as they work.
Such sophistication is far beyond the old picture of DNA as a master molecule directing all the work. It couldn’t work without the help of many precision machines like this.
More Samples from the Literature
These stories are mere samples from a vast and growing literature indicating higher order in the genome than expected. Here are some more samples readers may wish to investigate:
Researchers at the University of Seville found additional factors involved in the repair of DNA strand breaks. These repairs are essential for the maintenance of genome integrity. The factors they discovered help maintain the right tension in cohesin molecules that hold the chromosomes together until the right time to separate. The news was relayed by EurekAlert! and published in Nature Communications.
Remember Paley’s Watch? Researchers at the University of Basel discovered that “Inner ‘clockwork’ sets the time for cell division in bacteria.” In PNAS and in Nature Communications, the Basel team elucidates the structure and function of a small signaling molecule that starts the “clock,” which then informs the cell about the right time to reproduce. They report in the news release:
A team at the Biozentrum of the University of Basel, led by Prof. Urs Jenal has now identified a central switch for reproduction in the model bacterium Caulobacter crescentus: the signaling molecule c-di-GMP. In their current study, published in the journal Nature Communications, they report that this molecule initiates a “clock-like” mechanism, which determines whether individual bacteria reproduce.
Proteins must fold properly to perform their functions. Small proteins usually fold successfully on their own, but large ones can fall into several misfolding traps that are equally likely as the canonical fold. It appears that the “sequence of the sequence” in a gene has something to do with this. “Interestingly, many of these proteins’ sequences contain conserved rare codons that may slow down synthesis at this optimal window,” explain Amir Bitran et al. in a January 21 paper in PNAS, discovering that “Cotranslational folding” (i.e., folding that begins as the polypeptide exits the ribosome) “allows misfolding-prone proteins to circumvent deep kinetic traps.”
Design advocates and evolutionists need to fathom what they are dealing with when discussing origins. There’s nothing like some low-level detail to put the challenge in perspective.
Image credit: Caulobacter crescentus, by University of Basel, Swiss Nanoscience Institute/Biozentrum, via EurekAlert!


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-03-27--Thermodynamic Challenges to the Origin of Life

Editor ’ s note : As an alternative to what you are getting pretty much everywhere else in the media at the moment , Evolution News is proud to offer inspiration , pointing to purpose and meaning in life .
The profoundest mystery and thus the deepest inspiration is life itself .
Discovery Institute Press has just published a greatly expanded edition of the 1984 classic of intelligent design science literature , The Mystery of Life ’ s Origin .
Below is an excerpt adapted from a brand new chapter in the book .
Dr. Miller , the author of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Center for Science & Culture .
He holds degrees in physics from MIT ( B.S . )
and Duke University ( Ph.D. ) .
The thermodynamic barriers to the origin of life have become decidedly more well defined since this book ’ s first publication .
The initial challenges described in the original edition still stand .
Namely , spontaneous natural processes always tend toward states of greater entropy , lower energy , or both .
The change of entropy and energy are often combined into the change of free energy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free energy .
However , the generation of a minimally functional cell on the ancient Earth required a local system of molecules to transition into a state of both lower entropy and higher energy .
Therefore , it must move toward dramatically higher free energy .
The chance of a system accomplishing this feat near equilibrium is astronomically small .
Many origin-of-life researchers have responded to this challenge by arguing that a system driven far from equilibrium could self-organize into a functional cell through processes that are connected to such monikers as complex @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nonequilibrium dissipative systems .
The basic hope is that some new physical principles could overcome the barriers to life ’ s origin mandated by classical thermodynamics .
However , advances in nonequilibrium thermodynamics have proven that the odds of a system driven far from equilibrium generating an autonomous cell are no greater than the odds for one near equilibrium .
Others have proposed that “ natural engines ” on the early Earth converted one form of energy into another that could drive a local system to sufficiently high free energy .
These approaches @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plausible explanation for the origin of life is intelligent agency .
Read the rest in The Mystery of Life ’ s Origin : The Continuing Controversy , from Discovery Institute Press .

Editor’s note: As an alternative to what you are getting pretty much everywhere else in the media at the moment, Evolution News is proud to offer inspiration, pointing to purpose and meaning in life. The profoundest mystery and thus the deepest inspiration is life itself. Discovery Institute Press has just published a greatly expanded edition of the 1984 classic of intelligent design science literature, The Mystery of Life’s Origin. Below is an excerpt adapted from a brand new chapter in the book. Dr. Miller, the author of the chapter, is Research Coordinator for the Center for Science & Culture. He holds degrees in physics from MIT (B.S.) and Duke University (Ph.D.).
The thermodynamic barriers to the origin of life have become decidedly more well defined since this book’s first publication. The initial challenges described in the original edition still stand. Namely, spontaneous natural processes always tend toward states of greater entropy, lower energy, or both. The change of entropy and energy are often combined into the change of free energy, and all spontaneous processes move toward lower free energy. However, the generation of a minimally functional cell on the ancient Earth required a local system of molecules to transition into a state of both lower entropy and higher energy. Therefore, it must move toward dramatically higher free energy. The chance of a system accomplishing this feat near equilibrium is astronomically small.
Many origin-of-life researchers have responded to this challenge by arguing that a system driven far from equilibrium could self-organize into a functional cell through processes that are connected to such monikers as complex systems, emergence, synergetics, or nonequilibrium dissipative systems. The basic hope is that some new physical principles could overcome the barriers to life’s origin mandated by classical thermodynamics. However, advances in nonequilibrium thermodynamics have proven that the odds of a system driven far from equilibrium generating an autonomous cell are no greater than the odds for one near equilibrium.
Others have proposed that “natural engines” on the early Earth converted one form of energy into another that could drive a local system to sufficiently high free energy. These approaches have proven equally disappointing. The only plausible explanation for the origin of life is intelligent agency.
Read the rest in The Mystery of Life’s Origin: The Continuing Controversy, from Discovery Institute Press.
Photo: An endothelial cell, by IP69.226.103.13 / CC BY-SA.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-03-26--Charles Darwin vs. Richard Owen on Race

Charles Darwin vs. Richard Owen on Race

On a new episode of ID the Future , science historian Michael Keas interviews fellow science historian and bioethicist Michael @ @ @ @ @ on Charles Darwin and arch-rival Richard Owen .
Download the podcast or listen to it @ @ @ @ @ evolutionist , too , but of a different stripe .
Unlike Darwin , he believed @ @ @ @ @ teleology or purpose , and he saw humans as different from animals not only in @ @ @ @ @ This led him to reject Darwin ’ s conclusion of a “ hierarchy of races @ @ @ @ @ Darwin ’ s expectation that the supposedly “ less fit ” races of humankind ultimately @ @ @ @ @ so-called “ superior ” white race .
Most Darwinists today aren ’ t racist , @ @ @ @ @ skids for a dubious scientific racism that became widespread , encouraging racist eugenics campaigns in @ @ @ @ @ States .
Photo : Richard Owen ( left ) ; beside him is the skeleton @ @ @ @ @ by John van Voorst [ Public domain ] .

Photo: Richard Owen (left); beside him is the skeleton of a giant moa, by John van Voorst [Public domain].
On a new episode of ID the Future, science historian Michael Keas interviews fellow science historian and bioethicist Michael Flannery about his recent article on Charles Darwin and arch-rival Richard Owen. Download the podcast or listen to it here.
Owen was an evolutionist, too, but of a different stripe. Unlike Darwin, he believed that evolution was guided by teleology or purpose, and he saw humans as different from animals not only in degree but in kind. This led him to reject Darwin’s conclusion of a “hierarchy of races,” as well as Darwin’s expectation that the supposedly “less fit” races of humankind ultimately would be exterminated by the so-called “superior” white race.
Most Darwinists today aren’t racist, but Darwinism did grease the skids for a dubious scientific racism that became widespread, encouraging racist eugenics campaigns in both Europe and the United States.
Photo: Richard Owen (left); beside him is the skeleton of a giant moa, by John van Voorst [Public domain].


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-03-26--Still Clueless about the Origin of Life

Still Clueless about the Origin of Life

Editor ’ s note : As an alternative to what you are getting pretty much everywhere else in the media at the moment , Evolution News is proud to offer inspiration , pointing to purpose and meaning in life .
The profoundest mystery and thus the deepest inspiration is life itself .
Discovery Institute Press has just published a greatly expanded edition of the 1984 classic of intelligent design science literature , The Mystery of Life ’ s Origin .
Below is an excerpt adapted from a brand new chapter in the book by distinguished Rice University synthetic organic chemist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assemblies , redox potentials across membranes , and metabolic pathways — all operating in exquisite states that we call “ life.
” Chemistry , by contrast , is utterly indifferent to whether anything is alive or not .
Without a biologically derived entity acting upon them , molecules have never been shown to “ evolve ” toward life .
Never .
While organisms exploit chemistry for their own ends , chemicals have never been seen to assemble themselves into an organism .
Origin-of-life research keeps attempting to make the chemicals needed for life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ toward something to which they are inherently indifferent .
But try as they might , without preexisting life no researchers have ever seen molecules assemble into a living cell , or anything even remotely resembling a living cell .
Contrary to the hyperbole of press reports , any synthetic molecularly derived structures that have been touted as being cell-like are in reality far from it .
This situation might change in the future , but it is unlikely to change under the current course of research .
Scientists have no data to support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The research community remains clueless .
Many scientists and professors who are outside boutique origin-of- life circles have been led astray by researchers ’ claims and the subsequent press , thinking that far more is known about life ’ s origin than really is known .
This has affected the highest seats in the academy where even some science professors confuse origin of life with biological evolution .
Like a muddy prebiotic cesspool , confusion abounds in the academy .
Two-thirds of a century since the 1952 Miller-Urey experiment , where some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ molecules and an electrical discharge , the world is no closer to generating life from small molecules — or any molecules for that matter — than it was in 1952 .
One could argue that origin-of-life research is even more befuddled now than it was in 1952 since more questions have evolved than answers , and the voluminous new data regarding the complexity within a cell makes the target much more daunting than it used to be .
Consider the Progress in Other Fields Consider what has occurred in other fields in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experiments : human space travel , satellite interconnectivity , unlocking DNA ’ s code and its precise genetic manipulation , biomedical imaging , automated peptide and nucleotide synthesis , molecular structure determination , silicon device fabrication , integrated circuits , and the Internet , to name just a few .
By comparison , origin-of-life research has not made any progress whatsoever in addressing the fundamental questions of life ’ s origin .
Two-thirds of a century and all that has been generated are more suggestions on how life might have formed — suggestions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not form .
Nothing even resembling a synthetic cellular structure has arisen from its independent components , let alone a living cell .
Not even close .
In 1775 , the French Academy in Paris refused to entertain any further proposals for perpetual motion machines ; the devices just did not work as advertised .
No one knew why not — the mature science of thermodynamics , which gave us a theoretical account for why the perpetuum mobile schemes failed , lay nearly one hundred years in the future — but the machines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ French Academy-like directive toward origin-of-life proposals ; for , like perpetual motion machines , such proposals just do not work as advertised .
Instead we should explore why scientists have failed to produce life .
Clearly life can exist — unlike perpetual motion machines , we have the ubiquity of life surrounding us on this planet .
But there needs to be a wholly different scientific approach to reveal life ’ s origin .
This is an appeal to the origin-of-life research community : Step back and consider the claims within the research @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the retarded state of the science relative to other research areas , and the confusion or delusion of the public regarding life ’ s origin .
Many researchers in origin-of-life organic synthesis are superb scientists .
However , overly confident assertions , exaggerated and spread by the over-zealous press , have led to gross public misconceptions regarding what is and is not known concerning the beginning of life .
Read the rest in The Mystery of Life ’ s Origin : The Continuing Controversy , from Discovery Institute Press .
Photo : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NASA via Wikimedia Commons .

Editor’s note: As an alternative to what you are getting pretty much everywhere else in the media at the moment, Evolution News is proud to offer inspiration, pointing to purpose and meaning in life. The profoundest mystery and thus the deepest inspiration is life itself. Discovery Institute Press has just published a greatly expanded edition of the 1984 classic of intelligent design science literature, The Mystery of Life’s Origin. Below is an excerpt adapted from a brand new chapter in the book by distinguished Rice University synthetic organic chemist James Tour.
Organisms have well-defined molecular assemblies, redox potentials across membranes, and metabolic pathways — all operating in exquisite states that we call “life.”
Chemistry, by contrast, is utterly indifferent to whether anything is alive or not. Without a biologically derived entity acting upon them, molecules have never been shown to “evolve” toward life. Never.
While organisms exploit chemistry for their own ends, chemicals have never been seen to assemble themselves into an organism. Origin-of-life research keeps attempting to make the chemicals needed for life, and then to have those assemble toward something to which they are inherently indifferent. But try as they might, without preexisting life no researchers have ever seen molecules assemble into a living cell, or anything even remotely resembling a living cell. Contrary to the hyperbole of press reports, any synthetic molecularly derived structures that have been touted as being cell-like are in reality far from it. This situation might change in the future, but it is unlikely to change under the current course of research. Scientists have no data to support molecular “evolution” leading to life. The research community remains clueless.
Led Astray by Researchers’ Claims
Many scientists and professors who are outside boutique origin-of- life circles have been led astray by researchers’ claims and the subsequent press, thinking that far more is known about life’s origin than really is known. This has affected the highest seats in the academy where even some science professors confuse origin of life with biological evolution. Like a muddy prebiotic cesspool, confusion abounds in the academy.
Two-thirds of a century since the 1952 Miller-Urey experiment, where some racemic amino acids were formed from small molecules and an electrical discharge, the world is no closer to generating life from small molecules — or any molecules for that matter — than it was in 1952. One could argue that origin-of-life research is even more befuddled now than it was in 1952 since more questions have evolved than answers, and the voluminous new data regarding the complexity within a cell makes the target much more daunting than it used to be.
Consider the Progress in Other Fields
Consider what has occurred in other fields in the past sixty-seven years since Miller-Urey performed their experiments: human space travel, satellite interconnectivity, unlocking DNA’s code and its precise genetic manipulation, biomedical imaging, automated peptide and nucleotide synthesis, molecular structure determination, silicon device fabrication, integrated circuits, and the Internet, to name just a few.
By comparison, origin-of-life research has not made any progress whatsoever in addressing the fundamental questions of life’s origin. Two-thirds of a century and all that has been generated are more suggestions on how life might have formed — suggestions that really show how life probably did not form. Nothing even resembling a synthetic cellular structure has arisen from its independent components, let alone a living cell. Not even close.
Perpetual Motion Machines
In 1775, the French Academy in Paris refused to entertain any further proposals for perpetual motion machines; the devices just did not work as advertised. No one knew why not — the mature science of thermodynamics, which gave us a theoretical account for why the perpetuum mobile schemes failed, lay nearly one hundred years in the future — but the machines clearly failed. Today we need a French Academy-like directive toward origin-of-life proposals; for, like perpetual motion machines, such proposals just do not work as advertised. Instead we should explore why scientists have failed to produce life. Clearly life can exist — unlike perpetual motion machines, we have the ubiquity of life surrounding us on this planet. But there needs to be a wholly different scientific approach to reveal life’s origin.
This is an appeal to the origin-of-life research community: Step back and consider the claims within the research, the true state of the field, the retarded state of the science relative to other research areas, and the confusion or delusion of the public regarding life’s origin. Many researchers in origin-of-life organic synthesis are superb scientists. However, overly confident assertions, exaggerated and spread by the over-zealous press, have led to gross public misconceptions regarding what is and is not known concerning the beginning of life.
Read the rest in The Mystery of Life’s Origin: The Continuing Controversy, from Discovery Institute Press.
Photo: Stanley Miller of Miller-Urey fame, by NASA via Wikimedia Commons.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-03-26--Ancestor of All Animals in 555-Million-Year-Old Ediacaran Sediments?

For my series of articles about alleged Ediacaran animals predating the Cambrian explosion there is a new candidate that deserves a closer view : New research on Ediacaran fossils was just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by a team of scientists from UC Riverside ( Evans et al .
2020 ) , and it has already made global news headlines including , “ Ancestor of all animals identified in Australian fossils ” ( University of California 2020 ) and the even more sensational , “ Fossil hunters find evidence of 555m-year-old human relative ” ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scientists discover and are their far-reaching conclusions really justified ?
The authors of this study looked at fossil layers from the National Heritage Nilpena site in the Flinders Range of South Australia , which are slightly older than those layers that yielded the typical Ediacaran macrofossils .
These 555-million-year-old layers were well-known for abundant trace fossils , especially of the Helminthoidichnites type .
Together with such trace fossils they discovered small oval impressions of a few millimeters in length , similar in size and shape to grains of rice .
The researchers used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and found that they typically have a narrower end and a broader end .
Because of this anterior-posterior differentiation and the ( albeit rare ) association with the fossil traces , the scientists considered the oval impressions to be bilaterian worms and the makers of the Helminthoidichnites traces .
Since the trace making would imply muscular mobility and sediment displacement through mouth , gut , and anus , they inferred these bilaterian features , even though they are not preserved .
They named the new taxon Ikaria wariootia after the names for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The authors speculate that Ikaria is as small and simple as it would have to be expected for a putative ancestor of bilaterian animals .
The associated unbranched meandering grooves called Helminthoidichnites are one of the most common trace fossils from the Ediacaran locality in South Australia , but with a cosmopolitan distribution at other localities of Ediacaran age , often associated with wrinkle marks of microbial mats ( Gehling & Droser 2018 ) .
Evans et al .
( 2020 ) mention that a statistical test of the size range of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ revealed a significant correlation beyond chance .
However , this only means that both were caused by an organism of similar size and growth pattern , which if applied to recent biota would result in a flood of misidentifications .
At best this allows the conclusion that the size of Ikaria would not contradict its identification as originator of the Helminthoidichnites traces , if this were supported by other evidence .
Is it ?
Actually , there is a strong hint that Ikaria is not the maker of these traces .
If it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least occasionally find Ikaria in or at the end of these traces .
However , the authors have studied 606 specimens of Helminthoidichnites and 127 specimens of Ikaria but did not find a single instance of such a direct association .
They are quite aware of the problem and try to explain it away , with the claim that we should only find this association in those rare cases where Ikaria died in its trace , and also that it would be impossible to recognize the imprint of Ikaria in the furrow of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trace-makers that died within their trace are far from unknown in paleontology and even have a special name “ mortichnia.
” A famous example are the mortichnial trackways of horseshoe crabs in Upper Jurassic limestones from Germany ( Lomax & Racay 2012 ) , or the recent discovery of the mortichnia of another alleged Ediacaran worm Yilingia spiciformis from southern China ( Chen et al .
2019 , Sullivan 2019 ) .
Furthermore , if we compare the impressions of Ikaria with the preserved Helminthoidichnites traces on the same slabs , it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ distinct and recognizable if superimposed with the traces .
Therefore , the ad hoc explanation of the authors fails to explain the lack of any direct association .
Actually , the problem is even more acute if we look at the taphonomy ( generation and fossilization ) of the Helminthoidichnites traces .
They are considered to be horizontal burrows along the seafloor , immediately beneath the bacterial mats ( “ under-mat-miners ” ) that typically covered the Ediacaran sea floor ( Fedonkin et al .
2007 , Gehling & Droser 2018 ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ sedimentological bed it seems obvious that they had to leave traces if they are preserved beneath the bacterial mats .
Where are those traces and how did the “ animals ” get there ?
This is even evidence against a crawling activity of Ikaria .
Irrespective of whether or not Ikaria did make the Helminthoidichnites traces , one could ask if those traces are not themselves powerful evidence for bilaterian burrowing activity as some authors previously suspected ( Narbonne 2005 , Fedonkin et al .
2007 , Gehling & Droser 2018 ) ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ because the Helminthoidichnites could indeed be , not animal traces at all , but simply inorganic artifacts .
The latter possibility was experimentally demonstrated for most Ediacaran “ traces ” ( including traces very similar to Helminthoidichnites ) by Mariotti et al .
( 2016 ) , who found that these traces could be exactly reproduced as folding and shrinking artifacts of stirred up bacterial mats .
Even if Helminthoidichnites should be a genuine burrowing trace of an organism , and even if Ikaria should be that organism , I suggest that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ today can cause such traces on the sea floor ( Matz et al .
2008 ) , or to an extinct specialized branch of the typical Ediacaran organisms of the coelenterate ( cnidarian ) grade , which independently acquired a worm-like habitus and burrowing lifestyle .
After all , we know that the coelenterate body plan dominated the Ediacaran fauna and might readily have filled the free niche of marine worms .
But is invoking a potential worm-like cnidarian a plausible alternative ?
After all you could postulate all kinds of unknown organisms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this alternative would only have merit if we really knew that worm-like body plans exist among cnidarians .
Lo and behold , they do .
On the one hand , cnidarians have bilateral symmetric worm-like planula larvae , of which some ( like those of Scyphozoa ) are creeping over the substrate .
But there is more : An enigmatic endoparasitic worm called Buddenbrockia plumatellae was for a long time a mystery and could not be placed in the animal system .
In the past decades evidence accumulated that it could be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Jiménez-Guri et al .
( 2007 ) .
In the abstract of their paper , “ Buddenbrockia Is a Cnidarian Worm , ” these authors concluded : “ This active muscular worm increases the known diversity in cnidarian body plans and demonstrates that a muscular , wormlike form can evolve in the absence of overt bilateral symmetry.
” In light of this discovery , unspecific worm-like fossils can no longer be considered as sufficient evidence for the presence of bilaterian animals ( this by the way may also apply to Yilingia described @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which has a unique body plan very different from annelids and arthropods ) .
This is especially true when the fossils are so poorly preserved as Ikaria , lack any complex diagnostic features that could positively identify bilaterians , and have only a dubious association with alleged feeding traces .
This does not mean that Ikaria could not be a potential bilaterian worm , but the case is far from established .
Even if the attribution should turn out to be correct , the headlines — “ Ancestor of all animals identified ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might be excused coming from ignorant popular science journalists , but that it was used in the official press release by the University of California is a shame .
Nothing in this fossil discovery allows an identification as ancestor of any other group of animals or of all animals .
Even being the oldest fossil record for Bilateria would not imply at all that it is ancestral to all animals .
It could be an extinct side branch or only ancestral to a single phylum of worm-like animals .
Evans et al .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ suggests that the bilaterian LCA was a simple , small , mobile organism with anterior/posterior differentiation and limited sensory abilities ( 44–49 ) .
Remarkably , these predictions agree closely with the characters identified here for Ikaria.
” However , such a simple worm-like habitus would fit with the ancestor of Bilateria , the ancestor of Xenacoelomorpha , the ancestor of Nephrozoa , the ancestors of Deuterostomia and of Protostomia , the ancestors of Lophotrochozoa and of Ecdysozoa , as well as the ancestors of several worm-like phyla like Platyhelminthes .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a sexy headline .
Ikaria wariootia is just another problematic Ediacaran fossil that could be anything from inorganic artifact to protozoan to cnidarian and yes , maybe a bilaterian worm .
Neither musculature , nor mouth , gut and anus , nor movement , nor mobility and a causal connection to the Helminthoidichnites traces is established by the actual fossil evidence .
Its nothing but small oval-shaped impressions in the sediment .
It is usually good paleontological practice to consider such dubious fossils as incertae sedis and not base far-reaching hypotheses on them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Yuan X et al .
2019 .
Death march of a segmented and trilobate bilaterian elucidates early animal evolution .
Nature 573 , 412–415 .
DOI : 10.1038/s41586-019-1522-7 .
• Evans SD , Hughes IV , Gehling JG & Droser ML 2020 .
Discovery of the oldest bilaterian from the Ediacaran of South Australia .
PNAS 1–5 .
DOI : 10.1073/pnas.2001045117 .
• Fedonkin MA , Gehling JG , Grey K , Narbonne GM & Vickers-Rich P 2008 .
The Rise of Animals : Evolution and Diversification of the Kingdom Animalia .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
• Gehling JG & Droser ML 2018 .
Ediacaran scavenging as a prelude to predation .
Emerging Topics in Life Sciences 2 ( 2 ) , 213–222 .
DOI : 10.1042/ETLS20170166 .
• Lomax DR & Racay CA 2012 .
A Long Mortichnial Trackway of Mesolimulus walchi from the Upper Jurassic Solnhofen Lithographic Limestone near Wintershof , Germany .
Ichnos 19 ( 3 ) , 175-183 .
DOI : 10.1080/10420940.2012.702704 .
• Narbonne GM 2005 .
The Ediacara Biota : Neoproterozoic Origin of Animals and Their Ecosystems .
Annual Review of Earth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DOI : 10.1146/annurev.earth.33.092203.122519 .
• Sullivan H 2019 .
Behold Mortichnia , the Death Trail of an Ancient Worm .
The New York Times September 4 , 2019 .
• University of California 2020 .
Ancestor of all animals identified in Australian fossils .
Phys.org March 23 , 2020 .
Photo : Impressions of Ikaria , by Droser Lab/UCR , via EurekAlert !

For my series of articles about alleged Ediacaran animals predating the Cambrian explosion there is a new candidate that deserves a closer view: New research on Ediacaran fossils was just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by a team of scientists from UC Riverside (Evans et al. 2020), and it has already made global news headlines including, “Ancestor of all animals identified in Australian fossils” (University of California 2020) and the even more sensational, “Fossil hunters find evidence of 555m-year-old human relative” (Davis 2020). What did those scientists discover and are their far-reaching conclusions really justified?
Grains of Rice
The authors of this study looked at fossil layers from the National Heritage Nilpena site in the Flinders Range of South Australia, which are slightly older than those layers that yielded the typical Ediacaran macrofossils. These 555-million-year-old layers were well-known for abundant trace fossils, especially of the Helminthoidichnites type. Together with such trace fossils they discovered small oval impressions of a few millimeters in length, similar in size and shape to grains of rice. The researchers used 3-D laser scanning to study these impressions and found that they typically have a narrower end and a broader end. Because of this anterior-posterior differentiation and the (albeit rare) association with the fossil traces, the scientists considered the oval impressions to be bilaterian worms and the makers of the Helminthoidichnites traces. Since the trace making would imply muscular mobility and sediment displacement through mouth, gut, and anus, they inferred these bilaterian features, even though they are not preserved. They named the new taxon Ikaria wariootia after the names for the type locality in the Australian Aboriginal language. The authors speculate that Ikaria is as small and simple as it would have to be expected for a putative ancestor of bilaterian animals.
The associated unbranched meandering grooves called Helminthoidichnites are one of the most common trace fossils from the Ediacaran locality in South Australia, but with a cosmopolitan distribution at other localities of Ediacaran age, often associated with wrinkle marks of microbial mats (Gehling & Droser 2018).
Evans et al. (2020) mention that a statistical test of the size range of the Helminthoidichnites traces and Ikaria body fossils revealed a significant correlation beyond chance. However, this only means that both were caused by an organism of similar size and growth pattern, which if applied to recent biota would result in a flood of misidentifications. At best this allows the conclusion that the size of Ikaria would not contradict its identification as originator of the Helminthoidichnites traces, if this were supported by other evidence. Is it? Actually, there is a strong hint that Ikaria is not the maker of these traces. If it were, we should expect to at least occasionally find Ikaria in or at the end of these traces. However, the authors have studied 606 specimens of Helminthoidichnites and 127 specimens of Ikaria but did not find a single instance of such a direct association. They are quite aware of the problem and try to explain it away, with the claim that we should only find this association in those rare cases where Ikaria died in its trace, and also that it would be impossible to recognize the imprint of Ikaria in the furrow of the trace.
A Special Name — “Mortichnia”
However, instances of trace-makers that died within their trace are far from unknown in paleontology and even have a special name “mortichnia.” A famous example are the mortichnial trackways of horseshoe crabs in Upper Jurassic limestones from Germany (Lomax & Racay 2012), or the recent discovery of the mortichnia of another alleged Ediacaran worm Yilingia spiciformis from southern China (Chen et al. 2019, Sullivan 2019). Furthermore, if we compare the impressions of Ikaria with the preserved Helminthoidichnites traces on the same slabs, it is quite obvious that they would still be distinct and recognizable if superimposed with the traces. Therefore, the ad hoc explanation of the authors fails to explain the lack of any direct association. Actually, the problem is even more acute if we look at the taphonomy (generation and fossilization) of the Helminthoidichnites traces. They are considered to be horizontal burrows along the seafloor, immediately beneath the bacterial mats (“under-mat-miners”) that typically covered the Ediacaran sea floor (Fedonkin et al. 2007, Gehling & Droser 2018). Since Ikaria is preserved on the same sedimentological bed it seems obvious that they had to leave traces if they are preserved beneath the bacterial mats. Where are those traces and how did the “animals” get there? This is even evidence against a crawling activity of Ikaria.
Evidence for Bilaterian Burrowing?
Irrespective of whether or not Ikaria did make the Helminthoidichnites traces, one could ask if those traces are not themselves powerful evidence for bilaterian burrowing activity as some authors previously suspected (Narbonne 2005, Fedonkin et al. 2007, Gehling & Droser 2018)? The answer is: Not really, because the Helminthoidichnites could indeed be, not animal traces at all, but simply inorganic artifacts. The latter possibility was experimentally demonstrated for most Ediacaran “traces” (including traces very similar to Helminthoidichnites) by Mariotti et al. (2016), who found that these traces could be exactly reproduced as folding and shrinking artifacts of stirred up bacterial mats. Even if Helminthoidichnites should be a genuine burrowing trace of an organism, and even if Ikaria should be that organism, I suggest that it belonged either to giant protists that even today can cause such traces on the sea floor (Matz et al. 2008), or to an extinct specialized branch of the typical Ediacaran organisms of the coelenterate (cnidarian) grade, which independently acquired a worm-like habitus and burrowing lifestyle. After all, we know that the coelenterate body plan dominated the Ediacaran fauna and might readily have filled the free niche of marine worms.
Lo and Behold
But is invoking a potential worm-like cnidarian a plausible alternative? After all you could postulate all kinds of unknown organisms as ad hoc explanations. Therefore, this alternative would only have merit if we really knew that worm-like body plans exist among cnidarians. Lo and behold, they do. On the one hand, cnidarians have bilateral symmetric worm-like planula larvae, of which some (like those of Scyphozoa) are creeping over the substrate. But there is more: An enigmatic endoparasitic worm called Buddenbrockia plumatellae was for a long time a mystery and could not be placed in the animal system. In the past decades evidence accumulated that it could be a myxozoan cnidarian, which was finally confirmed by Jiménez-Guri et al. (2007). In the abstract of their paper, “Buddenbrockia Is a Cnidarian Worm,” these authors concluded: “This active muscular worm increases the known diversity in cnidarian body plans and demonstrates that a muscular, wormlike form can evolve in the absence of overt bilateral symmetry.”
In light of this discovery, unspecific worm-like fossils can no longer be considered as sufficient evidence for the presence of bilaterian animals (this by the way may also apply to Yilingia described by Chen et al. 2019, which has a unique body plan very different from annelids and arthropods). This is especially true when the fossils are so poorly preserved as Ikaria, lack any complex diagnostic features that could positively identify bilaterians, and have only a dubious association with alleged feeding traces.
In Search of a Sexy Headline
This does not mean that Ikaria could not be a potential bilaterian worm, but the case is far from established. Even if the attribution should turn out to be correct, the headlines — “Ancestor of all animals identified” — would be nonsense. Such hyperbole might be excused coming from ignorant popular science journalists, but that it was used in the official press release by the University of California is a shame. Nothing in this fossil discovery allows an identification as ancestor of any other group of animals or of all animals. Even being the oldest fossil record for Bilateria would not imply at all that it is ancestral to all animals. It could be an extinct side branch or only ancestral to a single phylum of worm-like animals. Evans et al. (2020) mention recent research that “suggests that the bilaterian LCA was a simple, small, mobile organism with anterior/posterior differentiation and limited sensory abilities (44–49). Remarkably, these predictions agree closely with the characters identified here for Ikaria.” However, such a simple worm-like habitus would fit with the ancestor of Bilateria, the ancestor of Xenacoelomorpha, the ancestor of Nephrozoa, the ancestors of Deuterostomia and of Protostomia, the ancestors of Lophotrochozoa and of Ecdysozoa, as well as the ancestors of several worm-like phyla like Platyhelminthes. But such scientific honesty would hardly make for a sexy headline.
Ikaria wariootia is just another problematic Ediacaran fossil that could be anything from inorganic artifact to protozoan to cnidarian and yes, maybe a bilaterian worm. Neither musculature, nor mouth, gut and anus, nor movement, nor mobility and a causal connection to the Helminthoidichnites traces is established by the actual fossil evidence. Its nothing but small oval-shaped impressions in the sediment. It is usually good paleontological practice to consider such dubious fossils as incertae sedis and not base far-reaching hypotheses on them.
References:
Photo: Impressions of Ikaria, by Droser Lab/UCR, via EurekAlert!


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-03-30--Approved by FDA Against COVID-19, Chloroquine Is Also Prominent in the Case for Intelligent Design

Yesterday , as a possible weapon against COVID-19 , the Food and Drug Administration rushed out approval for an anti-malarial treatment .
What does malaria , a tropical disease caused by a parasite , have to do with the viral infection rampaging across the globe ?
When an anxious public first learned about the chloroquine as a tool against the novel coronavirus , some of us with no experience of tropical medicine said to ourselves , “ Wait , I ’ ve heard of that before.
” Yes , chloroquine-resistant malarial parasites figure prominently in biochemist and ID proponent Michael @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to what unguided Darwinian processes can do .
He details that case in his book The Edge of Evolution .
Now , on a fascinating and very timely episode of ID the Future , Professor Behe talks with host Andrew McDiarmid about chloroquine and its role in demonstrating the need for intelligent design in the rise of complex life .
Behe discusses the history of the medication .
The story goes back centuries to the Spanish colonization of South America , where native people recognized the anti-malarial properties of the cinchona tree and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heard before is a really clear explanation of how chloroquine works , on the malarial parasite Plasmodium falciparum and , perhaps , on the SARS-CoV-2 virus .
As Behe says , they may provide a means of interfering with the virus ’ s ability to invade cells .
So the world waits as chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are put to the test .
Dr. Behe provides a “ ray of hope , ” as Andrew rightly puts it , and welcome clarity in this sad and confusing time .
Download the podcast or listen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ phosphate , now approved by the FDA for use against COVID-19 , by Joegoauk Goa , via Flickr .

Yesterday, as a possible weapon against COVID-19, the Food and Drug Administration rushed out approval for an anti-malarial treatment. What does malaria, a tropical disease caused by a parasite, have to do with the viral infection rampaging across the globe?
When an anxious public first learned about the chloroquine as a tool against the novel coronavirus, some of us with no experience of tropical medicine said to ourselves, “Wait, I’ve heard of that before.” Yes, chloroquine-resistant malarial parasites figure prominently in biochemist and ID proponent Michael Behe’s argument for sharp limits to what unguided Darwinian processes can do. He details that case in his book The Edge of Evolution. Now, on a fascinating and very timely episode of ID the Future, Professor Behe talks with host Andrew McDiarmid about chloroquine and its role in demonstrating the need for intelligent design in the rise of complex life.
Behe discusses the history of the medication. The story goes back centuries to the Spanish colonization of South America, where native people recognized the anti-malarial properties of the cinchona tree and its bark. Something I had not heard before is a really clear explanation of how chloroquine works, on the malarial parasite Plasmodium falciparum and, perhaps, on the SARS-CoV-2 virus. As Behe says, they may provide a means of interfering with the virus’s ability to invade cells.
So the world waits as chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are put to the test. Dr. Behe provides a “ray of hope,” as Andrew rightly puts it, and welcome clarity in this sad and confusing time. Download the podcast or listen to it here.
Photo: Chloroquine phosphate, now approved by the FDA for use against COVID-19, by Joegoauk Goa, via Flickr.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-03-31--Are Evangelicals “Crippling” Our Coronavirus Response?

Yep , according to this New York Times op-ed by Katherine Stewart : Stewart , whose disdain for evangelicals is passionate , objects particularly to the President ’ s invocation of Easter rather than “ mid-April ” : Mr. Trump ’ s expressed hope that the country would be “ opened up and just raring to go by Easter.
” He could , of course , have said , “ by mid-April.
” But Mr. Trump did not invoke Easter by accident , and many of his evangelical allies were pleased by his vision of “ packed churches all over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be a beautiful time , ” the president said .
Perhaps a Presidential wish that we will be back to business by Earth Day would have mollified Ms. Stewart .
Stewart goes on to excoriate a few evangelical pastors and government officials for overly optimistic statements in the early days of the pandemic .
Her silence on the dismissals of the pandemic by decidedly secular experts is noteworthy .
Experts without a wisp of evangelical fervor confidently encouraged citizens to travel , mingle in crowds , and shop with renewed passion .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ government officials made their pandemic-denying pronouncements in New York City , which is now ground zero for COVID-19 in the United States .
Several thoughts come to mind : • It ’ s reprehensible for Stewart to write , and the New York Times to publish , a partisan political hit using the pretext of the pandemic .
There have been misjudgments galore on COVID-19 , and those of secular experts and government officials are far more pervasive and deadlier than those of ( a few ) pastors and Christian politicians .
Why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to individuals traveling from Wuhan and regions afflicted with this pandemic ?
What did the CDC do to prevent this scourge ?
Our scientific experts knew in November that this deadly virus was raging in China .
Did they recommend a travel ban on individuals likely to be infected ?
Did they recommend preparation for the necessary medical response ?
What exactly did they know , when did they know it , and what did they do about it ?
• Stewart has it exactly wrong on global warming skepticism .
A more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like global warming would have freed the scientific community and the government to focus resources on real dangers to Americans , like viral pandemics .
New York City hasn ’ t been inundated by rising seas or baked by scorching heat , but it has been deluged by COVID-19 .
Has allocation of money for research on threats to our citizens been based on real science , or on hysteria fed by ideologically hyped “ consensus ” ?
For example , from 2003 to 2010 , the U.S. Federal Government spent $ 106.7 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much was spent on protection from viral pandemics ?
Might those billions have been better spent on protection from pandemics ?
Global warming skeptics would say : the question answers itself .
• The fundamental cause of this deadly pandemic is the incompetence , corruption , and malice of the Chinese scientific and political establishment .
China ’ s handling of this crisis is textbook politicized junk science — the perversion of science to accomplish political ends .
The few courageous Chinese doctors and scientists who did speak up to warn of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and scientific establishment .
In an interview before his death , Li Wenliang , the Chinese doctor who warned of the pandemic before he died fighting it , gave eloquent voice to skeptics who speak out about the “ scientific consensus ” : Stewart , in scapegoating evangelicals , ignores the salient scientific and ideological source of this pandemic .
China is hardly a cauldron of evangelical fervor .
The source of this pandemic is the largest and most fervent atheist nation on earth .
China ’ s scientific culture is atheist through-and-through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which spread to China in the early 20th century : COVID-19 didn ’ t arise from a Baptist church barbecue in Alabama .
It ’ s ( another ) wholly secular Chernobyl .
Anti-Christian bigots like Katherine Stewart use this crisis to misrepresent the real incompetence and corruption that unleashed this plague on the world .
The cause of this crisis is secular , and it is a secular scientific culture notably free of evangelicals .
We need to be honest about where and how this pandemic arose , and it is reprehensible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the front lines of the battle against this plague .
There are tens of millions of evangelical Americans — nurses and aides and doctors and truck drivers and stock boys and workers with myriad skills who daily risk their lives providing food and services and health care in the eye of this pandemic , and for whom their Christian faith is an indispensable source of strength .
Evangelicals didn ’ t cause this plague , and we desperately need the courage and wisdom that evangelicals have always brought to bear against pandemics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speak to save lives , and they deserve better than this slander .
We would be wise , when this crisis subsides , to look closely at the real ideological and scientific “ consensus ” — a wholly secular consensus — that inflicted this misery on humanity .

Yep, according to this New York Times op-ed by Katherine Stewart:
This denial of science and critical thinking among religious ultraconservatives now haunts the American response to the coronavirus crisis.
Stewart, whose disdain for evangelicals is passionate, objects particularly to the President’s invocation of Easter rather than “mid-April”:
Mr. Trump’s expressed hope that the country would be “opened up and just raring to go by Easter.” He could, of course, have said, “by mid-April.” But Mr. Trump did not invoke Easter by accident, and many of his evangelical allies were pleased by his vision of “packed churches all over our country.” “I think it would be a beautiful time,” the president said.
Perhaps a Presidential wish that we will be back to business by Earth Day would have mollified Ms. Stewart.
When a strong centralized response is needed from the federal government, it doesn’t help to have an administration that has never believed in a federal government serving the public good. Ordinarily, the consequences of this kind of behavior don’t show up for some time. In the case of a pandemic, the consequences are too obvious to ignore.
Experts and Officials
Stewart goes on to excoriate a few evangelical pastors and government officials for overly optimistic statements in the early days of the pandemic. Her silence on the dismissals of the pandemic by decidedly secular experts is noteworthy. Experts without a wisp of evangelical fervor confidently encouraged citizens to travel, mingle in crowds, and shop with renewed passion. Notably, several of these experts and government officials made their pandemic-denying pronouncements in New York City, which is now ground zero for COVID-19 in the United States.
Scapegoating Evangelicals
Several thoughts come to mind:
It’s reprehensible for Stewart to write, and the New York Times to publish, a partisan political hit using the pretext of the pandemic. There have been misjudgments galore on COVID-19, and those of secular experts and government officials are far more pervasive and deadlier than those of (a few) pastors and Christian politicians. Why were our borders for so long open to individuals traveling from Wuhan and regions afflicted with this pandemic? What did the CDC do to prevent this scourge? Our scientific experts knew in November that this deadly virus was raging in China. Did they recommend a travel ban on individuals likely to be infected? Did they recommend preparation for the necessary medical response? What exactly did they know, when did they know it, and what did they do about it? Stewart has it exactly wrong on global warming skepticism. A more thoughtful evidence-based scientific skepticism about hyped apocalypses like global warming would have freed the scientific community and the government to focus resources on real dangers to Americans, like viral pandemics. New York City hasn’t been inundated by rising seas or baked by scorching heat, but it has been deluged by COVID-19. Has allocation of money for research on threats to our citizens been based on real science, or on hysteria fed by ideologically hyped “consensus”? For example, from 2003 to 2010, the U.S. Federal Government spent $106.7 billion on global warming-related projects. How much was spent on protection from viral pandemics? Might those billions have been better spent on protection from pandemics? Global warming skeptics would say: the question answers itself. The fundamental cause of this deadly pandemic is the incompetence, corruption, and malice of the Chinese scientific and political establishment. China’s handling of this crisis is textbook politicized junk science — the perversion of science to accomplish political ends. The few courageous Chinese doctors and scientists who did speak up to warn of this epidemic were silenced by the Chinese government and scientific establishment. In an interview before his death, Li Wenliang, the Chinese doctor who warned of the pandemic before he died fighting it, gave eloquent voice to skeptics who speak out about the “scientific consensus”:
“I think a healthy society should not only have one kind of voice.”
Stewart, in scapegoating evangelicals, ignores the salient scientific and ideological source of this pandemic.
It’s Not Evangelicalism
China is hardly a cauldron of evangelical fervor. The source of this pandemic is the largest and most fervent atheist nation on earth. China’s scientific culture is atheist through-and-through, and is infested with Darwinism, which spread to China in the early 20th century:
Yan Fu (1854-1921), a famous Chinese thinker, was the first to introduce Darwinian theories to China. He is well-known for his translation, first published in 1898, of Thomas Huxley’s Evolution and Ethics, which not only initiated dissemination of the idea of biological evolution in China, but also had a far-reaching social impact on disseminating science, intellectual enlightenment, and the ideas of reform and social revolutions.
COVID-19 didn’t arise from a Baptist church barbecue in Alabama. It’s (another) wholly secular Chernobyl. Anti-Christian bigots like Katherine Stewart use this crisis to misrepresent the real incompetence and corruption that unleashed this plague on the world. The cause of this crisis is secular, and it is a secular scientific culture notably free of evangelicals. We need to be honest about where and how this pandemic arose, and it is reprehensible to blame it on evangelicals who are on the front lines of the battle against this plague. There are tens of millions of evangelical Americans — nurses and aides and doctors and truck drivers and stock boys and workers with myriad skills who daily risk their lives providing food and services and health care in the eye of this pandemic, and for whom their Christian faith is an indispensable source of strength.
Evangelicals didn’t cause this plague, and we desperately need the courage and wisdom that evangelicals have always brought to bear against pandemics. Millions of evangelicals work as we speak to save lives, and they deserve better than this slander. We would be wise, when this crisis subsides, to look closely at the real ideological and scientific “consensus” — a wholly secular consensus — that inflicted this misery on humanity.
Photo credit: Patrick Fore via Unsplash.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-03-31--Did COVID-19 Virus Evolve by Natural Selection?

Darwinist biologist P.Z .
Myers writes about various theories about the designed or natural origin of the COVID-19 virus : I ’ ve been seeing some wild speculation that this pandemic is the product of genetic engineering — that it ’ s a biowarfare weapon that escaped from a lab somewhere .
This is nonsense .
I ’ ll refer you to an article in Nature Medicine , The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2 , which discusses a systematic analysis of the structure of SARS-CoV-2 in comparison to other coronaviruses .
There is good reason , the Nature Medicine authors note @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without human design .
From their article : While the analyses above suggest that SARS-CoV-2 may bind human ACE2 with high affinity , computational analyses predict that the interaction is not ideal and that the RBD sequence is different from those shown in SARS-CoV to be optimal for receptor binding .
Thus , the high-affinity binding of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein to human ACE2 is most likely the result of natural selection on a human or human-like ACE2 that permits another optimal binding solution to arise .
This is strong evidence that SARS-CoV-2 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Yeah , see , if I were a nefarious super-villain , we already have an even better RBD we could yank out of other viruses , and I would have used that to build a deadly virus .
But instead , the SARS-CoV-2 RBD is some clunky variation that came out of nowhere , by accident , without any other signs of intentional manipulation .
They also consider the possibility that this was an accidental variation acquired in a lab — if you pass a virus through a lot of host cells @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will continue to evolve , and you might imagine the RBD might acquire a random variation that allows it to thrive in those cells , and then it accidentally escapes the lab .
This is also unlikely , because it shares a lot of similarities with the pangolin coronaviruses .
It ’ s more likely to have arisen from an existing pool of related viruses in the wild , then either acquired its novel binding site there , or after infecting humans and experiencing selection for better binding to human cells .
Myers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ uses the scientific inference to intelligent design to search for ( and discount ) human intelligent agency .
Design science is at the forefront of research on the emergence of coronavirus .
Based on the available evidence and using the inference to design as a scientific hypothesis , intelligent design of the COVID-19 virus seems unlikely .
But there is another lesson about design and evolution to be learned from scientific research on this virus .
Natural selection , if understood as undirected variation and differential reproductive success , is a destructive process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — it produces diseases , cancer , and pandemics .
It weakens and kills .
Natural selection does to living organisms what rust does to a machine .
Natural selection corrodes and destroys life , and plays no role in creating it .

Darwinist biologist P.Z. Myers writes about various theories about the designed or natural origin of the COVID-19 virus:
I’ve been seeing some wild speculation that this pandemic is the product of genetic engineering — that it’s a biowarfare weapon that escaped from a lab somewhere. This is nonsense. I’ll refer you to an article in Nature Medicine, The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2, which discusses a systematic analysis of the structure of SARS-CoV-2 in comparison to other coronaviruses.
There is good reason, the Nature Medicine authors note, to believe that the virus arose without human design. From their article:
While the analyses above suggest that SARS-CoV-2 may bind human ACE2 with high affinity, computational analyses predict that the interaction is not ideal and that the RBD sequence is different from those shown in SARS-CoV to be optimal for receptor binding. Thus, the high-affinity binding of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein to human ACE2 is most likely the result of natural selection on a human or human-like ACE2 that permits another optimal binding solution to arise. This is strong evidence that SARS-CoV-2 is not the product of purposeful manipulation.
Myers concurs:
Yeah, see, if I were a nefarious super-villain, we already have an even better RBD we could yank out of other viruses, and I would have used that to build a deadly virus. But instead, the SARS-CoV-2 RBD is some clunky variation that came out of nowhere, by accident, without any other signs of intentional manipulation. They also consider the possibility that this was an accidental variation acquired in a lab — if you pass a virus through a lot of host cells in a cell culture system, it will continue to evolve, and you might imagine the RBD might acquire a random variation that allows it to thrive in those cells, and then it accidentally escapes the lab. This is also unlikely, because it shares a lot of similarities with the pangolin coronaviruses. It’s more likely to have arisen from an existing pool of related viruses in the wild, then either acquired its novel binding site there, or after infecting humans and experiencing selection for better binding to human cells.
Myers concludes:
Sorry, conspiracy theorists. The best explanation is evolution and natural selection, not Evil Intelligent Design.
Design and Evolution
Myers, like the Nature Medicine scientists, uses the scientific inference to intelligent design to search for (and discount) human intelligent agency. Design science is at the forefront of research on the emergence of coronavirus. Based on the available evidence and using the inference to design as a scientific hypothesis, intelligent design of the COVID-19 virus seems unlikely.
But there is another lesson about design and evolution to be learned from scientific research on this virus. Natural selection, if understood as undirected variation and differential reproductive success, is a destructive process. Natural selection destroys biological functional complexity — it produces diseases, cancer, and pandemics. It weakens and kills. Natural selection does to living organisms what rust does to a machine. Natural selection corrodes and destroys life, and plays no role in creating it.
Photo source: U.S. Air Force photo, by Senior Airman Rhett Isbell.