evolutionnewsandviews--2020-12-27--#6 Story of 2020: Amid a Pandemic, Wisdom from C. S. Lewis

Editor ’ s note : Welcome to an Evolution News tradition : a countdown of our Top 10 favorite stories of the past year , concluding on New Year ’ s Day .
Our staff will be enjoying the holidays , as we hope that you will , too !
Help keep the daily voice of intelligent design going strong .
Please give whatever you can to support the Center for Science & Culture before the end of the year !
The following was originally published on March 20 , 2020 .
It ’ s been a blissfully sunny week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Seattleites pine for after their gray and soggy winters .
The official start of spring isn ’ t until today , but the cherry blossoms have already been out for a long time .
Of course , it doesn ’ t really matter this year .
The crowds have been told to stay away from the cherry trees — and from everything else , for that matter .
The arrival of spring in 2020 isn ’ t bringing hope and a sense of new life .
It ’ s bringing fear .
Churches @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are restaurants ( except for takeout ) .
So are movie theaters , barbershops , and gyms .
Grocery stores are still open , but their shelves are increasingly bare — not just of hand sanitizer and toilet paper ( those vanished days ago ) — but now of bleach , paper towels , and even meat and poultry .
Businesses struggle to operate .
Each new day brings increasingly draconian ( not to mention conflicting and confusing ) orders issued by multiple layers of bureaucracy — all assuring us they are acting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of science .
The occasional tone-deafness of the bureaucrats might be amusing in a novel .
The CDC website patiently instructs people about how they can create their own disinfectant with bleach or rubbing alcohol .
It would be more helpful if the CDC explained how to actually acquire either liquid — since neither is readily available in stores .
Meanwhile , the current pandemic has further exposed the most obnoxious features of the American news media .
On the one hand , media outlets fan the flames of fear with their doomsday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when ordinary people actually take the doomsday coverage seriously , those same media outlets chide them for acting as if the doomsday reporting is correct and rushing to stores to stock up on disinfectants and food .
The tendency during any crisis is to become all-consumed by it .
That was true after 9/11 , and it is true now .
Obviously , if you are dealing with the illness of a loved one with COVID-19 , there is good reason to be consumed .
So too if you are facing financial destruction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government-imposed shutdowns — shutdowns that may well be called for , but are nevertheless ruinous to many and even corrosive of a free society in some cases .
As the outbreak continues to unfold , it may get harder and harder to focus on anything besides the pandemic .
Nevertheless , we should resist the temptation to let it dominate our lives .
Anglo-Irish writer C.S .
Lewis ( 1898-1963 ) was no stranger to fears wrought by pandemics .
During his childhood in Belfast , Northern Ireland , more than a million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tuberculosis ( TB ) , making it “ one of the most feared diseases in the world.
” In Ireland itself , more than 11,000 people a year died from TB , many of them young people .
In fact , among youths aged 15 to 25 , a terrifying 55.4 percent of all deaths in Belfast were due to TB .
Years later , Lewis ’ s brother Warren still recalled the fear that permeated every upper middle class home in Belfast , and the elaborate measures people took to prevent infection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allowing their sons to be exposed to the rain and damp , worrying that TB might develop as a result .
Then , as now , isolation reigned as a chief strategy for protection .
The Lewis brothers were quarantined inside their home whenever it rained — which , given the weather in Ireland , meant their confinement often seemed endless .
They were ordered inside at the first drops of rain , and then penned inside their nursery , with a gate put across the door so they couldn ’ t get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amount of our time shut up indoors , ” remembered Warren .
“ We would gaze out of our nursery window at the slanting rain and the grey skies , and there , beyond a mile or so of sodden meadow , we would see the dim high line of the Castlereagh Hills — our world ’ s limit , a distant land , strange and unattainable.
” ( W.H .
Lewis , “ Memoir of C.S .
Lewis , ” published in Letters of C.S .
Lewis ) Although difficult for two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was not wasted .
Indeed , according to Warren Lewis , it bequeathed a long-term legacy : There are other terrors beside pandemics , of course , and C.S .
Lewis experienced some of them as well .
Like many young men of his era , he served — and was wounded — on the hellish front lines of World War I .
Two decades later , as an Oxford academic , he faced another world war — this time against Hitler ’ s Germany .
As the Nazis swept over Europe and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in , many likely wondered what the use of learning was at a time like that .
Shouldn ’ t everyone focus instead on the war effort 24/7 ?
A few weeks after the war started , Lewis sought to answer this question in a sermon that was later published as “ Learning in War-Time.
” His advice seems eerily applicable to our own situation , just substitute “ pandemic ” for “ war ” : I think it important to try to see the present calamity in a true perspective .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it simply aggravates the permanent human situation so that we can no longer ignore it .
Human life has always been lived on the edge of a precipice .
Human culture has always had to exist under the shadow of something infinitely more important than itself .
If men had postponed the search for knowledge and beauty until they were secure , the search would never have begun .
We are mistaken when we compare war with “ normal life.
” Life has never been normal .
Even those periods which we think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , turn out , on closer inspection , to be full of crises , alarms , difficulties , emergencies .
Plausible reasons have never been lacking for putting off all merely cultural activities until some imminent danger has been averted or some crying injustice put right .
But humanity long ago chose to neglect those plausible reasons .
They wanted knowledge and beauty now , and would not wait for the suitable moment that never comes .
In coming days , you and your loved ones may struggle with fear and anxiety and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with more time on your hands than you know what to do with .
Make the most of the opportunity .
Learn a new skill .
Read good books .
Watch inspiring films .
Reconnect with your family by having discussions about things that matter .
Above all , remember the wise admonition of C.S .
Lewis : “ If men had postponed the search for knowledge and beauty until they were secure , the search would never have begun.
” Author ’ s note : The description of Warren Lewis ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Lewis household is based on unpublished passages in W.H .
Lewis , “ C.S Lewis : A Biography , ” a manuscript on deposit at the Marion Wade Center , Wheaton College .

Cherry blossoms on the campus of the University of Washington, Seattle. Authorities were telling would-be visitors to stay away; by D. Guillaime / CC BY-SA.
Editor’s note: Welcome to an Evolution News tradition: a countdown of our Top 10 favorite stories of the past year, concluding on New Year’s Day. Our staff will be enjoying the holidays, as we hope that you will, too! Help keep the daily voice of intelligent design going strong. Please give whatever you can to support the Center for Science & Culture before the end of the year!
The following was originally published on March 20, 2020.
“Human life has always been lived on the edge of a precipice.” — C.S. Lewis.
It’s been a blissfully sunny week in Seattle — the kind of week Seattleites pine for after their gray and soggy winters. The official start of spring isn’t until today, but the cherry blossoms have already been out for a long time.
Of course, it doesn’t really matter this year.
The crowds have been told to stay away from the cherry trees — and from everything else, for that matter. The arrival of spring in 2020 isn’t bringing hope and a sense of new life. It’s bringing fear.
Draconian and Confusing
Churches are shuttered to the public. So are restaurants (except for takeout). So are movie theaters, barbershops, and gyms. Grocery stores are still open, but their shelves are increasingly bare — not just of hand sanitizer and toilet paper (those vanished days ago) — but now of bleach, paper towels, and even meat and poultry. Businesses struggle to operate. Each new day brings increasingly draconian (not to mention conflicting and confusing) orders issued by multiple layers of bureaucracy — all assuring us they are acting in our best interests in the name of science. The occasional tone-deafness of the bureaucrats might be amusing in a novel. The CDC website patiently instructs people about how they can create their own disinfectant with bleach or rubbing alcohol. It would be more helpful if the CDC explained how to actually acquire either liquid — since neither is readily available in stores.
Meanwhile, the current pandemic has further exposed the most obnoxious features of the American news media. On the one hand, media outlets fan the flames of fear with their doomsday coverage. On the other hand, when ordinary people actually take the doomsday coverage seriously, those same media outlets chide them for acting as if the doomsday reporting is correct and rushing to stores to stock up on disinfectants and food.
The tendency during any crisis is to become all-consumed by it. That was true after 9/11, and it is true now. Obviously, if you are dealing with the illness of a loved one with COVID-19, there is good reason to be consumed. So too if you are facing financial destruction or have lost your job because of government-imposed shutdowns — shutdowns that may well be called for, but are nevertheless ruinous to many and even corrosive of a free society in some cases.
Resisting a Temptation to Obsess
As the outbreak continues to unfold, it may get harder and harder to focus on anything besides the pandemic. Nevertheless, we should resist the temptation to let it dominate our lives.
Anglo-Irish writer C.S. Lewis (1898-1963) was no stranger to fears wrought by pandemics. During his childhood in Belfast, Northern Ireland, more than a million people a year in Europe died from tuberculosis (TB), making it “one of the most feared diseases in the world.” In Ireland itself, more than 11,000 people a year died from TB, many of them young people. In fact, among youths aged 15 to 25, a terrifying 55.4 percent of all deaths in Belfast were due to TB. Years later, Lewis’s brother Warren still recalled the fear that permeated every upper middle class home in Belfast, and the elaborate measures people took to prevent infection. His parents were especially concerned about allowing their sons to be exposed to the rain and damp, worrying that TB might develop as a result.
Then, as now, isolation reigned as a chief strategy for protection. The Lewis brothers were quarantined inside their home whenever it rained — which, given the weather in Ireland, meant their confinement often seemed endless. They were ordered inside at the first drops of rain, and then penned inside their nursery, with a gate put across the door so they couldn’t get out. “We spent an extraordinary amount of our time shut up indoors,” remembered Warren. “We would gaze out of our nursery window at the slanting rain and the grey skies, and there, beyond a mile or so of sodden meadow, we would see the dim high line of the Castlereagh Hills — our world’s limit, a distant land, strange and unattainable.” (W.H. Lewis, “Memoir of C.S. Lewis,” published in Letters of C.S. Lewis)
Legacy of a Confinement
Although difficult for two active children to tolerate, the confinement was not wasted. Indeed, according to Warren Lewis, it bequeathed a long-term legacy:
[T]his recurring imprisonment gave us occasion and stimulus to develop the habit of creative imagination. We learnt to draw: my brother made his first attempts at writing: together we devised the imaginary country of “Boxen,” which proliferated hugely and became our solace and joy for many years to come. And so, in circumstances that might have been merely dull and depressing, my brother’s gifts began to develop; and it may not be fanciful to see, in that childhood staring out to unattainable hills, some first beginnings of a vision and viewpoint that ran through the work of his maturity. (W.H. Lewis, “Memoir of C.S. Lewis”)
There are other terrors beside pandemics, of course, and C.S. Lewis experienced some of them as well. Like many young men of his era, he served — and was wounded — on the hellish front lines of World War I. Two decades later, as an Oxford academic, he faced another world war — this time against Hitler’s Germany.
As the Nazis swept over Europe and the grim new reality began to set in, many likely wondered what the use of learning was at a time like that. Shouldn’t everyone focus instead on the war effort 24/7? A few weeks after the war started, Lewis sought to answer this question in a sermon that was later published as “Learning in War-Time.”
Substitute “Pandemic” for “War”
His advice seems eerily applicable to our own situation, just substitute “pandemic” for “war”:
I think it important to try to see the present calamity in a true perspective. The war creates no absolutely new situation; it simply aggravates the permanent human situation so that we can no longer ignore it. Human life has always been lived on the edge of a precipice. Human culture has always had to exist under the shadow of something infinitely more important than itself. If men had postponed the search for knowledge and beauty until they were secure, the search would never have begun. We are mistaken when we compare war with “normal life.” Life has never been normal. Even those periods which we think most tranquil, like the nineteenth century, turn out, on closer inspection, to be full of crises, alarms, difficulties, emergencies. Plausible reasons have never been lacking for putting off all merely cultural activities until some imminent danger has been averted or some crying injustice put right. But humanity long ago chose to neglect those plausible reasons. They wanted knowledge and beauty now, and would not wait for the suitable moment that never comes. (C.S. Lewis, “Learning in War-Time,” in The Weight of Glory)
In coming days, you and your loved ones may struggle with fear and anxiety and worry. You may also find yourselves with more time on your hands than you know what to do with.
Make the most of the opportunity.
Learn a new skill. Read good books. Watch inspiring films. Reconnect with your family by having discussions about things that matter.
Above all, remember the wise admonition of C.S. Lewis: “If men had postponed the search for knowledge and beauty until they were secure, the search would never have begun.”
Author’s note: The description of Warren Lewis’s recollections about the fear of TB in the Lewis household is based on unpublished passages in W.H. Lewis, “C.S Lewis: A Biography,” a manuscript on deposit at the Marion Wade Center, Wheaton College.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-12-28--#5 Story of 2020: Coronavirus, Intelligent Design, and Evolution

Editor ’ s note : Welcome to an Evolution News tradition : a countdown of our Top 10 favorite stories of the past year , concluding on New Year ’ s Day .
Our staff are enjoying the holidays , as we hope that you are , too !
Help keep the daily voice of intelligent design going strong .
Please give whatever you can to support the Center for Science & Culture before the end of the year !
The following was originally published on March 30 , 2020 .
Many people have been wondering about the relevance of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the new coronavirus reported in Wuhan , China , in December 2019 .
What follows is my view as a molecular biologist .
The new virus goes by several names .
It was initially called 2019-nCoV by the World Health Organization ( with “ n ” standing for “ new ” ) .
Since its RNA sequence is similar to that of the coronavirus that caused Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome ( SARS ) in 2003 , the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses renamed it SARS-CoV-2 in March 2020 .
The disease @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID-19 ( with “ d ” standing for “ disease ” ) .
There are other coronaviruses ( including MERS-CoV , the virus that caused the 2012 epidemic of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome ) .
To avoid confusion , I will refer to the latest coronavirus by its technical name , SARS-CoV-2 .
Some people have maintained that SARS-CoV-2 is a product of human design .
According to a February New York Post article , it may have escaped from a microbiology laboratory at the Wuhan Institute of Virology .
But I have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claim .
On March 17 , 2020 , an analysis of RNA from several different coronaviruses was published in Nature Medicine .
The authors concluded , “ Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.
” Jonathan Bartlett , who has studied the logic of design inferences in depth , subsequently argued that the scientists had ruled out only one design hypothesis , so design was still theoretically possible .
But Bartlett did not maintain that SARS-CoV-2 is a product of human design .
Could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mutation and natural selection ?
I don ’ t see why not , though there is only indirect evidence ( from RNA sequences ) to support the idea .
If it had happened , however , it would not provide support for Darwinian evolution .
First , viruses are not living organisms : They are just pieces of DNA or RNA enclosed in a protein coat .
They do not carry out metabolism ( the chemical processes that are essential for life ) , and they do not reproduce themselves ( only living @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can make copies of them ) .
Second , even if viruses were considered living things , the evolution of SARS-CoV-2 from another coronavirus would be akin to microevolution — minor changes within existing biological species .
( “ Species ” are not even defined the same way in viruses as they are in living organisms . )
But Darwin did not write a book titled How Existing Species Change Over Time .
He wrote a book titled The Origin of Species .
In other words , Darwin attempted to explain macroevolution — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and body plans .
What , then , is the relevance of ID or evolution to SARS-CoV-2 ?
As we have seen , their relevance to the origin of the coronavirus is unclear .
But what about their relevance to combating the disease , COVID-19 ?
According to Darwinist Theodosius Dobzhansky ( who distinguished between microevolution and macroevolution in the 1930s ) , “ nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
” In 2003 , Texas Tech University professor Michael Dini wrote : Yet the measures being taken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evolutionary theory .
The use of quarantine to block the spread of disease began in the fourteenth century .
In the 1790s , Edward Jenner vaccinated people to protect them from smallpox .
In 1847 , Hungarian obstetrician Ignác Semmelweis demonstrated that proper hand washing lowers mortality from infectious disease .
The administration of oxygen to patients with labored breathing was first reported in the years just following the publication of The Origin of Species , but the practice was based on physiological and clinical considerations , not evolution .
And if any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lessen its effects , they will come from the intelligently designed efforts of virologists , biochemists , and clinicians — not evolutionary biologists .
Editor ’ s note : This article was updated on April 5 , 2020 .

Photo credit: Airman 1st Class Alexis Christian, via Peterson Air Force Base.
Editor’s note: Welcome to an Evolution News tradition: a countdown of our Top 10 favorite stories of the past year, concluding on New Year’s Day. Our staff are enjoying the holidays, as we hope that you are, too! Help keep the daily voice of intelligent design going strong. Please give whatever you can to support the Center for Science & Culture before the end of the year!
The following was originally published on March 30, 2020.
Many people have been wondering about the relevance of intelligent design (ID) or evolution to the new coronavirus reported in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. What follows is my view as a molecular biologist.
The new virus goes by several names. It was initially called 2019-nCoV by the World Health Organization (with “n” standing for “new”). Since its RNA sequence is similar to that of the coronavirus that caused Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in 2003, the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses renamed it SARS-CoV-2 in March 2020. The disease caused by the virus has been called COVID-19 (with “d” standing for “disease”).
There are other coronaviruses (including MERS-CoV, the virus that caused the 2012 epidemic of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome). To avoid confusion, I will refer to the latest coronavirus by its technical name, SARS-CoV-2.
A Product of Human Design?
Some people have maintained that SARS-CoV-2 is a product of human design. According to a February New York Post article, it may have escaped from a microbiology laboratory at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. But I have seen no scientific evidence to support this claim.
On March 17, 2020, an analysis of RNA from several different coronaviruses was published in Nature Medicine. The authors concluded, “Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.”
Jonathan Bartlett, who has studied the logic of design inferences in depth, subsequently argued that the scientists had ruled out only one design hypothesis, so design was still theoretically possible. But Bartlett did not maintain that SARS-CoV-2 is a product of human design.
Could SARS-CoV-2 have evolved from another coronavirus by mutation and natural selection? I don’t see why not, though there is only indirect evidence (from RNA sequences) to support the idea. If it had happened, however, it would not provide support for Darwinian evolution.
Not Living Organisms
First, viruses are not living organisms: They are just pieces of DNA or RNA enclosed in a protein coat. They do not carry out metabolism (the chemical processes that are essential for life), and they do not reproduce themselves (only living cells — or skilled genetic engineers — can make copies of them). Second, even if viruses were considered living things, the evolution of SARS-CoV-2 from another coronavirus would be akin to microevolution — minor changes within existing biological species. (“Species” are not even defined the same way in viruses as they are in living organisms.)
But Darwin did not write a book titled How Existing Species Change Over Time. He wrote a book titled The Origin of Species. In other words, Darwin attempted to explain macroevolution — the origin of new species, organs, and body plans.
The Relevance of ID
What, then, is the relevance of ID or evolution to SARS-CoV-2? As we have seen, their relevance to the origin of the coronavirus is unclear. But what about their relevance to combating the disease, COVID-19? According to Darwinist Theodosius Dobzhansky (who distinguished between microevolution and macroevolution in the 1930s), “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” In 2003, Texas Tech University professor Michael Dini wrote:
The central, unifying principle of biology is the theory of evolution. How can someone who does not accept the most important theory in biology expect to properly practice in a field [medicine] that is so heavily based on biology?
Yet the measures being taken against the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic owe nothing to evolutionary theory. The use of quarantine to block the spread of disease began in the fourteenth century. In the 1790s, Edward Jenner vaccinated people to protect them from smallpox. In 1847, Hungarian obstetrician Ignác Semmelweis demonstrated that proper hand washing lowers mortality from infectious disease. The administration of oxygen to patients with labored breathing was first reported in the years just following the publication of The Origin of Species, but the practice was based on physiological and clinical considerations, not evolution. And if any treatments are found to cure COVID-19 or lessen its effects, they will come from the intelligently designed efforts of virologists, biochemists, and clinicians — not evolutionary biologists.
Editor’s note: This article was updated on April 5, 2020.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-12-29--#4 Story of 2020: Evolution, Design, and COVID-19

Editor ’ s note : Welcome to an Evolution News tradition : a countdown of our Top 10 favorite stories of the past year , concluding on New Year ’ s Day .
Our staff are enjoying the holidays , as we hope that you are , too !
Help keep the daily voice of intelligent design going strong .
Please give whatever you can to support the Center for Science & Culture before the end of the year !
The following was originally published on March 10 , 2020 .
I ’ ve been asked to comment on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what I wrote six years ago during an outbreak of Ebola virus applies to the current predicament as well.1 The bottom line is that , while of course the virus is dangerous , the situation can be compared to a strong storm on the ocean .
The waves may be huge and the surface roiling , but the deeper waters continue as they always have , essentially undisturbed .
In a similar way , although superficially it changes very rapidly , some researchers think that the coronavirus2 and many other virus types3 have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ millions of years .
Viruses are scraps of genetic material ( some composed of DNA , some of RNA , usually wrapped in a protein coat ) whose total genetic information ranges from about one ten-thousandth to about one millionth that of the human genome .
A virus can not reproduce by itself ; rather , it has to hijack a host cell ’ s molecular machinery to do so .
The immune system fights it every step of the way , but sometimes loses .
When the virus wins , the replication @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a cell .
If many cells are damaged by the multiplying particles , serious health consequences result .
In order to enter a cell , a protein on the surface of the virus particle must bind specifically to a “ receptor ” protein sticking out from the surface of the cell .
It can be likened to a skeleton key that can fit a few kinds of locks , allowing a burglar to enter a home .
Once inside , the burglar can use his standard tools to loot and pillage .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ key fits , the home is safe .
Viral mutations can change the shape of the skeleton key at random .
Most of the time the process doesn ’ t work but , every once in a while , the virus hits the jackpot .
In some cases , a viral key that had bound to a wild-animal protein mutates and becomes able to bind to a similar human protein .
If a human is in close contact with the animal , the virus may be able to jump over .
Then , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ environment , the virus can multiply until the immune system learns to deal with it .
Various common strains of coronavirus infect humans and cause the usually mild symptoms of the common cold .
But when an animal coronavirus strain crosses over to humans ( such as the SARS virus of the early 2000s , the MERS virus a decade later , and the current COVID-19 ) , it can be much more virulent.4 So , do I think viruses were designed ?
Yes , I most certainly do !
The viruses of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronaviruses , Ebola , and HIV — are exquisitely , purposively arranged , which is the clear signature of intelligent design .
Well , then does that mean the designer is evil and wants people to suffer ?
No , not necessarily .
I ’ m a biochemist , not a philosopher .
Nonetheless , I see no reason why a designer even of such things as viruses should be classified as bad on that basis alone .
I started this post with an analogy of a storm on the ocean .
Certainly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a powerful storm , we might be excused for thinking storms are bad .
But in calmer moments we understand that on balance the ocean is very good and that , given an ocean and the laws of nature , storms will arise from time to time .
What ’ s more , we just might get caught in one .
In the same way , most viruses do not affect humans and may well have a positive , necessary role to play in nature of which we are currently unaware.5 ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ From time to time a storm arises in the virosphere and affects humans .
But that ’ s no reason to think either that viruses weren ’ t designed or that the designer of viruses isn ’ t good .
• Wertheim , J. O. et al .
2013 .
A case for the ancient origin of coronaviruses .
Journal of Virology 87:7039-7045 .
• Simmonds , P. , Aiewsakun , P. and Katzourakis , A .
2019 .
Prisoners of war — host adaptation and its constraints on virus evolution .
Nature @ @ @ @ @ @ @ J. , Li , F. , and Shi , Z .
2019 .
Origin and evolution of pathogenic coronaviruses .
Nature Reviews Microbiology 17:181-192 .

Photo: A coronavirus, by CDC/ Alissa Eckert, MS; Dan Higgins, MAM / Public domain.
Editor’s note: Welcome to an Evolution News tradition: a countdown of our Top 10 favorite stories of the past year, concluding on New Year’s Day. Our staff are enjoying the holidays, as we hope that you are, too! Help keep the daily voice of intelligent design going strong. Please give whatever you can to support the Center for Science & Culture before the end of the year!
The following was originally published on March 10, 2020.
I’ve been asked to comment on the coronavirus epidemic and evolution. Much of what I wrote six years ago during an outbreak of Ebola virus applies to the current predicament as well.1 The bottom line is that, while of course the virus is dangerous, the situation can be compared to a strong storm on the ocean. The waves may be huge and the surface roiling, but the deeper waters continue as they always have, essentially undisturbed. In a similar way, although superficially it changes very rapidly, some researchers think that the coronavirus2 and many other virus types3 have remained basically the same for tens of millions of years.
What Is a Virus?
Viruses are scraps of genetic material (some composed of DNA, some of RNA, usually wrapped in a protein coat) whose total genetic information ranges from about one ten-thousandth to about one millionth that of the human genome. A virus cannot reproduce by itself; rather, it has to hijack a host cell’s molecular machinery to do so. The immune system fights it every step of the way, but sometimes loses. When the virus wins, the replication and release of its progeny can trash a cell. If many cells are damaged by the multiplying particles, serious health consequences result.
In order to enter a cell, a protein on the surface of the virus particle must bind specifically to a “receptor” protein sticking out from the surface of the cell. It can be likened to a skeleton key that can fit a few kinds of locks, allowing a burglar to enter a home. Once inside, the burglar can use his standard tools to loot and pillage. But the key is key — unless the key fits, the home is safe. Viral mutations can change the shape of the skeleton key at random. Most of the time the process doesn’t work but, every once in a while, the virus hits the jackpot. In some cases, a viral key that had bound to a wild-animal protein mutates and becomes able to bind to a similar human protein. If a human is in close contact with the animal, the virus may be able to jump over. Then, like an invasive species in a new environment, the virus can multiply until the immune system learns to deal with it. Various common strains of coronavirus infect humans and cause the usually mild symptoms of the common cold. But when an animal coronavirus strain crosses over to humans (such as the SARS virus of the early 2000s, the MERS virus a decade later, and the current COVID-19), it can be much more virulent.4
Viral Design
So, do I think viruses were designed? Yes, I most certainly do! The viruses of which we are aware — including the coronaviruses, Ebola, and HIV — are exquisitely, purposively arranged, which is the clear signature of intelligent design. Well, then does that mean the designer is evil and wants people to suffer? No, not necessarily. I’m a biochemist, not a philosopher. Nonetheless, I see no reason why a designer even of such things as viruses should be classified as bad on that basis alone.
I started this post with an analogy of a storm on the ocean. Certainly, if we were on a ship in a powerful storm, we might be excused for thinking storms are bad. But in calmer moments we understand that on balance the ocean is very good and that, given an ocean and the laws of nature, storms will arise from time to time. What’s more, we just might get caught in one. In the same way, most viruses do not affect humans and may well have a positive, necessary role to play in nature of which we are currently unaware.5 (I would bet on it.) From time to time a storm arises in the virosphere and affects humans. But that’s no reason to think either that viruses weren’t designed or that the designer of viruses isn’t good.
References
Behe, M. J. 2014. Evolution and the Ebola virus: Pacing a small cage. Evolution News https://evolutionnews.org/2014/10/evolution_and_t/ Wertheim, J. O. et al. 2013. A case for the ancient origin of coronaviruses. Journal of Virology 87:7039-7045. Simmonds, P., Aiewsakun, P. and Katzourakis, A. 2019. Prisoners of war — host adaptation and its constraints on virus evolution. Nature Reviews Microbiology 17:321-328. Cui, J., Li,F., and Shi, Z. 2019. Origin and evolution of pathogenic coronaviruses. Nature Reviews Microbiology 17:181-192. Roossinck, M. J. 2011. The good viruses: viral mutualistic symbioses. Nature Reviews Microbiology9:99-108.
Photo: A coronavirus, by CDC/ Alissa Eckert, MS; Dan Higgins, MAM / Public domain.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-12-30--#3 Story of 2020: On the Origin of Life, My Response to Jeremy England

Editor ’ s note : Welcome to an Evolution News tradition : a countdown of our Top 10 favorite stories of the past year , concluding on New Year ’ s Day .
Our staff are enjoying the holidays , as we hope that are will , too !
Help keep the daily voice of intelligent design going strong .
Please give whatever you can to support the Center for Science & Culture before the end of the year !
The following was originally published on May 11 , 2020 .
I greatly appreciated the opportunity to interact with physicist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ See my earlier article on the subject here .
England is a very talented researcher , and embodies the highest ideals of the academy .
He also addresses himself in other contexts to the general public .
I note that he has a new book due to be published in September , Every Life Is on Fire : How Thermodynamics Explains the Origins of Living Things , which the publisher , Basic Books , offers as being “ in the tradition of Viktor Frankl ’ s Man ’ s Search for Meaning.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have discussed are not only of scientific or academic interest , but instead go to the root of life ’ s meaning and purpose .
His response to my article is both collegial and thoughtful .
He acknowledges my understanding of his work and of the underlying fluctuation theorems , and he respectfully expresses his disagreement with my conclusion .
In reality , the difference in our views stems less from our understanding of the science than from the different contexts in which we analyze the theory and the experimental data .
England @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the possibility that some mechanism could drive matter to both lower entropy and higher energy ( higher free energy ) , thus potentially solving the problem of the origin of life , at least in theory .
In contrast , I addressed the likelihood that , given the practical constraints , realistic natural processes on the early earth could generate a minimally complex cell .
In that context , England indirectly affirmed the main points of my argument and thus reinforced the conclusion that an undirected origin of life might be possible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ implausible in practice .
The main points of my argument can be summarized as follows : • Natural processes tend to drive systems toward higher entropy , lower energy , or both .
In direct conflict , the origin of life requires a collection of molecules to move toward dramatically lower entropy and higher energy .
• The only way to overcome the thermodynamic barriers is for an engine to be present at the very instantiation of life that can convert some available source of energy into a form that can fuel the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ • Significant quantities of information must also be present both to steer a highly specific set of interconnected chemical reactions that comprise a minimally viable cell and to direct the generated energy toward powering the otherwise nonspontaneous reactions .
The Need for Engines and Information In his response , England directly affirms the first and second points : What England calls a process that “ absorbs and dissipates a lot of energy from the environment ” in such a way as to create a “ low-entropy , high-energy , stable state of matter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ engine .
Another useful designation in some contexts would be an energy converter .
And , in the earlier paragraphs he explicitly acknowledges that natural processes , without such an engine , always move matter toward high entropy , lower energy , or both .
England did not address my third point directly , but he did cite several research articles that affirm the need for preexisting information and for an engine/energy converter implicitly .
In my article , I demonstrated that England ’ s simulations of chemical networks ( here , here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ molecular engines and the information-rich enzymes seen in life .
England cited other studies that likewise demonstrate that energy converters and supplied information are required to drive matter to a raised free energy .
For instance , he referenced his study on a simulation of a spin glass driven by an applied time-varying magnetic field .
A spin glass models a network of atoms with spins aligned in non-uniform directions .
In the experiment , the field periodically switches between distinct time-varying patterns .
The switching applies work to the network , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ importance , the applied field and its pattern of switching is constructed to interact with the network in the distinct manner required to achieve the desired class of responses .
As such , the field effectively functions as a finely tuned energy converter .
The role of information in the simulation is more subtle and calls for a brief digression into information theory .
A key tenet is that information can often be thought of as that which enacts causal control over or reduces the uncertainty in an outcome .
In the case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ construction of the simulation entails the implementation of information .
The applied information constrains the dynamics ( reduces the uncertainty ) to effect a specific category of outcomes .
It functions equivalently to the information in an enzyme that directs the production of a specific molecule .
The same preconditions hold true for another experiment England referenced that studies the behavior of particles placed in a viscous liquid and confined within an acrylic tube that acts as a waveguide .
The particles are agitated by a continuous acoustic pressure exerted by speakers .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ transmission through the waveguide are measured respectively by a webcam and microphone .
The researchers reported self-organization and “ life-like ” behavior in the bandgap ( i.e.
, range of acoustic wavelengths with reduced transmission through the waveguide ) : The key observations are that the speakers convert electricity into acoustic waves of specific wavelengths that interact with the particles in the required manner , so a speaker acts as a highly calibrated energy converter .
And the experimental instructions specify the precise shape and dimensions for the waveguide ; the size , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particles ; the positions and orientations of the speakers ; and the physical properties of the viscous fluid .
These specifications represent applied information that constrains the dynamics in such a way as to produce the desired results .
Here again , achieving noteworthy behavior requires an energy converter and the application of information .
Relevance to the Origin of Life A key question is to what extent the experiments England cites resemble processes on the early earth .
The answer is that they are not even remotely similar .
No metallic ore @ @ @ @ @ @ @ encountered a time-varying magnetic field that could significantly raise the free energy of its atomic network .
Nor would any collection of rocks or organic globules have ever experienced an acoustic wave that could induce self-organizational dynamics with life-like behavior .
The experiments , in fact , demonstrate that any mechanism that could effectively act as an engine/energy converter requires goal-oriented engineering and careful implementation .
The constraints governing an emerging cell present even greater challenges than in the cited experiments for nature to assemble a viable engine .
In life , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of high-energy ( energy-currency ) molecules that could power the chemical reactions undergirding cellular operations .
The challenge is that the energy requirement is enormous .
As I explained in my article , the minimal power production capacity needed for a nascent cell just to prevent it from degrading into simple chemicals approaches , if scaled , that of a high-performance racing car .
The most promising candidate for a “ natural engine ” is proton flows across thermal vents that theoretically could generate high-energy molecules .
However , simulations of vents under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a rate that is at least eight orders of magnitude too small .
And the actual product is formaldehyde in concentrations far too miniscule to contribute to any stage in the genesis of a cell .
Such meager results simply highlight the fact that no natural mechanism could realistically generate the required energy to power even the earliest stages of any origin-of-life scenario .
Moreover , the driven objects in each of the cited experiments are identical , so they all interact uniformly with the applied field .
In contrast , the reactions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As a result , no single engine could drive more than one or two of them even under ideal conditions .
Consequently , a cell requires multiple mechanisms to extract the energy from the energy-currency molecules and direct it toward powering each distinct reaction .
I detailed in my article how only a suite of hundreds of enzymes could meet this requirement , which corresponds to at least a million bits of information .
England ’ s response to my article has only reinforced these conclusions .

Photo: Hydrothermal vents, where some theories hypothesize that life originated, by NOAA [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons.
Editor’s note: Welcome to an Evolution News tradition: a countdown of our Top 10 favorite stories of the past year, concluding on New Year’s Day. Our staff are enjoying the holidays, as we hope that are will, too! Help keep the daily voice of intelligent design going strong. Please give whatever you can to support the Center for Science & Culture before the end of the year!
The following was originally published on May 11, 2020.
I greatly appreciated the opportunity to interact with physicist Jeremy England in the journal Inference. See my earlier article on the subject here. England is a very talented researcher, and embodies the highest ideals of the academy. He also addresses himself in other contexts to the general public. I note that he has a new book due to be published in September, Every Life Is on Fire: How Thermodynamics Explains the Origins of Living Things, which the publisher, Basic Books, offers as being “in the tradition of Viktor Frankl’s Man’s Search for Meaning.” Clearly, the questions he and I have discussed are not only of scientific or academic interest, but instead go to the root of life’s meaning and purpose.
His response to my article is both collegial and thoughtful. He acknowledges my understanding of his work and of the underlying fluctuation theorems, and he respectfully expresses his disagreement with my conclusion. In reality, the difference in our views stems less from our understanding of the science than from the different contexts in which we analyze the theory and the experimental data.
England rightly states that the fluctuation theorems allow for the possibility that some mechanism could drive matter to both lower entropy and higher energy (higher free energy), thus potentially solving the problem of the origin of life, at least in theory. In contrast, I addressed the likelihood that, given the practical constraints, realistic natural processes on the early earth could generate a minimally complex cell. In that context, England indirectly affirmed the main points of my argument and thus reinforced the conclusion that an undirected origin of life might be possible in principle, but it is completely implausible in practice.
The main points of my argument can be summarized as follows:
Natural processes tend to drive systems toward higher entropy, lower energy, or both. In direct conflict, the origin of life requires a collection of molecules to move toward dramatically lower entropy and higher energy. The only way to overcome the thermodynamic barriers is for an engine to be present at the very instantiation of life that can convert some available source of energy into a form that can fuel the construction and operations of a cell. Significant quantities of information must also be present both to steer a highly specific set of interconnected chemical reactions that comprise a minimally viable cell and to direct the generated energy toward powering the otherwise nonspontaneous reactions.
The Need for Engines and Information
In his response, England directly affirms the first and second points:
Given the relationship between work absorption and probability expressed, the equation suggests there may be a scenario in which a low-entropy, high-energy, stable state of matter may be a likely outcome of the dynamics, and if so, then it must involve a process that absorbs and dissipates a lot of energy from the environment. This scenario would be most interesting in cases where absorbing energy from the environment is difficult, because then it might be possible to see the signature of this energy flow in the exceptional capabilities of the structure that emerges.
What England calls a process that “absorbs and dissipates a lot of energy from the environment” in such a way as to create a “low-entropy, high-energy, stable state of matter” is precisely what I called an engine. Another useful designation in some contexts would be an energy converter. And, in the earlier paragraphs he explicitly acknowledges that natural processes, without such an engine, always move matter toward high entropy, lower energy, or both.
England did not address my third point directly, but he did cite several research articles that affirm the need for preexisting information and for an engine/energy converter implicitly. In my article, I demonstrated that England’s simulations of chemical networks (here, here) must incorporate the equivalent of the molecular engines and the information-rich enzymes seen in life. England cited other studies that likewise demonstrate that energy converters and supplied information are required to drive matter to a raised free energy.
Research Studies
For instance, he referenced his study on a simulation of a spin glass driven by an applied time-varying magnetic field. A spin glass models a network of atoms with spins aligned in non-uniform directions. In the experiment, the field periodically switches between distinct time-varying patterns. The switching applies work to the network, which generates fine-tuned memory effects. Of central importance, the applied field and its pattern of switching is constructed to interact with the network in the distinct manner required to achieve the desired class of responses. As such, the field effectively functions as a finely tuned energy converter.
The role of information in the simulation is more subtle and calls for a brief digression into information theory. A key tenet is that information can often be thought of as that which enacts causal control over or reduces the uncertainty in an outcome. In the case of the experiment, the highly specified construction of the simulation entails the implementation of information. The applied information constrains the dynamics (reduces the uncertainty) to effect a specific category of outcomes. It functions equivalently to the information in an enzyme that directs the production of a specific molecule.
The same preconditions hold true for another experiment England referenced that studies the behavior of particles placed in a viscous liquid and confined within an acrylic tube that acts as a waveguide. The particles are agitated by a continuous acoustic pressure exerted by speakers. The particles’ motion and the sound transmission through the waveguide are measured respectively by a webcam and microphone. The researchers reported self-organization and “life-like” behavior in the bandgap (i.e., range of acoustic wavelengths with reduced transmission through the waveguide):
Remarkably, the lifelike behaviours often observed in non-equilibrium structures are here bestowed to the emergent bandgap itself. This is manifested in its ability to self-heal to mechanical perturbations and self-adapt to changes in the drive wavelength.
The key observations are that the speakers convert electricity into acoustic waves of specific wavelengths that interact with the particles in the required manner, so a speaker acts as a highly calibrated energy converter. And the experimental instructions specify the precise shape and dimensions for the waveguide; the size, shape, and physical properties of the particles; the positions and orientations of the speakers; and the physical properties of the viscous fluid. These specifications represent applied information that constrains the dynamics in such a way as to produce the desired results. Here again, achieving noteworthy behavior requires an energy converter and the application of information.
Relevance to the Origin of Life
A key question is to what extent the experiments England cites resemble processes on the early earth. The answer is that they are not even remotely similar. No metallic ore mirroring a spin glass would ever have encountered a time-varying magnetic field that could significantly raise the free energy of its atomic network. Nor would any collection of rocks or organic globules have ever experienced an acoustic wave that could induce self-organizational dynamics with life-like behavior. The experiments, in fact, demonstrate that any mechanism that could effectively act as an engine/energy converter requires goal-oriented engineering and careful implementation.
The constraints governing an emerging cell present even greater challenges than in the cited experiments for nature to assemble a viable engine. In life, the energy produced must be in the form of high-energy (energy-currency) molecules that could power the chemical reactions undergirding cellular operations. The challenge is that the energy requirement is enormous. As I explained in my article, the minimal power production capacity needed for a nascent cell just to prevent it from degrading into simple chemicals approaches, if scaled, that of a high-performance racing car.
The most promising candidate for a “natural engine” is proton flows across thermal vents that theoretically could generate high-energy molecules. However, simulations of vents under ideal conditions only produce chemical energy at a rate that is at least eight orders of magnitude too small. And the actual product is formaldehyde in concentrations far too miniscule to contribute to any stage in the genesis of a cell. Such meager results simply highlight the fact that no natural mechanism could realistically generate the required energy to power even the earliest stages of any origin-of-life scenario.
Moreover, the driven objects in each of the cited experiments are identical, so they all interact uniformly with the applied field. In contrast, the reactions in a cell are quite different. As a result, no single engine could drive more than one or two of them even under ideal conditions. Consequently, a cell requires multiple mechanisms to extract the energy from the energy-currency molecules and direct it toward powering each distinct reaction. I detailed in my article how only a suite of hundreds of enzymes could meet this requirement, which corresponds to at least a million bits of information. England’s response to my article has only reinforced these conclusions.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-12-31--#2 Story of 2020: Kimberella Is No Solution to the Cambrian Conundrum

Editor ’ s note : Welcome to an Evolution News tradition : a countdown of our Top 10 favorite stories of the past year , concluding on New Year ’ s Day .
Our staff are enjoying the holidays , as we hope that you are , too !
Help keep the daily voice of intelligent design going strong .
Please give whatever you can to support the Center for Science & Culture before the end of the year !
The following was originally published on September 21 , 2020 .
Editor ’ s note that introduced the original article @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a series of posts by paleontologist Günter Bechly on the Ediacaran organism Kimberella .
If identified as an animal , it would “ predate the Cambrian explosion of bilaterian animal phyla as a kind of ‘ advance guard.
’ ” The question is of interest for debates about evolution and arguments about intelligent design raised by Stephen Meyer , among others .
Find the full series about Kimberella here .
We can sum up that the current consensus suggests : that Kimberella is indeed a metazoan animal and most probably belongs either in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has an uncertain position within Lophotrochozoa , but it is not a stem mollusk .
Nevertheless , the proper interpretation of many of the structures of Kimberella is still controversial and the alternative possibility that Kimberella could be a coelenterate grade animal can not be ruled out yet , especially since there is evidence for sclerotization and very diverse body plans in early Cambrian comb jellies ( Scleroctenophora ) ( Zhao et al .
2019 ) , as well as evidence for ancestral bilateral symmetry in Cnidaria ( Erwin 2008 ) .
What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explosion ?
Together with the alleged evidence for other Ediacaran bilaterian animals , which we critically discussed in my previous articles , this means that none of the Cambrian animal phyla is represented in the Ediacaran fossil record .
This is very significant , because the potential soft-bodied ancestors would surely have been preserved in the numerous Ediacaran fossil localities of the Burgess Shale type ( Bechly 2020 ) , or in the Kimberella layers , which after all could preserve the soft-parts of a mollusk-like organism .
At best the only two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the recently described worm-like Yilingia ( Chen et al .
2019 , Evolution News 2019 ) , could document the existence of just two phyla of Bilateria of uncertain affinity prior to the Cambrian era .
However , their unique specializations strongly suggest that they could only represent extinct side branches but could not be directly ancestral to any of the numerous Cambrian animal phyla , and thus do not resolve their enigmatic origin .
Therefore , the latter still appear abruptly out of nowhere .
The thousands of fossil links , postulated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for the transition from a protist choanoflagellate ancestor to the complex body plans of the more than twenty Cambrian phyla of bilaterian metazoan animals , still remain elusive and missing , in spite of suitable fossil localities .
Actually , the same problem exists for the so-called Avalon explosion that abruptly generated the diversity of macro-organisms of the Ediacaran biota .
Where are all the missing links for the problematic organisms like Charnia , Dickinsonia , and Kimberella , which would document their gradual and stepwise evolution from protozoan ancestors ?
Honest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ substantial conflicting evidence .
The fossil record speaks clearly and cries out loud : the history of life on Earth is a history of saltations .
There is a reason why scientists called these abrupt appearances “ explosions ” or even “ Big Bangs ” of life .
Guess which model better fits this evidence , Darwin ’ s theory of gradually “ climbing mountain improbable ” ( a metaphor offered by Richard Dawkins ) or rather intelligent design theory ?
It is not a difficult choice , unless your world view dictates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ • Bechly G 2020 .
The demise of the Artifact Hypothesis .
Evolution News July 6 , 2020 .
• Bengtson S 2005 .
Mineralized skeletons and early animal evolution .
pp .
p. 101–124 in : Briggs DEG ( ed ) .
Evolving Form and Function : Fossils and Development : Proceedings of a Symposium Honoring Adolf Seilacher for his Contributions to Paleontology , in Celebration of his 80th Birthday .
Peabody Museum of Natural History , Yale University , New Haven , CT , 288 pp .
[ Website ] • @ @ @ @ @ @ @ RJ , Friedman M , Near TJ , Vinther J 2015 .
Constraints on the timescale of animal evolutionary history .
Paleontologia Electronica 18 ( 1 ) , 1–107 .
[ PDF ] • Bottjer DJ 2002 .
Enigmatic Ediacara Fossils : Ancestors or Aliens ?
Chapter 2 , pp .
11–33 in : Bottjer DJ , Etter W , Hagadorn JW , Tang CM ( eds ) .
Exceptional Preservation : A Unique View on the Evolution of Marine Life .
Columbia University Press , New York , xv+403 pp .
[ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ RA , Poulton SW 2017 .
Controls on the evolution of Ediacaran metazoan ecosystems : A redox perspective .
Geobiology 15 , 516–551 .
DOI : 10.1111/gbi.12232 .
• Budd GE 2008 .
The earliest fossil record of the animals and its significance .
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 363 ( 1496 ) , 1425–1434 DOI : 10.1098/rstb.2007.2232 .
• Budd GE , Jensen S 2000 .
A critical reappraisal of the fossil record of the bilaterian phyla .
Biological Reviews 75 , 253–295 .
DOI : 10.1111/j.1469-185X.1999.tb00046.x .
• Budd @ @ @ @ @ @ @ origin of the animals and a ‘ Savannah ’ hypothesis for early bilaterian evolution .
Biological Reviews 92 ( 1 ) , 446–473 .
DOI : 10.1111/brv.12239 .
• Butterfield NJ 2006 .
Hooking some stem-group “ worms ” : fossil lophotrochozoans in the Burgess Shale .
Bioessays 28 ( 12 ) , 1161–1166 .
DOI : 10.1002/bies.20507 .
• Caron JB , Scheltema A , Schander C , Rudkin D 2006 .
A soft-bodied mollusc with radula from the Middle Cambrian Burgess Shale .
Nature 442 , 159–163 .
DOI : 10 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Zhou C , 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 .
• Conway Morris S , Caron JB 2007 .
Halwaxiids and the Early Evolution of the Lophotrochozoans .
Science315 ( 5816 ) , 1255–1258 .
DOI : 10.1126/science.1137187 .
• Coutts FJ 2019 .
Palaeoecology of Ediacaran communities from the Flinders Ranges of South Australia .
Ph.D. thesis , University of Adelaide , 155 pp .
[ ResearchGate ] • Coutts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 .
How diverse were early animal communities ?
An example from Ediacara Conservation Park , Flinders Ranges , South Australia .
Alcheringa : An Australasian Journal of Palaeontology 40 ( 4 ) , 407–421 .
DOI : 10.1080/03115518.2016.1206326 .
• Crimes TP 1994 .
The period of early evolution failure and the dawn of evolutionary success : the record of biotic changes across the Precambrian– Cambrian boundary .
pp .
105–133 in : Donovan SK ( ed ) .
The Palaeobiology of Trace Fossils .
John Wiley and Sons , New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ • Cunningham JA , Liu AG , Bengtson S , Donoghue PCJ 2017 .
The origin of animals : Can molecular clocks and the fossil record be reconciled ?
BioEssays 39 ( 1 ) , 1–12 .
DOI : 10.1002/bies.201600120 .
• Davidson EH , Erwin DH 2009 .
An Integrated View of Precambrian Eumetazoan Evolution .
Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology 74 , 65–80 .
DOI : 10.1101/sqb.2009.74.042 .
• Dornbos SQ , Bottjer DJ , Chen J-Y 2004 .
Evidence for seafloor microbial mats and associated metazoan lifestyles in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lethaia 37 ( 2 ) , 127–137 .
DOI : 10.1080/00241160410004764 ( there seems to be a DOI error with this article ) .
[ ResearchGate ] • Droser ML , Gehling JG 2015 .
The advent of animals : The view from the Ediacaran .
PNAS 112 ( 16 ) , 4865–4870 .
DOI : 10.1073/pnas.1403669112 .
• Droser ML , Tarhan LG , Gehling JG 2017 .
The Rise of Animals in a Changing Environment : Global Ecological Innovation in the Late Ediacaran .
Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
• Dzik J 2003 .
Anatomical Information Content in the Ediacaran Fossils and Their Possible Zoological Affinities .
Integrative & Comparative Biology 43 ( 1 ) , 114–126 .
DOI : 10.1093/icb/43.1.114 .
• Dzik J 2011 .
Possible Ediacaran ancestry of the halkieriids .
Palaeontographica Canadiana 31 , 205–217 .
[ ResearchGate ] [ Abstract-Volume ] • Erwin DH , Laflamme M , Tweedt SM , Sperling EA , Pisani D , Peterson KJ 2011 .
The Cambrian Conundrum : Early Divergence and Later Ecological Success in the Early History of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : 10.1126/science.1206375 .
• Erwin DH , Valentine , JW 2013 .
The Cambrian Explosion : The Construction of Animal Diversity .
Roberts and Co. , Calgary , 406 pp .
[ NHBS ] • Evolution News 2015 .
Are the Ediacarans Transitional Forms for the Cambrian Explosion ?
Evolution News April 24 , 2015 .
• Fedonkin MA 1980 .
New Precambrian Coelenterata in the north of the Russian platform .
Paleontologicheskii Zhurnal 2 , 7–15 .
[ in Russian ] • Fedonkin MA 1998 .
[ A second birth of Kimberella @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ In Russian ] • Fedonkin MA 2001 .
[ Glimpse into 600 Million Years Ago ] .
Science in Russia 6 ( 126 ) , 4–15 .
[ In Russian ] • Fedonkin MA 2003 .
The origin of the Metazoa in the light of the Proterozoic fossil record .
Paleontological Research 7 ( 1 ) , 9–41 .
DOI : 10.2517/prpsj.7.9 .
• Fedonkin MA , Vickers-Rich P 2007 .
First trace of motion .
pp .
205–216 in : Fedonkin MA , Gehling JG , Grey K , Narbonne GM @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Rise of Animals – Evolution and Diversification of the Kingdom Animalia .
John Hopkins University Press , Baltimore , MD , 326 pp .
[ Google Books ] • Fedonkin MA , Gehling JG , Grey K , Narbonne GM , Vickers-Rich P 2007a .
The Rise of Animals — Evolution and Diversification of the Kingdom Animalia .
John Hopkins University Press , Baltimore , MD , 326 pp .
[ Google Books ] • Fedonkin MA , Simonetta A , Ivantsov AY 2007b .
New data on Kimberella , the Vendian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russia ) : palaeoecological and evolutionary implications .
pp .
157–179 in : Vickers-Rich P , Komarower P ( eds ) .
The Rise and Fall of the Ediacaran Biota .
Geological Society , London , Special Publications 286 .
DOI : 10.1144/SP286.12 .
• Gehling JG 1991 .
The case for Ediacaran fossil roots to the metazoan tree .
Memoirs of the Geological Society of India 20 , 181–224 .
[ ResearchGate ] • Gehling JG 1996 .
Taphonomy of the terminal Proterozoic Ediacara biota , South Australia .
Unpublished Ph.D. thesis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , University of California at Los Angeles , 222 pp .
[ ResearchGate ] • Gehling JG , Droser M 2013 .
How well do fossil assemblages of the Ediacara Biota tell time ?
Geology 41 ( 4 ) , 447–450 .
DOI : 10 1130/G33881.1 .
• Gehling JG & Rigby JK 1996 .
Long Expected Sponges from the Neoproterozoic Ediacara Fauna of South Australia .
Journal of Paleontology 70 ( 2 ) , 185–195 .
DOI : 10.1017/S0022336000023283 .
• Gehling JG , Runnegar B , Seilacher A 1995 , Rasping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terminal Neoproterozoic of Australia and Late Cambrian ?
of Saudi Arabia .
The 1st SEPM Congress on Sedimentary Geology , St. Petersburg , Florida , 57–58 .
• Gehling JG , Droser ML , Jensen SR , Runnegar BN 2005 .
Ediacara organisms : relating form to function .
pp .
43–67 in : Briggs DEG ( ed ) .
Evolving Form and Function : Fossils and Development : Proceedings of a Symposium Honoring Adolf Seilacher for his Contributions to Paleontology , in Celebration of his 80th Birthday .
Peabody Museum of Natural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , CT , 288 pp .
[ Website ] • Glaessner MF , Daily B 1959 .
The Geology and Late Precambrian Fauna of the Ediacara Fossil Reserve .
Records of the South Australian Museum 13 , 369–401 , pls xlii–xlvii .
[ BHL ] • Glaessner MF 1960 .
Precambrian fossils from South Australia .
Proceedings of the 21st International Geological Congress , Copenhagen , 22 , 59–64 .
• Godfrey-Smith P 2016 .
Other Minds : The Octopus , the Sea , and the Deep Origins of Consciousness .
Farrar , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 272 pp .
[ Google Books ] • Grazhdankin DV 2003 .
Structure and Depositional Environment of the Vendian Complex in the Southeastern White Sea Area .
Stratigraphy and Geological Correlation 11 ( 4 ) 313–331 .
[ ResearchGate ] [ translated from Stratigrafiya , Geologicheskaya Korrelyatsiya 2003 , 11 ( 4 ) , 3–24 ] • Grazhdankin D 2004 .
Patterns of distribution in the Ediacaran biotas : facies versus biogeography and evolution .
Paleobiology 30 ( 2 ) , 203–221 .
DOI : 10.1666/0094-8373 ( 2004 ) 030 < 0203 : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Grazhdankin D 2014 .
Patterns of Evolution of the Ediacaran Soft-Bodied Biota .
Journal of Paleontology88 ( 2 ) , 269–283 .
DOI : 10.1666/13-072 .
• Ivantsov AY 2009 .
A New Reconstruction of Kimberella , a Problematic Vendian Metazoan .
Paleontological Journal 43 ( 6 ) , 601–611 .
DOI : 10.1134/S003103010906001X .
[ original article in Russian in Paleontologicheskii Zhurnal 6 , 3–12 ] • Ivantsov AY 2010a .
The Metazoan Kimberella : Example of Vendian Fossils Interpretation .
pp .
406–419 in : Tr .
Mezhdunar .
nauchn .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ i sovremennaya biologiya ” , 21– 23 sentyabrya 2009 g. ( Charles Darwin and modern biology .
Proc .
Int .
Sci .
Conf.
, September 21–23 , 2009 ) , St. Petersburg .
• Ivantsov AY 2010b .
Paleontological evidence for the supposed Precambrian occurrence of mollusks .
Paleontological Journal 44 ( 12 ) , 1552–1559 .
DOI : 10.1134/S0031030110120105 .
• Ivantsov AY 2012 .
Paleontological Data on the Possibility of Precambrian Existence of Mollusks .
Chapter 5 pp .
153-179 in : Fyodorov A , Yakovlev H ( ed ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ecology .
Nova Science Publ.
, Hauppauge , NY , 285 pp .
[ ResearchGate ] • Ivantsov AY 2013 .
Trace Fossils of Precambrian Metazoans “ Vendobionta ” and “ Mollusks ” .
Stratigraphy and Geological Correlation 21 ( 3 ) , 252–264 .
DOI : 10.1134/S0869593813030039 .
• Ivantsov AY 2017 .
The most probable Eumetazoa among late Precambrian macrofossils .
Invertebrate Zoology 14 ( 2 ) , 127–133 .
DOI : 10.15298/invertzool.14.2.05 .
• Ivantsov AX , Fedonkin MA 2001a .
[ Traces of Active Movement – Final Proof for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
pp .
133–137 in : Materialy II Mezhdunarodnogo simpoziuma Evolyutsiya zhizini na Zemle [ Proceedings of the Second International Symposium “ Evolution of Life on Earth ” ] .
Izd .
Nauchno-Tekh .
Lit-ry ( NTL ) , Tomsk .
[ In Russian ] • Ivantsov AY , Fedonkin MA 2001b .
Locomotion Trails of the Vendian Invertebrates Preserved with the Producer ’ s Body Fossils , White Sea , Russia .
Abstracts of the North American Paleontological Convention 2001 .
PaleoBios 21 , 72 .
[ Abstract ] • Ivantsov AY @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Some Problematic Fossils from the Vendian of the Southeastern White Sea Region .
Paleontological Journal 38 ( 1 ) , 1–9 .
[ ResearchGate ] • Ivantsov AY , Leonov M , Zakrevskaya M 2007 .
Guidebook of the field paleontological excursion : Zimnie Gory – locality of the Vendian ( Ediacaran ) soft-bodied animals .
The Rise and Fall of the Vendian/Ediacaran Biota : Origin of the Modern Biosphere .
International Conference on the IGCP Project 493 .
PIN RAS , Moscow , 27 pp .
[ ResearchGate ] • Jenkins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Ediacaran Assemblages .
Chapter 5 pp .
131–176 in : Lipps JH , Signor PW ( eds ) .
Origin and Early Evolution of the Metazoa .
Topics in Geobiology , vol 10 .
Plenum Press , New York , xiii+570 pp .
DOI : 10.1007/978-1-4899-2427-8_5 .
• Jenkins RJF 1995 .
The problems and potential of using animal fossils and trace fossils in terminal Proterozoic biostratigraphy .
Precambrian Research 73 ( 1-4 ) , 51–69 .
DOI : 10.1016/0301-9268 ( 94 ) 00071-X .
• Jenkins RJF , Ford CH , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Rawnsley Quartzite : the context of the Ediacara assemblage ( late Precambrian , Flinders Ranges ) .
Journal of the Geological Society of Australia 30 ( 1-2 ) , 101–119 .
DOI : 10.1080/00167618308729240 .
• Knaust D 2015 .
Grazing traces ( Kimberichnus teruzzii ) on Middle Triassic microbial matground .
pp .
115–125 in : McIlroy D ( ed ) .
ICHNOLOGY : Papers from ICHNIA III in St. John ’ s , NL , Canada .
Geological Association of Canada , Miscellaneous Publication 9 .
[ CD-ROM ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Multiple Origins of Complex Multicellularity .
Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 39 , 217–239 .
DOI : 10.1146/annurev.earth.031208.100209 .
• Kocot KM , Poustka AJ , Stöger I , Halanych KM , Schrödl M 2020 .
New data from Monoplacophora and a carefully-curated dataset resolve molluscan relationships .
Scientific Reports 10:101 , 1–8 .
DOI : 10.1038/s41598-019-56728-w. • Laflamme M , Darroch SAF , Tweedt SM , Peterson KJ , Erwin DH 2013 .
The end of the Ediacara biota : Extinction , biotic replacement , or Cheshire Cat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 558–573 .
DOI : 10.1016/j.gr.2012.11.004 .
• Martin MW , Grazhdankin DV , Bowring SA , Evans DAD , Fedonkin MA , Kirschvink JL 2000 .
Age of Neoproterozoic Bilatarian Body and Trace Fossils , White Sea , Russia : Implications for Metazoan Evolution .
Science 288 ( 5467 ) , 841–845 .
DOI : 10.1126/science.288.5467.841 .
• McMenamin MAS 2016 .
Dynamic Paleontology : Using Quantification and Other Tools to Decipher the History of Life .
Springer , Cham , xii+251 pp .
DOI : 10.1007/978-3-319-22777-1 .
[ PDF of Systematics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clemente Biota .
pp .
61–102 in : Deep Time Analysis : A Coherent View from the History of Life .
Springer , Cham , 288 pp .
DOI : 10.1007/978-3-319-74256-4_3 .
[ Google Books ] [ PDF of Systematics section ] • Mitchell EG , Bobkov N , Bykova N , Dhungana A , Kolesnikov A , Hogarth IRP , Liu AG , Mustill TMR , Sozonov N , Xiao S , Grazhdankin DV 2020 .
The influence of environmental setting on the community ecology of Ediacaran organisms .
Interface Focus 10 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DOI : 10.1098/rsfs.2019.0109 .
• Muscente AD , Bykova N , Boag TH et al .
2019 .
Ediacaran biozones identified with network analysis provide evidence for pulsed extinctions of early complex life .
Nature Communications 10:911 , 1–15 .
DOI : 10.1038/s41467-019-08837-3 .
• Nielsen C 2012 .
Animal Evolution : Interrelationships of the Living Phyla .
3rd Edition .
Oxford University Press , 402 pp .
[ Google Books ] • Parkhaev P 2008 .
The Early Cambrian Radiation of Mollusca .
Chapter 3 pp .
33-69 in : Ponder WF @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Phylogeny and Evolution of the Mollusca .
University of California Press , Berkeley , 469 pp .
DOI : 10.1525/california/9780520250925.003.0003 .
• Parkhaev PY 2017 .
Origin and the Early Evolution of the Phylum Mollusca .
Paleontological Journal51 ( 6 ) , 663–686 .
DOI : 10.1134/S003103011706003X .
• Peterson KJ , Cotton JA , Gehling JG , Pisani D 2008 .
The Ediacaran emergence of bilaterians : congruence between the genetic and the geological fossil records .
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 363 ( 1496 ) , 1435–1443 .
DOI @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lindberg DR ( eds ) 2008 .
Phylogeny and Evolution of the Mollusca .
University of California Press , Berkeley , 469 pp .
[ Google Books ] • Rozhnov SV 2010 .
From Vendian to Cambrian : the Beginning of Morphological Disparity of Modern Metazoan Phyla .
Russian Journal of Developmental Biology 41 ( 6 ) , 357–368 .
DOI : 10.1134/S1062360410060032 .
• Scheltema AH 2014 .
The original molluscan radula and progenesis in Aplacophora revisited .
Journal of Natural History 48 ( 45-48 ) , 2855–2869 , DOI : 10.1080/00222933.2014.959573 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Wollesen T , Todt C , Wanninger A 2013 .
Aplacophoran Mollusks Evolved from Ancestors with Polyplacophoran-like Features .
Current Biology 23 ( 21 ) , P2130–P2134 .
DOI : 10.1016/j.cub.2013.08.056 .
• Schrödl M , Stöger I 2014 .
A review on deep molluscan phylogeny : old markers , integrative approaches , persistent problems .
Journal of Natural History 48 ( 45-48 ) , 2773–2804 .
DOI : 10.1080/00222933.2014.963184 .
• Seilacher A 1997 .
Fossil Art : An Exhibition of the Geologisches Institut Tuebingen .
The Royal Tyrrell Museum of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 64 pp .
[ Review ] • Seilacher A , Grazhdankin D , Legou A 2003 .
Ediacaran biota : The dawn of animal life in the shadow of giant protists .
Paleontological Research 7 ( 1 ) , 43–54 .
DOI : 10.2517/prpsj.7.43 .
• Seilacher A , Buatois LA , Mángano MG 2005 .
Trace fossils in the Ediacaran–Cambrian transition : Behavioral diversification , ecological turnover and environmental shift .
Palaeogeography Palaeoclimatology Palaeoecology 227 , 323–356 .
DOI : 10.1016/j.palaeo.2005.06.003 .
• Serezhnikova EA 2007 .
Palaeophragmodictya spinosa sp .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Vendian of the Southeastern White Sea Region .
Paleontological Journal 41 ( 4 ) , 360–369 .
DOI : 10.1134/S0031030107040028 .
• Shukla M , Babu R , Singh VK , Sharma M 2006 .
A Catalogue of Precambrian Palaeobiology from India .
Diamond Jubilee Special Publication .
Birbal Sahni Institute of Palaeobotany , Lucknow , 121 pp .
[ ResearchGate ] • Sigwart JD , Lindberg DR 2015 .
Consensus and Confusion in Molluscan Trees : Evaluating Morphological and Molecular Phylogenies .
Systematic Biology 64 ( 3 ) , 384–395 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2012 .
Mouthparts of the Burgess Shale fossils Odontogriphus and Wiwaxia : implications for the ancestral molluscan radula .
Proceedings of the Royal Society B 279 ( 1745 ) , 4287–4295 .
DOI : 10.1098/rspb.2012.1577 .
• Sperling EA , Vinther J 2010 .
A placozoan affinity for Dickinsonia and the evolution of late Proterozoic metazoan feeding modes .
Evolution & Development 12 , 201–209 , doi : 10.1111/j.1525-142X.2010.00404.x .
• Sperling EA , Knoll AH , Girguis PR 2015 .
The ecological physiology of Earth ’ s second oxygen revolution .
Annual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Systematics 46 , 215–235 .
DOI : 10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110512-135808 .
• Stearley R 2013 .
The Cambrian Explosion : How Much Bang for the Buck ?
Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 65 ( 4 ) , 245–257 .
[ PDF ] • Stöger I , Sigwart JD , Kano Y , Knebelsberger T , Marshall BA , Schwabe E , Schrödl M 2013 .
The Continuing Debate on Deep Molluscan Phylogeny : Evidence for Serialia ( Mollusca , Monoplacophora + Polyplacophora ) .
BioMed Research International 2013 : 407072 , 1–18 .
DOI @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Droser ML , Gehling JG 2015 .
Depositional and preservational environments of the Ediacara Member , Rawnsley Quartzite ( South Australia ) : Assessment of paleoenvironmental proxies and the timing of ‘ ferruginization ’ .
Palaeogeography , Palaeoclimatology , Palaeoecology 434 , 4–13 .
DOI : 10.1016/j.palaeo.2015.04.026 .
• Telford MJ , Littlewood DTJ ( eds ) 2008 .
Animal Evolution : Genomes , Fossils , and Trees .
Oxford University Press , Oxford , xvi+245 pp , 11 pls .
[ Google Books , includes the papers by Budd 2008 and Peterson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ P , Stilwell J , Vickers-Rich P 2007 .
Comment : future research directions for further analysis of Kimberella .
pp .
181-185 in : Vickers-Rich P , Komarower P ( eds ) .
The Rise and Fall of the Ediacaran Biota .
Geological Society , London , Special Publications 286 .
DOI : 10.1144/SP286.13 .
• Valentine JW 2004 .
On the Origin of Phyla .
University of Chicago Press , Chicago and London , 614 pp .
[ Google Books ] • Vendrasco MJ 2012 .
Early evolution of molluscs .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yakovlev H ( eds ) .
Mollusks : morphology , behavior and ecology .
Nova Science Publishers , Hauppauge , NY , 285 pp .
• Vinther J , Sperling EA , Briggs DE , Peterson KJ 2012 .
A molecular palaeobiological hypothesis for the origin of aplacophoran molluscs and their derivation from chiton-like ancestors .
Proceedings of the Royal Society B 279 ( 1732 ) , 1259–1268 .
DOI : 10.1098/rspb.2011.1773 .
• Vinther J , Parry L , Briggs DEG , Van Roy P 2017 .
Ancestral morphology of crown-group molluscs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Nature 542 , 471–474 .
DOI : 10.1038/nature21055 .
• Wade M 1972 .
Hydrozoa and Scyphozoa and other medusoids from the Precambrian Ediacara fauna , South Australia .
Palaeontology 15 ( 2 ) , 197–225 , pls 40–43 .
[ PDF ] • Waggoner B 1998 .
Interpreting the Earliest Metazoan Fossils : What Can We Learn ?
American Zoologist38 ( 6 ) , 975–982 .
JSTOR : 4620224 .
• Wanninger A , Wollesen T 2019 .
The evolution of molluscs .
Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 94 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : 10.1111/brv.12439 .
• Xiao S , Laflamme M 2009 .
On the eve of animal radiation : phylogeny , ecology and evolution of the Ediacara biota .
Trends in Ecology and Evolution 24 ( 1 ) , 31–40 .
DOI : 10.1016/j.tree.2008.07.015 .
• Zhao Y , Vinther J , Parry LA , Wei F , Green E , Pisani D , Hou X , Edgecombe GD , Cong P 2019 .
Cambrian Sessile , Suspension Feeding Stem-Group Ctenophores and Evolution of the Comb Jelly Body Plan .
Current Biology 29 , @ @ @ @ @ @

Photo: Kimberella, by Ghedoghedo / CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0).
Editor’s note: Welcome to an Evolution News tradition: a countdown of our Top 10 favorite stories of the past year, concluding on New Year’s Day. Our staff are enjoying the holidays, as we hope that you are, too! Help keep the daily voice of intelligent design going strong. Please give whatever you can to support the Center for Science & Culture before the end of the year!
The following was originally published on September 21, 2020.
Editor’s note that introduced the original article: We have been delighted to present a series of posts by paleontologist Günter Bechly on the Ediacaran organism Kimberella. If identified as an animal, it would “predate the Cambrian explosion of bilaterian animal phyla as a kind of ‘advance guard.’” The question is of interest for debates about evolution and arguments about intelligent design raised by Stephen Meyer, among others. Find the full series about Kimberella here.
We can sum up that the current consensus suggests: that Kimberella is indeed a metazoan animal and most probably belongs either in the stem group of Bilateria or maybe has an uncertain position within Lophotrochozoa, but it is not a stem mollusk. Nevertheless, the proper interpretation of many of the structures of Kimberella is still controversial and the alternative possibility that Kimberella could be a coelenterate grade animal cannot be ruled out yet, especially since there is evidence for sclerotization and very diverse body plans in early Cambrian comb jellies (Scleroctenophora) (Zhao et al. 2019), as well as evidence for ancestral bilateral symmetry in Cnidaria (Erwin 2008).
Implications for the Cambrian Explosion
What does this tell us about the Cambrian explosion? Together with the alleged evidence for other Ediacaran bilaterian animals, which we critically discussed in my previous articles, this means that none of the Cambrian animal phyla is represented in the Ediacaran fossil record. This is very significant, because the potential soft-bodied ancestors would surely have been preserved in the numerous Ediacaran fossil localities of the Burgess Shale type (Bechly 2020), or in the Kimberella layers, which after all could preserve the soft-parts of a mollusk-like organism. At best the only two relatively uncontroversial Ediacaran bilaterians, Kimberella and the recently described worm-like Yilingia (Chen et al. 2019, Evolution News 2019), could document the existence of just two phyla of Bilateria of uncertain affinity prior to the Cambrian era. However, their unique specializations strongly suggest that they could only represent extinct side branches but could not be directly ancestral to any of the numerous Cambrian animal phyla, and thus do not resolve their enigmatic origin.
Therefore, the latter still appear abruptly out of nowhere. The thousands of fossil links, postulated by Darwin’s theory of evolution, for the transition from a protist choanoflagellate ancestor to the complex body plans of the more than twenty Cambrian phyla of bilaterian metazoan animals, still remain elusive and missing, in spite of suitable fossil localities. Actually, the same problem exists for the so-called Avalon explosion that abruptly generated the diversity of macro-organisms of the Ediacaran biota. Where are all the missing links for the problematic organisms like Charnia, Dickinsonia, and Kimberella, which would document their gradual and stepwise evolution from protozoan ancestors?
Honest scientists cannot any longer ignore this substantial conflicting evidence. The fossil record speaks clearly and cries out loud: the history of life on Earth is a history of saltations. There is a reason why scientists called these abrupt appearances “explosions” or even “Big Bangs” of life. Guess which model better fits this evidence, Darwin’s theory of gradually “climbing mountain improbable” (a metaphor offered by Richard Dawkins) or rather intelligent design theory? It is not a difficult choice, unless your world view dictates what kind of theories are allowed.
References


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-03-30--Coronavirus, Intelligent Design, and Evolution

Many people have been wondering about the relevance of intelligent design ( ID ) or evolution to the new coronavirus reported in Wuhan , China , in December 2019 .
What follows is my view as a molecular biologist .
The new virus goes by several names .
It was initially called 2019-nCoV by the World Health Organization ( with “ n ” standing for “ new ” ) .
Since its DNA sequence is similar to that of the coronavirus that caused Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome ( SARS ) in 2003 , the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The disease caused by the virus has been called COVID-19 ( with “ d ” standing for “ disease ” ) .
There are other coronaviruses ( including MERS-CoV , the virus that caused the 2012 epidemic of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome ) .
To avoid confusion , I will refer to the latest coronavirus by its technical name , SARS-CoV-2 .
Some people have maintained that SARS-CoV-2 is a product of human design .
According to a February New York Post article , it may have escaped from a microbiology laboratory at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I have seen no scientific evidence to support this claim .
On March 17 , 2020 , an analysis of DNA from several different coronaviruses was published in Nature Medicine .
The authors concluded , “ Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.
” Jonathan Bartlett , who has studied the logic of design inferences in depth , subsequently argued that the scientists had ruled out only one design hypothesis , so design was still theoretically possible .
But Bartlett did not maintain that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Could SARS-CoV-2 have evolved from another coronavirus by mutation and natural selection ?
I don ’ t see why not , though there is only indirect evidence ( from DNA sequences ) to support the idea .
If it had happened , however , it would not provide support for Darwinian evolution .
First , viruses are not living organisms : They are just pieces of DNA or RNA enclosed in a protein coat .
They do not carry out metabolism ( the chemical processes that are essential for life ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only living cells — or skilled genetic engineers — can make copies of them ) .
Second , even if viruses were considered living things , the evolution of SARS-CoV-2 from another coronavirus would be akin to microevolution — minor changes within existing biological species .
( “ Species ” are not even defined the same way in viruses as they are in living organisms . )
But Darwin did not write a book titled How Existing Species Change Over Time .
He wrote a book titled The Origin of Species .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ macroevolution — the origin of new species , organs , and body plans .
What , then , is the relevance of ID or evolution to SARS-CoV-2 ?
As we have seen , their relevance to the origin of the coronavirus is unclear .
But what about their relevance to combating the disease , COVID-19 ?
According to Darwinist Theodosius Dobzhansky ( who distinguished between microevolution and macroevolution in the 1930s ) , “ nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
” In 2003 , Texas Tech University professor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being taken against the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic owe nothing to evolutionary theory .
The use of quarantine to block the spread of disease began in the fourteenth century .
In the 1790s , Edward Jenner vaccinated people to protect them from smallpox .
In 1847 , Hungarian obstetrician Ignác Semmelweis demonstrated that proper hand washing lowers mortality from infectious disease .
The administration of oxygen to patients with labored breathing was first reported in the years just following the publication of The Origin of Species , but the practice was based on physiological and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if any treatments are found to cure COVID-19 or lessen its effects , they will come from the intelligently designed efforts of virologists , biochemists , and clinicians — not evolutionary biologists .

Many people have been wondering about the relevance of intelligent design (ID) or evolution to the new coronavirus reported in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. What follows is my view as a molecular biologist.
The new virus goes by several names. It was initially called 2019-nCoV by the World Health Organization (with “n” standing for “new”). Since its RNA sequence is similar to that of the coronavirus that caused Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in 2003, the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses renamed it SARS-CoV-2 in March 2020. The disease caused by the virus has been called COVID-19 (with “d” standing for “disease”).
There are other coronaviruses (including MERS-CoV, the virus that caused the 2012 epidemic of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome). To avoid confusion, I will refer to the latest coronavirus by its technical name, SARS-CoV-2.
Some people have maintained that SARS-CoV-2 is a product of human design. According to a February New York Post article, it may have escaped from a microbiology laboratory at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. But I have seen no scientific evidence to support this claim.
On March 17, 2020, an analysis of RNA from several different coronaviruses was published in Nature Medicine. The authors concluded, “Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.”
Jonathan Bartlett, who has studied the logic of design inferences in depth, subsequently argued that the scientists had ruled out only one design hypothesis, so design was still theoretically possible. But Bartlett did not maintain that SARS-CoV-2 is a product of human design.
Could SARS-CoV-2 have evolved from another coronavirus by mutation and natural selection? I don’t see why not, though there is only indirect evidence (from RNA sequences) to support the idea. If it had happened, however, it would not provide support for Darwinian evolution.
First, viruses are not living organisms: They are just pieces of DNA or RNA enclosed in a protein coat. They do not carry out metabolism (the chemical processes that are essential for life), and they do not reproduce themselves (only living cells — or skilled genetic engineers — can make copies of them). Second, even if viruses were considered living things, the evolution of SARS-CoV-2 from another coronavirus would be akin to microevolution — minor changes within existing biological species. (“Species” are not even defined the same way in viruses as they are in living organisms.)
But Darwin did not write a book titled How Existing Species Change Over Time. He wrote a book titled The Origin of Species. In other words, Darwin attempted to explain macroevolution — the origin of new species, organs, and body plans.
What, then, is the relevance of ID or evolution to SARS-CoV-2? As we have seen, their relevance to the origin of the coronavirus is unclear. But what about their relevance to combating the disease, COVID-19? According to Darwinist Theodosius Dobzhansky (who distinguished between microevolution and macroevolution in the 1930s), “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” In 2003, Texas Tech University professor Michael Dini wrote:
The central, unifying principle of biology is the theory of evolution. How can someone who does not accept the most important theory in biology expect to properly practice in a field [medicine] that is so heavily based on biology?
Yet the measures being taken against the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic owe nothing to evolutionary theory. The use of quarantine to block the spread of disease began in the fourteenth century. In the 1790s, Edward Jenner vaccinated people to protect them from smallpox. In 1847, Hungarian obstetrician Ignác Semmelweis demonstrated that proper hand washing lowers mortality from infectious disease. The administration of oxygen to patients with labored breathing was first reported in the years just following the publication of The Origin of Species, but the practice was based on physiological and clinical considerations, not evolution. And if any treatments are found to cure COVID-19 or lessen its effects, they will come from the intelligently designed efforts of virologists, biochemists, and clinicians — not evolutionary biologists.
Editor’s note: This article was updated on April 5, 2020.
Photo credit: Airman 1st Class Alexis Christian, via Peterson Air Force Base.