evolutionnewsandviews--2020-07-25--By Design, Earth Is a Planet Fit for Fire

Editor ’ s note : We are pleased to present a series adapted from biologist Michael Denton ’ s book , Fire-Maker : How Humans Were Designed to Harness Fire and Transform Our Planet , from Discovery Institute Press .
Find the whole series here .
Dr. Denton ’ s forthcoming book , The Miracle of the Cell , will be published in September .
As we have seen so far in this series , fire was an absolutely crucial component in humanity ’ s rise to civilization and technology .
Indeed , it is difficult to imagine any path @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continue with fire .
That path was not of man ’ s own making , but was facilitated by a remarkable fitness in the nature of things , witnessed in the utility of metals , the availability of their ores , and the fact that temperatures sufficient to smelt metals from their ores are attainable in charcoal fires .
But nature has provided another vitally important contribution to humankind ’ s harnessing of fire : It has maintained an atmosphere on the Earth that has just the right properties for both fire-making and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fire and its utilization by beings like ourselves must have an atmosphere that supports both respiration and fire .
Although it is not widely appreciated , the atmospheric conditions necessary for respiration and those for combustion are different .
It is quite possible for a planet to have an atmosphere that supports fire but not respiration ( e.g.
, altitudes above the summit of Mount Everest ) , one that supports respiration butnot combustion , or one that supports neither .
The critical point is that fire “ spread ” ( sustainability ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those that ensure oxygen uptake in the lungs .
In a paper sponsored by NASA , the authors comment : In another NASA-sponsored paper entitled pointedly , “ Habitable Atmospheres which Do Not Support Combustion , ” Edward McHale comments : It was discovered that if the heat capacity of the atmosphere could be raised to ~50 cal/°C mole 0 , the atmospheres would not support combustion of any ordinary material .
Many properties of the environment determine the rate of flame spread , and the simple correlation with heat capacity obtains because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only act physically to suppress combustion… combustion depends on the feedback of energy on the flame zone to the unburned fuel in order to bring it to the combustion temperature .
Inert gases act as heat sinks for the combustion energy , cooling the flame and interfering with this feedback process and , at sufficiently high concentrations , quenching combustion .
However , the atmosphere plays a different role in sustaining life than in supporting combustion .
The life support function requires a partial pressure ( ~2.5 psi [ 130mm mg ] or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the necessary oxygen tension in the blood .
Dilutent gases , if they are physiologically inert [ like nitrogen ] , have only a minor effect on this process .
Hence , by selection of a proper additive it should be possible to prepare an atmosphere of high heat capacity that is also physiologically inert .
This would comprise a habitable atmosphere that would not support combustion.2 Because the factors that influence uptake in the lungs ( including partial pressure of oxygen in the atmosphere , currently 160 mm Hg ) and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the percentage of oxygen , currently 21 percent , and the presence of dilutents in the atmosphere ) are quite different , it is possible to engineer atmospheres capable of sustaining oxygen uptake in the lungs but not fire .
Douglas Drysdale points out : It is possible to create an atmosphere that will support life but not flame .
If the thermal capacity of the atmosphere per mole of oxygen is increased to more than c. 275J/K ( corresponding to 12 % O in N ) , the flame can not exist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of oxygen as low as 12 % will not support normal human activity [ except for races acclimatized to living at high altitudes ] but if this atmosphere is pressurized to 1.7 bar , the oxygen partial pressure will be increased to 160mm Hg , equivalent to that in a normal atmosphere and therefore perfectly habitable — although incapable of supporting combustion.3 Such atmospheres have been considered for use in various confined spaces such as space ships .
Nitrogen is an effective dilutent and tests by the U.S. Navy showed that if the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of more nitrogen to an atmosphere , the fire may be quenched even though the partial pressure of the oxygen is still 160 mm Hg and perfectly capable of supporting human respiration.4 Because the process of combustion differs fundamentally from oxygen uptake in the lungs , the fact that there is an atmosphere that supports both is of enormous consequence .
It was this coincidence that allowed mankind to utilize fire in the first place and set out on his technological journey from the Stone Age to the 21st century .
It is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nitrogen does not have a specific heat capacity much lower than it does or fire might be difficult to tame in ambient conditions .
Because nitrogen is essential to confer density to the atmosphere and necessary to keep the oceans from evaporating — no other candidate is available — its specific heat capacity is another element of fitness in nature which has enabled the control of fire by humans .
In sum , the current atmosphere is fit — but for different reasons — both for sustaining fire and for supporting human oxidative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the overall atmospheric pressure ( currently 760 mm mg ) can not be much increased or the work of breathing would be significantly increased,5 as would the risk of fire.6 On the other hand , it can not be radically less or the oceans would have long ago evaporated , although recent work suggests that at times in the distant past it may have been less than half its current level.7 Tomorrow , “ Why Do We Not Spontaneously Combust ?
” • USAF School of Aerospace Medicine , The Combustibility of Materials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Huggett , Guenther Von Elbe , Wilburt Haggerty , SAM-TR-66-85 , Brooks Air Force Base , 1966 , 7 and 14 , accessed on April 1 , 2016 , http : //archive.rubicon-foundation.org/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/4600/SAM_66_85.pdf ?
sequence=1 .
• NASA , Habitable Atmospheres which Do Not Support Combustion , Edward McHale , 30 , Alexandria , Atlantic Research ( 1972 ) , https : //archive.org/details/nasa_techdoc_19720014620 .
• Drysdale ibid ; Clayton Hugget , “ Habitable Atmospheres which do not support combustion , ” Flame and Combustion 20 , no .
1 ( 1972 ) : 140-142 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Grayson , Heat Release in Fires , ( London : Interscience Communications , 2009 ) .
On page 316 the authors comment : “ The effects of pressure on the burning of combustibles has become of great interest to the U.S. Navy as a means of extinguishing fires… In a landmark paper entitled Habitable Atmospheres Which do not Support Combustion… Huggett explained that for survival humans depend on there bing a minimum partial pressure of oxygen , and a minimum concentration .
By contrast , the combustion process requires a minimum flame temperature @ @ @ @ @ @ @ temperature can be related to a minimum heat capacity per mole of O , this being about 170 to 210J/C per mole of O .
Thus , if the total pressure of the atmosphere is increased by the forced injection of an inert gas into a sealed atmosphere , it may be possible to extinguish a fire without injuring persons… In small scale pool fire tests extinction was typically achieved when the nitrogen dilutent raised the total pressure to about 1.6 atmospheres .
Subsequent , engineering details have been pursued in an ambitious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Richard Maynard Case and D. E. Evans , eds.
, Variations in Human Physiology ( Manchester , UK : Manchester University Press , 1985 ) .
The work of breathing increases with the density ( pressure ) of the atmosphere .
As the authors comment on pages 105 : “ The maximum voluntary ventilation is approximately proportional to the reciprocal of the square root of the density .
This means at a depth of 30 m ( 4 bar ) the maximum voluntary ventilation is only 50 % of that at sea level @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is increased for another reason ] as the density of the air breathed increases , so the flow of air in the airways becomes more turbulent , resulting in an increase in airway resistance .
In addition , an increased density of gases hinders their intra-alveolar diffusion … As a result of these factors , whereas maximum work capacity at sea level is normally limited by cardiovascular transport of oxygen , the limitations [ of increased pressure/density ] are largely ventilatory.
” • Increasing atmospheric pressure much above the current level of 760 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sea level ( keeping the composition the same i.e.
, 21 percent oxygen and 79 percent nitrogen ) i.e.
, hyperbaric conditions also increases the danger of fire .
As reported in the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ( NOAA ) hand book section 6.5.2 : “ The burning rate when the pressure is equivalent to [ 3 bar ] is twice that of sea level air , and is 2.5 times as fast at [ 6 bar ] .
” ( National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration , Department of Commerce , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Technology , 1991 , section 6-14 . )
In effect hyperbaric atmospheres have a similar effect as increasing the percentage of oxygen and render the control of fire highly problematical .
• Sanjoy M. Som , Roger Buick , James W. Hagadorn , Tim S. Blake , John M. Perreault , Jelte P. Harnmeijer , and David C. Catling , “ Earth ’ s Air Pressure 2.7 Billion Years Ago Constrained to Less than Half of Modern Levels , ” Nature Geoscience ( 2016 ) .
doi:10.1038/ngeo2713 .

Photo: Space shuttle Atlantis, by NASA.
Editor’s note: We are pleased to present a series adapted from biologist Michael Denton’s book, Fire-Maker: How Humans Were Designed to Harness Fire and Transform Our Planet, from Discovery Institute Press. Find the whole series here. Dr. Denton’s forthcoming book, The Miracle of the Cell, will be published in September.
Earth’s size is just about right — not so small that its gravity was too weak to hold the atmosphere and not so large that its gravity would hold too much atmosphere including harmful gases. Frank Press and Raymond Siever, Earth (New York, W.H. Freeman, 1986), 4.
As we have seen so far in this series, fire was an absolutely crucial component in humanity’s rise to civilization and an advanced technology. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine any path to technology that does not begin and continue with fire. That path was not of man’s own making, but was facilitated by a remarkable fitness in the nature of things, witnessed in the utility of metals, the availability of their ores, and the fact that temperatures sufficient to smelt metals from their ores are attainable in charcoal fires.
But nature has provided another vitally important contribution to humankind’s harnessing of fire: It has maintained an atmosphere on the Earth that has just the right properties for both fire-making and the fire-maker.
The Right Atmosphere
A planet fit for fire and its utilization by beings like ourselves must have an atmosphere that supports both respiration and fire. Although it is not widely appreciated, the atmospheric conditions necessary for respiration and those for combustion are different. It is quite possible for a planet to have an atmosphere that supports fire but not respiration (e.g., altitudes above the summit of Mount Everest), one that supports respiration butnot combustion, or one that supports neither.
The critical point is that fire “spread” (sustainability) is determined by different atmospheric factors from those that ensure oxygen uptake in the lungs. In a paper sponsored by NASA, the authors comment:
The mechanism of flame spread comprises a very complex interplay of diffusion, heat transfer, and chemical processes in the fuel material and in the ambient gas phase… flame spread rates over the surface of combustible solids are reduced by the presence of an inert dilutent in the atmosphere… The rate of flame spread can be correlated with the specific heat of the atmosphere per mole of oxygen… the apparent ignition energy is strongly dependent on the thermal dissipative characteristics of the atmosphere….1
In another NASA-sponsored paper entitled pointedly, “Habitable Atmospheres which Do Not Support Combustion,” Edward McHale comments:
It was discovered that if the heat capacity of the atmosphere could be raised to ~50 cal/°C mole 0 2 , the atmospheres would not support combustion of any ordinary material. Many properties of the environment determine the rate of flame spread, and the simple correlation with heat capacity obtains because the agents being considered are inert and only act physically to suppress combustion… combustion depends on the feedback of energy on the flame zone to the unburned fuel in order to bring it to the combustion temperature. Inert gases act as heat sinks for the combustion energy, cooling the flame and interfering with this feedback process and, at sufficiently high concentrations, quenching combustion. However, the atmosphere plays a different role in sustaining life than in supporting combustion. The life support function requires a partial pressure (~2.5 psi [130mm mg] or greater) of oxygen sufficient to maintain the necessary oxygen tension in the blood. Dilutent gases, if they are physiologically inert [like nitrogen], have only a minor effect on this process. Hence, by selection of a proper additive it should be possible to prepare an atmosphere of high heat capacity that is also physiologically inert. This would comprise a habitable atmosphere that would not support combustion.2
Because the factors that influence oxygen uptake in the lungs (including partial pressure of oxygen in the atmosphere, currently 160 mm Hg) and the factors that influence fire spread (including the percentage of oxygen, currently 21 percent, and the presence of dilutents in the atmosphere) are quite different, it is possible to engineer atmospheres capable of sustaining oxygen uptake in the lungs but not fire. Douglas Drysdale points out:
It is possible to create an atmosphere that will support life but not flame. If the thermal capacity of the atmosphere per mole of oxygen is increased to more than c. 275J/K (corresponding to 12% O 2 in N 2 ), the flame cannot exist under normal ambient conditions. A level of oxygen as low as 12% will not support normal human activity [except for races acclimatized to living at high altitudes] but if this atmosphere is pressurized to 1.7 bar, the oxygen partial pressure will be increased to 160mm Hg, equivalent to that in a normal atmosphere and therefore perfectly habitable — although incapable of supporting combustion.3
Such atmospheres have been considered for use in various confined spaces such as space ships. Nitrogen is an effective dilutent and tests by the U.S. Navy showed that if the oxygen/nitrogen mix is changed by the addition of more nitrogen to an atmosphere, the fire may be quenched even though the partial pressure of the oxygen is still 160 mm Hg and perfectly capable of supporting human respiration.4
A Fact of Enormous Consequence
Because the process of combustion differs fundamentally from oxygen uptake in the lungs, the fact that there is an atmosphere that supports both is of enormous consequence. It was this primal coincidence that allowed mankind to utilize fire in the first place and set out on his technological journey from the Stone Age to the 21st century.
It is worth noting the additional fortunate fact that nitrogen does not have a specific heat capacity much lower than it does or fire might be difficult to tame in ambient conditions. Because nitrogen is essential to confer density to the atmosphere and necessary to keep the oceans from evaporating — no other candidate is available — its specific heat capacity is another element of fitness in nature which has enabled the control of fire by humans.
In sum, the current atmosphere is fit — but for different reasons — both for sustaining fire and for supporting human oxidative metabolism. On the one hand, the overall atmospheric pressure (currently 760 mm mg) cannot be much increased or the work of breathing would be significantly increased,5 as would the risk of fire.6 On the other hand, it cannot be radically less or the oceans would have long ago evaporated, although recent work suggests that at times in the distant past it may have been less than half its current level.7
Tomorrow, “Why Do We Not Spontaneously Combust?”
Notes


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-07-29--How Much of Today’s Anarchic Nihilism Can Be Laid at Darwin’s Feet?

There ’ s a pervasive sense afoot that something has gone wrong , in a very serious way , in our culture .
Just in 2020 , problems that were of , let ’ s say , an outpatient nature in their gravity have gone to full-scale emergency — a cytokine storm of trouble , is one way of putting it .
But why ?
I ’ ve watched the once-beautiful city where I live , Seattle , pummeled by violent protests , the police undermined by those above them in the government .
The city watches endless chaos as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in authority seems willing to stop it .
Neighboring Portland is worse .
Such things are happening across the country .
It is anguishing .
What Is Going On ?
We ’ ve seen things that were previously unheard of .
A random example : as others have pointed out , you may have noticed from the videos of urban anarchy that it ’ s now women , not just young men , who are assaulting police officers and otherwise creating mayhem .
It used to be that males had a monopoly on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drives the astonishing anarchism , the nihilism of the young ?
What has drained the confidence of the adults , who should be the ones acting to assert order ?
I ’ m not sure anyone knows the full truth .
But watch this striking three-minute video from Discovery Institute : That there might be something unique , exalted , and worth defending about human lives , about our traditions of moral and spiritual belief , about institutions like marriage or the family or about property , about our freedom or our equal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the cosmos — all these ideas , once agreed on across the culture , are eroding , with a gathering speed , before our eyes .
Of course I ’ m not say everything can be laid to Darwin ’ s feet .
But see how much nihilism has been justified and advocated by some very smart and influential people in the name of evolutionary theory .
This is not just a scientific theory of biological origins .
It ’ s a powerful myth .
That observation alone doesn ’ t make Darwinism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ true .
It only means that Darwinism conveys a vision of reality that can ’ t help but shape us deep within .
The malignancy of it has been building for more than a century and a half .
Something wrong in the way Americans are shaped reached a critical threshold this year .
If you want to understand how that happened , because you want to know how it could be reversed , it ’ s not possible without considering the role of evolution advocacy , which begins in school and continues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three minutes and see if you agree with me .

Photo: Another night of rioting in Portland, by Tedder / CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0).
There’s a pervasive sense afoot that something has gone wrong, in a very serious way, in our culture. Just in 2020, problems that were of, let’s say, an outpatient nature in their gravity have gone to full-scale emergency — a cytokine storm of trouble, is one way of putting it. But why? I’ve watched the once-beautiful city where I live, Seattle, pummeled by violent protests, the police undermined by those above them in the government. The city watches endless chaos as the mob rampages, and no one in authority seems willing to stop it. Neighboring Portland is worse. Such things are happening across the country. It is anguishing.
What Is Going On?
We’ve seen things that were previously unheard of. A random example: as others have pointed out, you may have noticed from the videos of urban anarchy that it’s now women, not just young men, who are assaulting police officers and otherwise creating mayhem. It used to be that males had a monopoly on protest violence. Not anymore. What drives the astonishing anarchism, the nihilism of the young? What has drained the confidence of the adults, who should be the ones acting to assert order?
I’m not sure anyone knows the full truth. But watch this striking three-minute video from Discovery Institute:
That there might be something unique, exalted, and worth defending about human lives, about our traditions of moral and spiritual belief, about institutions like marriage or the family or about property, about our freedom or our equal dignity, about our privileged place in the cosmos — all these ideas, once agreed on across the culture, are eroding, with a gathering speed, before our eyes.
A Powerful Myth that Shapes Us
Of course I’m not saying everything can be laid to Darwin’s feet. But see how much nihilism has been justified and advocated by some very smart and influential people in the name of evolutionary theory. This is not just a scientific theory of biological origins. It’s a powerful myth. That observation alone doesn’t make Darwinism false science. A myth could be true. It only means that Darwinism conveys a vision of reality that can’t help but shape us deep within. The malignancy of it has been building for more than a century and a half. Something wrong in the way Americans are shaped reached a critical threshold this year.
If you want to understand how that happened, because you want to know how it could be reversed, it’s not possible without considering the role of evolution advocacy, which begins in school and continues to bombard us into adulthood. Take three minutes and see if you agree with me.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-07-28--The Fairy Tale World of an Evolution Textbook

Editor ’ s note : Dr. Shedinger is a Professor of Religion at Luther College in Decorah , Iowa .
He is the author of a recent book critiquing Darwinian triumphalism , The Mystery of Evolutionary Mechanisms .
See also the earlier entries in this series : I have been reviewing the edited and updated textbook Strickberger ’ s Evolution .
In a text box titled “ Coevolution of Plants and Insects , ” Brian K. Hall and Benedikt Hallgrimsson tell of how Darwin became aware of strange forms among orchids and postulated that even the most unusual orchid must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with it .
For example , the Madagascar Star ( Christmas orchid ) had a corolla 25 cm .
long but no pollinator was known to Darwin .
Years later , however , a giant hawk moth was discovered with a 30 cm .
tongue , proving Darwin ’ s postulate .
Hall and Hallgrimsson view these types of coevolutionary relationships as evidence for natural selection .
But they do so without considering how such a process would actually work .
The textbook consistently side-steps the problem of the initial stages of variation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ developed a slightly longer corolla , how could a hawk moth pollinate it if the hawk moth had not yet developed the slightly longer tongue necessary ?
What was the initial stage of variation that set this coevolutionary process in motion ?
This problem appears in many different parts of the textbook , most prominently when discussing major transitions in evolutionary history .
In these discussions , Hall and Hallgrimsson set aside science and engage in the telling of fairy tales worthy of Hans Christian Andersen .
For example we are told , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ occurred a number of times , giving rise to different lineages of organisms.
” But what drove this transition ?
There must be advantages to multicellularity that would be preserved by natural selection .
A multicellular organism ’ s food gathering surface , we are told , increases which ensures a more stable food supply and the ability to attack and digest larger particles of food .
This would be accompanied by an increase in gene numbers and regulatory pathways .
But if by chance some ancient unicellular organism mutated in such a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and these multicellular offspring were perpetuated by natural selection due to the advantages they enjoy over their unicellular parents , they would have eventually replaced their unicellular ancestors and the world today would be awash only in multicellular organisms .
But as anyone who has battled a bacterial infection knows , unicellular organisms continue today as perhaps the most successful organisms on the face of the planet .
Multicellularity somehow evolved , but it does not seem to be because multicellularity confers a clear selective advantage .
After all , most multicellular organisms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then consider the increasing complexity of organisms over the course of evolutionary history .
For example , early pelagic animals that swam above the sea floor , we are told , became benthic animals that crawled along the sea floor eating accumulated detritus .
Why ?
Because a benthic existence has clear advantages : If this transition took a number of evolutionary steps , how would the first benthic organisms have taken advantage of these new food sources if a mouth and gut had not yet developed ?
And if benthic existence was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the oceans today teem with large and complex pelagic organisms swimming above the sea floor ?
( Sharks , anyone ?
! )
The textbook has nothing to say on this .
Life , of course , did not remain in the sea .
How did aquatic organisms invade the land ?
The commonly accepted hypothesis , according to Hall and Hallgrimsson , is that aquatic animals moved onto land due to pressure from increasing numbers of predators and competition for space , food , and breeding sites .
That is : But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why did aquatic lineages continue to thrive ?
And what was the initial stage of variation that allowed for terrestrial existence , given the radically different anatomical and physiological systems required for life on the land .
Apparently , natural selection waived its magic wand and fish walked out of the sea !
Eventually , terrestrial animals , which were cold-blooded , discovered endothermy .
And this was clearly an advantage since : Several years ago , my family spent time at an eco-lodge in the Costa Rican rainforest .
One morning lodge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a fer-de-lance from the lodge grounds for safety reasons .
But after reading Strickberger ’ s Evolution , I fail to understand their concern .
The exhausted snake should not have presented much of a danger to the superior endotherms staying at the lodge !
In a related transition , why did egg-laying animals give rise to live births ?
A system that provided maternal care and nourishment , we are told , would have led to smaller eggs and more rapid development of the fetus before hatching .
Endothermy would have helped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ close to maternal body temperature which would have assisted enzymatic activity .
Then : Viviparity replaced oviparity ?
Really ?
!
Then where did my scrambled eggs come from this morning ?
!
Understanding how small incremental variations would be preserved by natural selection and lead to large-scale evolutionary change has plagued Darwinism since its inception .
In 1909 the forceful Darwinian August Weismann puzzled over the thickness of limpet shells that protect limpets from the destructive force of ocean waves .
He asks : Weismann confesses ignorance on this question but assumes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had selective value because limpets exist .
To the larger question of whether small incremental variations can do the work Darwin requires of them Weismann writes : What are those other grounds ?
Later in the same essay Weismann comes clean : Strickberger ’ s Evolution is clearly making the same kinds of assumptions as Weismann , and likely for the same reason : the philosophical requirement for naturalistic explanation .
The textbook wants to tell a story of how major transitions in the history of life were driven by mutations conferring a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ replaced their “ inferior ” ancestors .
But the data don ’ t support this narrative .
Multicellularity developed , but unicellular organisms continue to exist and thrive .
Benthic organisms evolved , but their pelagic ancestors continue to swim in the world ’ s oceans .
Some animals left the ocean to live on land , but their ocean-living cousins have done just fine .
Endothermy may have advantages over ectothermy , but I wouldn ’ t advise taking your chances by picking up a poisonous snake .
Given the lack of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ account for major transitions in the history of life , Strickberger ’ s Evolution might be a textbook better suited to an English course on fantasy literature .
It really doesn ’ t belong in a science classroom .

Photo: This fer-de-lance doesn't belong in a hotel, by Bernard DUPONT / CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0).
Editor’s note: Dr. Shedinger is a Professor of Religion at Luther College in Decorah, Iowa. He is the author of a recent book critiquing Darwinian triumphalism, The Mystery of Evolutionary Mechanisms. See also the earlier entries in this series:
I have been reviewing the edited and updated textbook Strickberger’s Evolution. In a text box titled “Coevolution of Plants and Insects,” Brian K. Hall and Benedikt Hallgrimsson tell of how Darwin became aware of strange forms among orchids and postulated that even the most unusual orchid must have a matching pollinator that had coevolved with it. For example, the Madagascar Star (Christmas orchid) had a corolla 25 cm. long but no pollinator was known to Darwin. Years later, however, a giant hawk moth was discovered with a 30 cm. tongue, proving Darwin’s postulate. Hall and Hallgrimsson view these types of coevolutionary relationships as evidence for natural selection. But they do so without considering how such a process would actually work.
The textbook consistently side-steps the problem of the initial stages of variation. That is, if an orchid developed a slightly longer corolla, how could a hawk moth pollinate it if the hawk moth had not yet developed the slightly longer tongue necessary? What was the initial stage of variation that set this coevolutionary process in motion? This problem appears in many different parts of the textbook, most prominently when discussing major transitions in evolutionary history. In these discussions, Hall and Hallgrimsson set aside science and engage in the telling of fairy tales worthy of Hans Christian Andersen.
What Drove the Transition?
For example we are told, “The change from unicellularity to multicellularity occurred a number of times, giving rise to different lineages of organisms.” But what drove this transition? There must be advantages to multicellularity that would be preserved by natural selection. A multicellular organism’s food gathering surface, we are told, increases which ensures a more stable food supply and the ability to attack and digest larger particles of food. This would be accompanied by an increase in gene numbers and regulatory pathways.
But if by chance some ancient unicellular organism mutated in such a way that its offspring became multicellular, and these multicellular offspring were perpetuated by natural selection due to the advantages they enjoy over their unicellular parents, they would have eventually replaced their unicellular ancestors and the world today would be awash only in multicellular organisms. But as anyone who has battled a bacterial infection knows, unicellular organisms continue today as perhaps the most successful organisms on the face of the planet. Multicellularity somehow evolved, but it does not seem to be because multicellularity confers a clear selective advantage. After all, most multicellular organisms have gone extinct.
The Fairy Tales Continue
Hall and Hallgrimsson then consider the increasing complexity of organisms over the course of evolutionary history. For example, early pelagic animals that swam above the sea floor, we are told, became benthic animals that crawled along the sea floor eating accumulated detritus. Why? Because a benthic existence has clear advantages:
A number of evolutionary steps would inevitably accompany a benthic existence. The scattered distribution of food sources would give a selective advantage to organisms that could eat more food more rapidly, leading to an increase in size and the evolution of a mouth and gut that would permit selective digestion.
If this transition took a number of evolutionary steps, how would the first benthic organisms have taken advantage of these new food sources if a mouth and gut had not yet developed? And if benthic existence was such a selective advantage, why do the oceans today teem with large and complex pelagic organisms swimming above the sea floor? (Sharks, anyone?!) The textbook has nothing to say on this.
Life, of course, did not remain in the sea. How did aquatic organisms invade the land? The commonly accepted hypothesis, according to Hall and Hallgrimsson, is that aquatic animals moved onto land due to pressure from increasing numbers of predators and competition for space, food, and breeding sites. That is:
Combined ecological, environmental, and climactic changes provided powerful selective advantages to lineages spending progressively larger periods of time on land.
But if land-dwelling was such an advantage, why did aquatic lineages continue to thrive? And what was the initial stage of variation that allowed for terrestrial existence, given the radically different anatomical and physiological systems required for life on the land. Apparently, natural selection waived its magic wand and fish walked out of the sea!
Eventually, terrestrial animals, which were cold-blooded, discovered endothermy. And this was clearly an advantage since:
…increased aerobic metabolism supports more sustained activity and greater stamina than ectotherms can achieve; ectotherms become rapidly exhausted because they rely mostly on anaerobic metabolism.
A Snake in the Eco-Lodge
Several years ago, my family spent time at an eco-lodge in the Costa Rican rainforest. One morning lodge employees were trying to capture and remove a fer-de-lance from the lodge grounds for safety reasons. But after reading Strickberger’s Evolution, I fail to understand their concern. The exhausted snake should not have presented much of a danger to the superior endotherms staying at the lodge!
In a related transition, why did egg-laying animals give rise to live births? A system that provided maternal care and nourishment, we are told, would have led to smaller eggs and more rapid development of the fetus before hatching. Endothermy would have helped since the hatched offspring could be kept close to maternal body temperature which would have assisted enzymatic activity. Then:
At some point, viviparity (viviparous reproduction) replaced oviparity; it would probably take only a few additional steps for hatching to occur in the oviduct.
Viviparity replaced oviparity? Really?! Then where did my scrambled eggs come from this morning?!
Breakfast Is Served
Understanding how small incremental variations would be preserved by natural selection and lead to large-scale evolutionary change has plagued Darwinism since its inception. In 1909 the forceful Darwinian August Weismann puzzled over the thickness of limpet shells that protect limpets from the destructive force of ocean waves. He asks:
What proportion of thickness was sufficient to decide that of two variants of a limpet, one should survive, the other be eliminated?
Weismann confesses ignorance on this question but assumes that some measure of thickness must have had selective value because limpets exist. To the larger question of whether small incremental variations can do the work Darwin requires of them Weismann writes:
To this question even one, who like myself, has been for many years a convinced adherent of the theory of selection can only reply: we must assume so, but we cannot prove it in any case. It is not upon demonstrative evidence that we rely when we champion the doctrine of selection as a scientific truth; we base our argument on quite other grounds. [Emphasis in the original.]
What are those other grounds? Later in the same essay Weismann comes clean:
We must accept it (natural selection) because the phenomena of evolution and adaptation must have a natural basis, and because it is the only possible explanation.
Strickberger’s Evolution is clearly making the same kinds of assumptions as Weismann, and likely for the same reason: the philosophical requirement for naturalistic explanation. The textbook wants to tell a story of how major transitions in the history of life were driven by mutations conferring a selective advantage on organisms that out-competed and replaced their “inferior” ancestors. But the data don’t support this narrative. Multicellularity developed, but unicellular organisms continue to exist and thrive. Benthic organisms evolved, but their pelagic ancestors continue to swim in the world’s oceans. Some animals left the ocean to live on land, but their ocean-living cousins have done just fine. Endothermy may have advantages over ectothermy, but I wouldn’t advise taking your chances by picking up a poisonous snake.
Given the lack of substantive scientific argumentation in these attempts to account for major transitions in the history of life, Strickberger’s Evolution might be a textbook better suited to an English course on fantasy literature. It really doesn’t belong in a science classroom.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-07-28--For Fire, Our Planet Is Just the Right Size

Editor ’ s note : We are pleased to present a series adapted from biologist Michael Denton ’ s book , Fire-Maker : How Humans Were Designed to Harness Fire and Transform Our Planet , from Discovery Institute Press .
Find the whole series here .
Dr. Denton ’ s forthcoming book , The Miracle of the Cell , will be published in September .
All the unique elements of fitness in nature for fire and the development of technology would be of no avail without rocky planets of the right size , like the Earth .
If a planet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and atmosphere fit for life , as discussed in previous posts in this series , it must be of approximately the size and mass and possess a gravitational field very close to that of the Earth1 and undergo a similar geophysical evolution .
Its gravity must be strong enough to retain permanently the heavier gaseous elements such as nitrogen , oxygen , and carbon dioxide , but weak enough to permit the initial loss of the lighter volatile elements such as hydrogen and helium .
Only on planets of similar mass and size @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exist an atmosphere containing sufficient quantities of oxygen to sustain fire .
But here is something even more remarkable : A “ Goldilocks ” planet like ours that is “ just right ” in size and gravity to provide an atmosphere supportive of fire and human respiration is also “ just right ” for the existence of carbon-based organisms of our size and design possessing an upright bipedal posture , i.e.
, organisms — as we shall see later in the series — of the right size and design to exploit the phenomenon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the surface of a planet limits the maximum size of large terrestrial organisms .
If the Earth had more than twice its current surface gravity , our weight would be more than doubled , necessitating radical compensatory changes in the design of the body that might well prohibit the existence of large upright bipedal creatures like humans .
So planets of the Earth ’ s size and mass are coincidentally fit both for the design of a bipedal animal of the dimensions of a man capable of exploiting fire and for providing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respiration.2 Tomorrow , “ For a Technological Civilization , We Must Have Metals.
” • “ Surface Gravity , ” Wikipedia , May 12 , 2016 , accessed May 17 , 2016 , https : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_gravity ; Gravity = M/R2 where M = mass and R = radius of the planet • NASA , “ NASA ’ s Kepler Mission Announces Largest Collection of Planets Ever Discovered , ” 16-051 , Kepler and K2 , May 10 , 2016 , accessed May 16 , 2016 , http : //www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasas-kepler-mission-announces-largest-collection-of-planets-ever-discovered ; In Nature ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some time ago before the Kepler mission was launched : “ If the cosmos is indeed uniquely fit for life as it exists on earth then the existence of [ rocky , earth-like planets ] capable of harbouring life should be relatively common.
” ( Michael Denton , Nature ’ s Destiny , 95 . )
Although to date no planet exactly like the earth has been detected ( see Mike Wall , “ 1st Alien Earth Still Elusive Despite Huge Exoplanet Haul , ” Space.com , May 11 , 2016 , accessed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ //www.space.com/32852-alien-earth-search-nasa-kepler-space-telescope.html ) there is a widespread and growing belief that they will eventually be found ( Sara Seager , “ Searching for Other Earths , ” The New Atlantis ( Fall 2015 ) , accessed May 16 , 2016 , http : //www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/searching-for-other-earths . )

Photo: Earth from space, April 22, 1970, by NASA.
Editor’s note: We are pleased to present a series adapted from biologist Michael Denton’s book, Fire-Maker: How Humans Were Designed to Harness Fire and Transform Our Planet, from Discovery Institute Press. Find the whole series here. Dr. Denton’s forthcoming book, The Miracle of the Cell, will be published in September.
All the unique elements of fitness in nature for fire and the development of technology would be of no avail without rocky planets of the right size, like the Earth.
If a planet is to possess the necessary stable hydrosphere and atmosphere fit for life, as discussed in previous posts in this series, it must be of approximately the size and mass and possess a gravitational field very close to that of the Earth1 and undergo a similar geophysical evolution. Its gravity must be strong enough to retain permanently the heavier gaseous elements such as nitrogen, oxygen, and carbon dioxide, but weak enough to permit the initial loss of the lighter volatile elements such as hydrogen and helium. Only on planets of similar mass and size to the Earth’s could there exist an atmosphere containing sufficient quantities of oxygen to sustain fire.
A Goldilocks Planet
But here is something even more remarkable: A “Goldilocks” planet like ours that is “just right” in size and gravity to provide an atmosphere supportive of fire and human respiration is also “just right” for the existence of carbon-based organisms of our size and design possessing an upright bipedal posture, i.e., organisms — as we shall see later in the series — of the right size and design to exploit the phenomenon of fire.
Self-evidently, the gravity on the surface of a planet limits the maximum size of large terrestrial organisms. If the Earth had more than twice its current surface gravity, our weight would be more than doubled, necessitating radical compensatory changes in the design of the body that might well prohibit the existence of large upright bipedal creatures like humans. So planets of the Earth’s size and mass are coincidentally fit both for the design of a bipedal animal of the dimensions of a man capable of exploiting fire and for providing the right atmosphere to support combustion and respiration.2
Tomorrow, “For a Technological Civilization, We Must Have Metals.”
Notes


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-07-29--DNA May Be “Junk” at One Level But of Utmost Significance at Another

In a previous article I mentioned that chromosomes can and do have roles that go far beyond the so-called “ Central Dogma.
” Nowhere is this point better demonstrated , it would seem , than in the phenomenon of meiosis or “ reductional division , ” which generates a haploid gamete from a diploid germ cell by means of an intricate series of developmental events .
Indeed , it is during the latter stages of the production of an animal oocyte that many functionalities of what some disparage as “ junk DNA ” take center stage .
Recall that in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meiotic networks are acentriolar ( or acentrosomal or anastral ) , because the chromosomes to be divided eventually both recruit and sequester tubulin .
In this way they are involved in organizing the bipolarity of the required spindle ( Matthies et al .
1996 , Theurkauf and Hawley 1992 ) .
The latter is composed ( at least in part ) of anti-parallel microtubules in the central region , which interact on the lateral margins with the chromosomal masses by the time of the metaphase-I arrest .
In addition to this , microtubules @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to intersect at the “ equator ” where the chromatin is positioned ( Jang et al .
2005 ) .
We have here , then , an instance of a bipolarized cytoskeleton of which DNA elements ( both “ coding ” and “ non-coding ” ) are warp and weft .
But this is only part of the process .
Chromosomes that are about to undergo meiosis ( or mitosis ) have a distinct ensemble of functions that are grouped and harnessed ever so intricately into kinetochores , which are the “ levers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ over and above ” ( indeed , epi– to ) nucleotides have long been observed to be peculiar in their qualities .
For one thing , they are dynamic platforms that have roles that are phase- or stage-specific .
In the case of metaphase I , for example , those of one set of sister chromatids have to be in cohesion ( or be paired ) and jointly linked to one pole , while those of the other set of sister chromatids have to likewise be in cohesion ( or be paired @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pole ( Hughes et al.
, 2018 ) , as I have depicted here in an oversimplified way : For another , as the chromosomal homologues are aligned at the “ equator ” of the meiosis I nexus , with chiasmata locking together the arms that have undergone crossovers , both paired-kinetochoric and spindle symmetry has to be maintained overall by kinesins and various other proteins ( Radford et al .
2017 ) .
Then again , the chromosomal passenger complex is necessary for the generation of this spindle , and certain components @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Incenp are localized in a centralizes ring around the chromatin/DNA ( Jang et al .
2005 ; Radford et al .
2012 ) .
Leaving much out ( see Hughes et al.
, 2018 ) , what is to be emphasized is that there are specialized chromatin regions , kinetochores , which are fundamental to the proper orientation and segregation of the chromosomal sets during meiosis I .
Now , the lowermost tier of a kinetochore is generated on ( and confluent with ) a centromere or centromeric locus , and what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is its distinct histone composition .
Yet when one turns to the basic constitution of such in terms of the DNA elements that underlie it , all that one can find is junk…kilobases to megabases of junk .
Let the model organism Drosophila melanogaster underscore this fact for us .
First , all known centromeric loci in this species have nucleotide orderings that are “ typographically ” unique .
This is not because they lack repetitive sequences but rather because they do — each is composed of “ complex islands ” of dispersed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the G2/Jockey-3 family of Long Interspersed Nuclear Elements or LINEs ) that are concatenated with a host other “ junk ” remnants , such as DNA transposons ( Chang et al .
2019 ) .
Second , the same are flanked by tandem repeats such as ( AAGAG ) , ( AAGAT ) , ( AATAG ) , and/or others that have longer monomer units ( dodeca and Prodsat ) .
Third , there is no motif that is centromere-specific for all the sequence families are represented elsewhere in the genome of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these loci can vary manyfold .
( See Chang et al .
2019 for these and other details . )
This adds credence to the notion that these regions are “ epigenomic ” as opposed “ genomic.
” What is of importance , though , is that we keep two pieces of evidence in mind when we take in such details .
On the one hand , the kinetochores/centromeres are of the utmost significance to the D. melanogaster female meiosis I network , for they are foundational to the generation of a viable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though , of the four chromosomal homologues ( namely , those of the 2nd , 3rd , 4th , and X ; normally no Y chromosome is present ) that are present in such a spindle , their kinetochores/centromeres are layered on these segments : • Those of the 2nd are named Capri and each consists of an approximately 1,800 base pair region , which is enriched in G2/Jockey-3 and flanked by the ( AAGAG ) n and ( AATAG ) n units .
• Those of the 3rd are named Giglio and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pair region , which includes 240 copies of a variant of the ribosomal-RNA Intergenic Spacer along with interspersed blocks of G2/Jockey-3 and DNA transposons ; it is flanked by the dodeca and Prodsat units .
• Those of the 4th are named Lampedusa and each consists of an approximately 42,800 base pair region , which is enriched in G2/Jockey-3 and other non-retroviral-like transposable elements ; it is flanked by the ( AAGAT ) n units .
• Finally , those of the X are named Maupiti and each consists of an approximately 70,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of G2/Jockey-3 plus other complex , divergent repeats ; it is flanked by a short stretch of ( AAGAT ) units on one of its sides but overall it is surrounded by the ( AAGAG ) units .
What these two pieces of evidence suggest , then , is that what may be “ junk ” at one level may be of the utmost significance at another level .
This happens I think by way of a top-down causal process that Paul Davies ( 2012 ) has alluded to , explainable in part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an “ explicit coupling between dynamical laws and information-rich states , thus endowing higher level entities , such as contextual information , with direct causal efficacy on matter alongside intermolecular forces.
” If we take such “ contextual information ” to be resident at all tiers of the meiosis I network , from the spindle as whole to ( say ) each and every centromeric locus , then “ with direct causal efficacy ” retroelement and satellite DNAs can be endowed with information-bearing states .
Of course , “ such a proposal represents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the theory of dynamical systems , ” as Davies notes , which means that “ theories of this sort remain largely unexplored.
” But explore it we should…and especially where cytology meets “ junk ” DNA .
Chang C.-H. , Chavan A. , Palladino J. , et alia .
2019 .
Islands of retroelements are major components of Drosophila centromeres .
PLoS Biology 17 : e3000241 .
Jang , J.K. , Rahman T. , McKim , K.S .
2005 .
The kinesinlike protein Subito contributes to central spindle assembly and organization of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Molecular Biology of the Cell 16 : 4684-4694 .
Matthies H.J.
, McDonald H.B.
, Goldstein L.S.
, Theurkauf W.E .
1996 .
Anastral meiotic spindle morphogenesis : role of the nonclaret disjunctional kinesin-like protein .
Journal of Cell Biology 134 : 455-464 .
Radford S.J.
, Jang J.K. , McKim K.S .
2012 .
The chromosomal passenger complex is required for meiotic acentrosomal spindle assembly and chromosome biorientation .
Genetics 192 : 417-429 .
Radford S.J.
, Go A.M. , McKim K.S .
2017 .
Cooperation between kinesin motors promotes spindle symmetry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 205 : 517-527 .
Theurkauf W. E. , Hawley R.S .
1992 Meiotic spindle assembly in Drosophila females : behavior of nonexchange chromosomes and the effects of mutations in the nod kinesin-like protein .
Journal of Cell Biology 116 : 1167-1180 .

Image credit: Colin Behrens, via Pixabay.
In a previous article I mentioned that chromosomes can and do have roles that go far beyond the so-called “Central Dogma.” Nowhere is this point better demonstrated, it would seem, than in the phenomenon of meiosis or “reductional division,” which generates a haploid gamete from a diploid germ cell by means of an intricate series of developmental events. Indeed, it is during the latter stages of the production of an animal oocyte that many functionalities of what some disparage as “junk DNA” take center stage.
Recall that in almost-mature eggs from arthropods to vertebrates the meiotic networks are acentriolar (or acentrosomal or anastral), because the chromosomes to be divided eventually both recruit and sequester tubulin. In this way they are involved in organizing the bipolarity of the required spindle (Matthies et al. 1996, Theurkauf and Hawley 1992). The latter is composed (at least in part) of anti-parallel microtubules in the central region, which interact on the lateral margins with the chromosomal masses by the time of the metaphase-I arrest. In addition to this, microtubules that run from pole to pole come to intersect at the “equator” where the chromatin is positioned (Jang et al. 2005). We have here, then, an instance of a bipolarized cytoskeleton of which DNA elements (both “coding” and “non-coding”) are warp and weft.
“Over and Above”
But this is only part of the process. Chromosomes that are about to undergo meiosis (or mitosis) have a distinct ensemble of functions that are grouped and harnessed ever so intricately into kinetochores, which are the “levers” of their maneuverings. These are “over and above” (indeed, epi– to) nucleotides have long been observed to be peculiar in their qualities. For one thing, they are dynamic platforms that have roles that are phase- or stage-specific. In the case of metaphase I, for example, those of one set of sister chromatids have to be in cohesion (or be paired) and jointly linked to one pole, while those of the other set of sister chromatids have to likewise be in cohesion (or be paired) but jointly linked to the opposite pole (Hughes et al., 2018), as I have depicted here in an oversimplified way:
For another, as the chromosomal homologues are aligned at the “equator” of the meiosis I nexus, with chiasmata locking together the arms that have undergone crossovers, both paired-kinetochoric and spindle symmetry has to be maintained overall by kinesins and various other proteins (Radford et al. 2017). Then again, the chromosomal passenger complex is necessary for the generation of this spindle, and certain components of it such as Aurora B kinase and Incenp are localized in a centralizes ring around the chromatin/DNA (Jang et al. 2005; Radford et al. 2012). Leaving much out (see Hughes et al., 2018), what is to be emphasized is that there are specialized chromatin regions, kinetochores, which are fundamental to the proper orientation and segregation of the chromosomal sets during meiosis I.
Kilobases to Megabases
Now, the lowermost tier of a kinetochore is generated on (and confluent with) a centromere or centromeric locus, and what sets the latter apart on any chromosome is its distinct histone composition. Yet when one turns to the basic constitution of such in terms of the DNA elements that underlie it, all that one can find is junk…kilobases to megabases of junk. Let the model organism Drosophila melanogaster underscore this fact for us. First, all known centromeric loci in this species have nucleotide orderings that are “typographically” unique. This is not because they lack repetitive sequences but rather because they do — each is composed of “complex islands” of dispersed and scrambled retroelements (especially those of the G2/Jockey-3 family of Long Interspersed Nuclear Elements or LINEs) that are concatenated with a host other “junk” remnants, such as DNA transposons (Chang et al. 2019). Second, the same are flanked by tandem repeats such as (AAGAG) n , (AAGAT) n , (AATAG) n , and/or others that have longer monomer units (dodeca and Prodsat). Third, there is no motif that is centromere-specific for all the sequence families are represented elsewhere in the genome of this taxon. Fourth, the extent of these loci can vary manyfold. (See Chang et al. 2019 for these and other details.) This adds credence to the notion that these regions are “epigenomic” as opposed “genomic.”
What is of importance, though, is that we keep two pieces of evidence in mind when we take in such details. On the one hand, the kinetochores/centromeres are of the utmost significance to the D. melanogaster female meiosis I network, for they are foundational to the generation of a viable zygote. On the other hand, though, of the four chromosomal homologues (namely, those of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and X; normally no Y chromosome is present) that are present in such a spindle, their kinetochores/centromeres are layered on these segments:
Those of the 2nd are named Capri and each consists of an approximately 1,800 base pair region, which is enriched in G2/Jockey-3 and flanked by the (AAGAG)n and (AATAG)n units.
Those of the 3rd are named Giglio and each consists of an approximately 68,500 base pair region, which includes 240 copies of a variant of the ribosomal-RNA Intergenic Spacer along with interspersed blocks of G2/Jockey-3 and DNA transposons; it is flanked by the dodeca and Prodsat units.
Those of the 4th are named Lampedusa and each consists of an approximately 42,800 base pair region, which is enriched in G2/Jockey-3 and other non-retroviral-like transposable elements; it is flanked by the (AAGAT)n units.
Finally, those of the X are named Maupiti and each consists of an approximately 70,000 base pair region, with long stretches of G2/Jockey-3 plus other complex, divergent repeats; it is flanked by a short stretch of (AAGAT) n units on one of its sides but overall it is surrounded by the (AAGAG) n units.
A Top-Down Causal Process
What these two pieces of evidence suggest, then, is that what may be “junk” at one level may be of the utmost significance at another level. This happens I think by way of a top-down causal process that Paul Davies (2012) has alluded to, explainable in part by the augmentation of
the normal terms referring to local forces contained in the Hamiltonian for chromatin with additional (presumably small) non-local terms representing functional (i.e. semantic or contextual) information. By coupling the mechanical and informational dynamics in this manner, the dynamical laws describing chromatin behaviour would become time-dependent and change according to the informational state of the system. Information would then possess direct, albeit subtle, traction over matter and permit epigenetic control to be exercised directly on the chromatin itself.
Such would involve an “explicit coupling between dynamical laws and information-rich states, thus endowing higher level entities, such as contextual information, with direct causal efficacy on matter alongside intermolecular forces.”
If we take such “contextual information” to be resident at all tiers of the meiosis I network, from the spindle as whole to (say) each and every centromeric locus, then “with direct causal efficacy” retroelement and satellite DNAs can be endowed with information-bearing states. Of course, “such a proposal represents a decisive break with the normal formulation of the theory of dynamical systems,” as Davies notes, which means that “theories of this sort remain largely unexplored.” But explore it we should…and especially where cytology meets “junk” DNA.
Literature
Chang C.-H., Chavan A., Palladino J., et alia. 2019. Islands of retroelements are major components of Drosophila centromeres. PLoS Biology 17: e3000241.
Davies P.C.W. 2012. The epigenome and top-down causation. Interface Focus 2: 42-48.
Hughes S.E., Miller D.E., Miller A.L., Hawley R.S. 2018. Female meiosis: synapsis, recombination, and segregation in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 208: 875-908.
Jang, J.K., Rahman T., McKim, K.S. 2005. The kinesinlike protein Subito contributes to central spindle assembly and organization of the meiotic spindle in Drosophila oocytes. Molecular Biology of the Cell 16: 4684-4694.
Matthies H.J., McDonald H.B., Goldstein L.S., Theurkauf W.E. 1996. Anastral meiotic spindle morphogenesis: role of the nonclaret disjunctional kinesin-like protein. Journal of Cell Biology 134: 455-464.
Radford S.J., Jang J.K., McKim K.S. 2012. The chromosomal passenger complex is required for meiotic acentrosomal spindle assembly and chromosome biorientation. Genetics 192: 417-429.
Radford S.J., Go A.M., McKim K.S. 2017. Cooperation between kinesin motors promotes spindle symmetry and chromosome organization in oocytes. Genetics 205: 517-527.
Theurkauf W. E., Hawley R.S. 1992 Meiotic spindle assembly in Drosophila females: behavior of nonexchange chromosomes and the effects of mutations in the nod kinesin-like protein. Journal of Cell Biology 116: 1167-1180.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-07-29--For a Technological Civilization, We Must Have Metals

Editor ’ s note : We are pleased to present a series adapted from biologist Michael Denton ’ s book , Fire-Maker : How Humans Were Designed to Harness Fire and Transform Our Planet , from Discovery Institute Press .
Find the whole series here .
Dr. Denton ’ s forthcoming book , The Miracle of the Cell , will be published in September .
The development of technology required not only a planet of the right size and possessing the right kind of atmosphere for respiration and the taming of fire , but also a planet where metals would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sophisticated cultures have achieved extraordinary ends without the use of metals — the classic example is the Maya — it is very doubtful that any beings anywhere in the universe could develop a technological civilization remotely comparable with our own without the use of metals .
At ambient temperatures on Earth , metals such as copper and iron possess high tensile strength ( meaning approximately that they are hard to deform1 ) , but they are also malleable and ductile to a remarkable degree ( ductility is the ability to deform under tensile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stretch metal into a wire2 ) .
At temperatures much above the ambient range , metals soften ( even steel loses tensile strength above 400° C ) , while at much below zero , many metals become increasingly brittle.3 So metals can be molded into the “ strong hard ” steel beams or girders used in construction and can be drawn into fine wire most effectively in the ambient temperature range .
Not only can metals , because of their tensile strength , be molded into hard implements useful for a myriad of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ electricity .
Because of their ductility , they are capable of being drawn into strong , thin wires , a gratuitous combination of properties that made possible the construction of electric generators and electric motors .
Without the twin properties of ductility and electrical conductivity there would be no electric age , and it is doubtful that human society could have advanced beyond the steam age of the early nineteenth century .
Thus , the Wikipedia article on electricity states : Electrical phenomena have been studied since antiquity , though progress in theoretical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eighteenth centuries .
Even then , practical applications for electricity were few , and it would not be until the late nineteenth century that engineers were able to put it to industrial and residential use .
The rapid expansion in electrical technology at this time transformed industry and society .
Electricity ’ s extraordinary versatility means it can be put to an almost limitless set of applications which include transport , heating , lighting , communications , and computation .
Electrical power is now the backbone of modern industrial society.4 Indeed , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ real sense a gift of the material properties of metals and of one metal in particular : copper .
• Often defined as : “ Tensile strength is a measurement of the force required to pull something such as rope , wire , or a structural beam to the point where it breaks .
The tensile strength of a material is the maximum amount of tensile stress that it can take before failure , for example breaking.
” From “ Tensile Strength , ” Wikipedia , May 1 , 2015 , accessed on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ //simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensile_strength .
• “ In materials science , ductility is a solid material ’ s ability to deform under tensile stress ; this is often characterized by the material ’ s ability to be stretched into a wire.
” From “ Ductility , ” Wikipedia , May 2 , 2016 , accessed on May 23 , 2016 , https : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ductility .

Photo credit: Alfred T. Palmer / Public domain.
Editor’s note: We are pleased to present a series adapted from biologist Michael Denton’s book, Fire-Maker: How Humans Were Designed to Harness Fire and Transform Our Planet, from Discovery Institute Press. Find the whole series here. Dr. Denton’s forthcoming book, The Miracle of the Cell, will be published in September.
The development of technology required not only a planet of the right size and possessing the right kind of atmosphere for respiration and the taming of fire, but also a planet where metals would be available and useable. Although some sophisticated cultures have achieved extraordinary ends without the use of metals — the classic example is the Maya — it is very doubtful that any beings anywhere in the universe could develop a technological civilization remotely comparable with our own without the use of metals.
At ambient temperatures on Earth, metals such as copper and iron possess high tensile strength (meaning approximately that they are hard to deform1), but they are also malleable and ductile to a remarkable degree (ductility is the ability to deform under tensile stress — characterized by the ability to stretch metal into a wire2). At temperatures much above the ambient range, metals soften (even steel loses tensile strength above 400° C), while at much below zero, many metals become increasingly brittle.3 So metals can be molded into the “strong hard” steel beams or girders used in construction and can be drawn into fine wire most effectively in the ambient temperature range.
Conductors of Electricity
Not only can metals, because of their tensile strength, be molded into hard implements useful for a myriad of purposes, they are also conductors of electricity. Because of their ductility, they are capable of being drawn into strong, thin wires, a gratuitous combination of properties that made possible the construction of electric generators and electric motors. Without the twin properties of ductility and electrical conductivity there would be no electric age, and it is doubtful that human society could have advanced beyond the steam age of the early nineteenth century. Thus, the Wikipedia article on electricity states:
Electrical phenomena have been studied since antiquity, though progress in theoretical understanding remained slow until the 17th and eighteenth centuries. Even then, practical applications for electricity were few, and it would not be until the late nineteenth century that engineers were able to put it to industrial and residential use. The rapid expansion in electrical technology at this time transformed industry and society. Electricity’s extraordinary versatility means it can be put to an almost limitless set of applications which include transport, heating, lighting, communications, and computation. Electrical power is now the backbone of modern industrial society.4
Indeed, the whole electric age is in a very real sense a gift of the material properties of metals and of one metal in particular: copper.
Tomorrow: “In Praise of Copper, a Gift from Nature.”
Notes


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-07-30--Five New Biology Papers Show Cracks in Darwin’s Foundation

Since the Scopes Trial of 1925 and the Darwin Centennial of 1959 , neo-Darwinism has used intimidation and groupthink to maintain its status of “ accepted truth ” beyond need of further evidence .
Critical papers have appeared , but usually outside the leading biology journals .
Indeed , merely expressing doubts about Darwin has been a career-limiting move for many ( see Free Science ) .
Look at these recent papers , though , and see if it appears to be getting safer to question the explanatory omnipotence of random mutations and natural selection .
How Powerful Is Natural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ al.
, “ Evolutionary stalling and a limit on the power of natural selection to improve a cellular module , ” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , July 17 , 2020 .
How powerful is natural selection if it can stall out ?
This team ran mutation experiments on E. coli ’ s translation machinery and found that “ cellular modules may not be fully optimized by natural selection despite the availability of adaptive mutations.
” Darwin ’ s mechanism is not omnipotent .
Natural selection , being blind , can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another , leaving the first module below optimum .
The authors are not quitting their subscription to natural selection , but they are losing faith in its ability to explain molecular machines by a simple mechanism .
Overall , our results highlight the fact that it is impossible to fully understand the evolution of a cellular module in isolation from the genome where it is encoded and the population-level processes that govern evolution .
The ability of natural selection to improve any one module depends on the population size , the rate of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fitness effects of all beneficial mutations in the genome and on how these quantities change as populations adapt .
Further theoretical work and empirical measurements integrated across multiple levels of biological organization are required for us to understand adaptive evolution of modular biological systems .
[ Emphasis added . ]
• Todesco et al.
, “ Massive haplotypes underlie ecotypic differentiation in sunflowers , ” Nature , July 8 , 2020 .
See also this from the University of British Columbia , “ Supergenes play a larger role in evolution than previously thought.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ levied against Darwin : “ a longstanding evolutionary question — dating to criticisms of Darwin ’ s theories by his contemporaries — concerns how such ecological divergence can occur when challenged by hybridization with non-adapted populations.
” In their studies of sunflowers , the researchers found adaptation occurring not through traditional neo-Darwinian mechanisms , but by information sharing : hybridization and introgression .
They explain this non-Darwinian “ borrowing ” of supergenes , which are “ Massive blocks of genes — inherited together ‘ plug and play ’ style.
” Where do you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” from ?
Was it not in intelligently designed peripheral devices able to operate in a computer without user intervention ?
“ Initially , evolutionary biologists believed that geographic isolation between populations was required for them to differentiate into ecological races or separate species , ” says UBC evolutionary biologist Loren Rieseberg .
“ But recent research shows that populations that exist side by side can , and do , differentiate.
” “ The traits that govern such differentiation often appear to be inherited together as supergenes despitegenetic exchange with non-adapted populations that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plants are able to adapt to a new environment by borrowing a supergene or two from a related species that is already adapted.
” Such mechanisms of supergene sharing “ play a larger role in evolution than previously thought , ” the headline says .
Within one supergene , which can be as long as several million base pairs of DNA , multiple adaptive traits can be passed along from one plant to another .
These may include traits for “ seed size , timing of flowering , as well as the ability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or limited nutrient availability , among many others.
” Here was their reaction to observing a pervasive , non-Darwinian process : This paper and the next one are preprints ( not yet certified by peer review ) , but they reveal additional non-Darwinian thinking among biologists willing to stick their necks out .
These authors studied a trait that had an on-off switch .
That ’ s pretty cool in design thinking .
Why would natural selection keep a useless trait for 200 million years ?
Maybe the organism was programmed with foresight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ again some day if the environment were to change .
Dollo ’ s law of irreversibility states that once a complex adaptation has been lost in evolution , it will not be regained .
Recently , various violations of this principle have been described .
Here , we argue that the logic underlying Dollo ’ s law only applies to traits that are constitutively expressed , while it fails in case of ‘ plastic ’ traits that are up- or downregulated according to needs .
We tested this hypothesis for an archetypal violation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loss and regain of fat synthesis in parasitic wasps .
Wasps from lineages that supposedly had lost lipogenic ability more than 200 million years ago were grown under various conditions .
In line with our hypothesis , it turned out that fat synthesis had not been lost but was only switched on in low-fat environments.Such plasticity can not only explain supposed violations of Dollo ’ s law , but also the maintenance of adaptations to rarely occurring extreme events .
• Bakhtin et al.
, “ Punctuated equilibrium as the default mode of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dominated by saddle points in the weak-mutation limit , ” bioRxiv , July 29 , 2020 .
Eugene Koonin , the occasional gadfly to Darwinian conformism , contributed to this paper , arguing that punctuated equilibrium is the “ default mode of evolution ” in certain conditions , and that stasis is the norm .
The opening lines recall Stephen Jay Gould ’ s bold affronts to standard neo-Darwinism back in the 1980s : • Zapeta-Martinez et al.
, “ Parallel PRC2/cPRC1 and vPRC1 pathways silence lineage-specific genes and maintain self-renewal in mouse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , April 1 , 2020 .
The import of this Darwin-free paper is clear from the title of the news release from the University of Southern California , “ Design redundancy is in our DNA.
” Design ?
Can you say that in a scientific paper ?
Oliver Bell is smiling in the accompanying photo , apparently not fearing censorship by the Darwin mandarins .
“ Design redundancy is not only an invention of engineers for building machines , but also a principle of nature for designing organisms , ” writes Cristy Lytal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Where did the censors go ?
While the paper itself does not mention design ( as in intelligent design ) , it does mention “ redundancy ” 17 times , e.g.
, “ these findings… demonstrate that PRC2/cPRC1 and vPRC1 act redundantly to silence lineage-specific genes and ensure robust maintenance of mESC self-renewal.
” Surely natural selection must be responsible for this excellent performance .
What ?
No mention of Darwin , selection or evolution ?
Redundancy sounds like a principle an engineer would design into a robot or software program for critical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do that ?
The earlier paper by Venkataram et al .
already found that “ cellular modules may not be fully optimized by natural selection despite the availability of adaptive mutations.
” If one PRC would be unlikely to evolve to be optimized through natural selection , why would a second one emerge and also be optimized ?
This is undoubtedly one of many backup plans in the living world .
The scientists observed how stem cells maintain their identity during development .
Bell adds , Design , clearly , is “ written @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It might lead to a movement .

Photo credit: Angie via Unsplash.
Since the Scopes Trial of 1925 and the Darwin Centennial of 1959, neo-Darwinism has used intimidation and groupthink to maintain its status of “accepted truth” beyond need of further evidence. Critical papers have appeared, but usually outside the leading biology journals. Indeed, merely expressing doubts about Darwin has been a career-limiting move for many (see Free Science). Look at these recent papers, though, and see if it appears to be getting safer to question the explanatory omnipotence of random mutations and natural selection.
How Powerful Is Natural Selection, Really?
Venkataram et al., “Evolutionary stalling and a limit on the power of natural selection to improve a cellular module,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, July 17, 2020.
How powerful is natural selection if it can stall out? This team ran mutation experiments on E. coli’s translation machinery and found that “cellular modules may not be fully optimized by natural selection despite the availability of adaptive mutations.” Darwin’s mechanism is not omnipotent. Natural selection, being blind, can stop improving one module and skip to another, leaving the first module below optimum. The authors are not quitting their subscription to natural selection, but they are losing faith in its ability to explain molecular machines by a simple mechanism.
Overall, our results highlight the fact that it is impossible to fully understand the evolution of a cellular module in isolation from the genome where it is encoded and the population-level processes that govern evolution. The ability of natural selection to improve any one module depends on the population size, the rate of recombination, the supply, and the fitness effects of all beneficial mutations in the genome and on how these quantities change as populations adapt. Further theoretical work and empirical measurements integrated across multiple levels of biological organization are required for us to understand adaptive evolution of modular biological systems. [Emphasis added.]
This team resurrected an old criticism levied against Darwin: “a longstanding evolutionary question — dating to criticisms of Darwin’s theories by his contemporaries — concerns how such ecological divergence can occur when challenged by hybridization with non-adapted populations.” In their studies of sunflowers, the researchers found adaptation occurring not through traditional neo-Darwinian mechanisms, but by information sharing: hybridization and introgression. They explain this non-Darwinian “borrowing” of supergenes, which are “Massive blocks of genes — inherited together ‘plug and play’ style.” Where do you remember the term “plug and play” from? Was it not in intelligently designed peripheral devices able to operate in a computer without user intervention?
“Initially, evolutionary biologists believed that geographic isolation between populations was required for them to differentiate into ecological races or separate species,” says UBC evolutionary biologist Loren Rieseberg. “But recent research shows that populations that exist side by side can, and do, differentiate.” “The traits that govern such differentiation often appear to be inherited together as supergenes despitegenetic exchange with non-adapted populations that are nearby. In many cases, plants are able to adapt to a new environment by borrowing a supergene or two from a related species that is already adapted.”
Such mechanisms of supergene sharing “play a larger role in evolution than previously thought,” the headline says. Within one supergene, which can be as long as several million base pairs of DNA, multiple adaptive traits can be passed along from one plant to another. These may include traits for “seed size, timing of flowering, as well as the ability to withstand environmental stresses such as drought or limited nutrient availability, among many others.” Here was their reaction to observing a pervasive, non-Darwinian process:
“We were quite surprised,” says University of British Columbia (UBC) geneticist Marco Todesco. “Cases in which individual supergenes controlled adaptive traits had been reported before, but it wasn’t clear if they were the rule or just a small number of odd exceptions. What found [sic] is that supergenes have a pervasive role in adaptation, and can be truly massive.”
Non-Darwinian Thinking Among Biologists
Visser et al., “Phenotypic plasticity explains violations of Dollo’s Law,” bioRxiv, July 19, 2020.
This paper and the next one are preprints (not yet certified by peer review), but they reveal additional non-Darwinian thinking among biologists willing to stick their necks out. These authors studied a trait that had an on-off switch. That’s pretty cool in design thinking. Why would natural selection keep a useless trait for 200 million years? Maybe the organism was programmed with foresight to know the trait could be useful again some day if the environment were to change.
Dollo’s law of irreversibility states that once a complex adaptation has been lost in evolution, it will not be regained. Recently, various violations of this principle have been described. Here, we argue that the logic underlying Dollo’s law only applies to traits that are constitutively expressed, while it fails in case of ‘plastic’ traits that are up- or downregulated according to needs. We tested this hypothesis for an archetypal violation of Dollo’s law, the loss and regain of fat synthesis in parasitic wasps. Wasps from lineages that supposedly had lost lipogenic ability more than 200 million years ago were grown under various conditions. In line with our hypothesis, it turned out that fat synthesis had not been lost but was only switched on in low-fat environments.Such plasticity cannot only explain supposed violations of Dollo’s law, but also the maintenance of adaptations to rarely occurring extreme events.
Punk Eek, Back in Vogue?
Bakhtin et al., “Punctuated equilibrium as the default mode of evolution of large populations on fitness landscapes dominated by saddle points in the weak-mutation limit,” bioRxiv, July 29, 2020.
Eugene Koonin, the occasional gadfly to Darwinian conformism, contributed to this paper, arguing that punctuated equilibrium is the “default mode of evolution” in certain conditions, and that stasis is the norm. The opening lines recall Stephen Jay Gould’s bold affronts to standard neo-Darwinism back in the 1980s:
Punctuated equilibrium is a mode of evolution in which phenetic change occurs in rapid bursts that are separated by much longer intervals of stasis during which mutations accumulate but no major phenotypic change occurs. Punctuated equilibrium has been originally proposed within the framework of paleobiology, to explain the lack of transitional forms that is typical of the fossil record.
The import of this Darwin-free paper is clear from the title of the news release from the University of Southern California, “Design redundancy is in our DNA.” Design? Can you say that in a scientific paper? Oliver Bell is smiling in the accompanying photo, apparently not fearing censorship by the Darwin mandarins. “Design redundancy is not only an invention of engineers for building machines, but also a principle of nature for designing organisms,” writes Cristy Lytal in the first sentence. Yikes! Where did the censors go?
While the paper itself does not mention design (as in intelligent design), it does mention “redundancy” 17 times, e.g., “these findings… demonstrate that PRC2/cPRC1 and vPRC1 act redundantly to silence lineage-specific genes and ensure robust maintenance of mESC self-renewal.” Surely natural selection must be responsible for this excellent performance. What? No mention of Darwin, selection or evolution?
The redundancy is that there are two separate groups of PRCs [polycomb repressive complexes), and both groups independently and simultaneously work to silence the same lineage-specific genes. If PRC group one stops working, then group two can handle the job. If PRC group two fails, then group one is a capable backup.
Redundancy sounds like a principle an engineer would design into a robot or software program for critical fail-safe functions. Why would natural selection do that? The earlier paper by Venkataram et al. already found that “cellular modules may not be fully optimized by natural selection despite the availability of adaptive mutations.” If one PRC would be unlikely to evolve to be optimized through natural selection, why would a second one emerge and also be optimized? This is undoubtedly one of many backup plans in the living world.
The scientists observed how stem cells maintain their identity during development. Bell adds,
“Thus, the PRCs coordinate redundant mechanisms that ensure robust repression of key lineage-specification genes not only for differentiation, but also for maintaining the identity of mouse embryonic stem cells.”
Design, clearly, is “written in our DNA.” What a concept. It might lead to a movement.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-07-30--In Praise of Copper, a Gift from Nature

In Praise of Copper, a Gift from Nature

Editor ’ s note : We are pleased to present a series adapted from biologist Michael Denton ’ s book , Fire-Maker : How Humans Were Designed to Harness Fire and Transform Our Planet , from Discovery Institute Press .
Find the whole series here .
Dr. Denton ’ s forthcoming book , The Miracle of the Cell , will be published in September .
The fitness of metals because of the conjunction of their ductility and electrical properties is certainly an arresting fact .
And it is not just their strength and hardness that are maximally useful in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ metals — especially copper , the conductor par excellence — are far better conductors at ambient temperatures than at higher temperatures .
Copper , for example which is still indispensable for dynamos and electric motors , conducts electricity ten times more efficiently ( that is , its resistivity is ten times less ) at 100° C than 600° C.1 If the conductivity of copper were ten times less , wires would have to be ten times the cross-sectional area to provide the same conductivity , ruling out many applications and make the construction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Copper does indeed have ideal fitness for its applications in electrical devices : The inherent strength , hardness , and flexibility of copper building wire make it very easy to work with .
Copper wiring can be installed simply and easily with no special tools , washers , pigtails , or joint compounds .
Its flexibility makes it easy to join , while its hardness helps keep connections securely in place .
It has good strength for pulling wire through tight places ( “ pull-through ” ) , including conduits .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ breaking .
It can be stripped and terminated during installation or service with far less danger of nicks or breaks .
And it can be connected without the use of special lugs and fittings .
The combination of all of these factors makes it easy for electricians to install copper wire.2 Copper also resists corrosion more than aluminum or iron .
In an article on copper posted on the web the author waxes lyrical about its utility : Copper ’ s unique properties make it an invaluable component of our future .
Copper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ electricity , it is practically irreplaceable for use in sustainable energy — from solar panels to wind turbines .
Copper can be 100 % recycled — making it a perfectly green material .
Just shy of 1 trillion pounds of copper have been mined since the dawn of human history — and most of it is still in circulation thanks to copper ’ s recycling rate ( which is higher than that of any other engineering metal ) … The entire industry of copper mining and copper alloys is dependent upon the economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only can copper be recycled from post-consumer equipment like old plumbing pipes or discarded electrical cable , but the scrap pieces of copper from factory floors can be recycled into new grade A copper .
About half of all copper that is recycled is post-consumer scrap copper and copper alloys have been recycled for thousands of years .
In fact , one of the wonders of the old world , the Colossus of Rhodes , a statue spanning the entrance to Rhodes Harbour in ancient Greece , was said to have been made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remains since it was recycled to make other items.3 Nature lent a hand in the initial development of metallurgy .
Metals would never have been discovered in the first place nor could their magical properties have been exploited if their ores were not relatively plentiful and accessible in the crustal rocks .
The existence of plentiful and common metal ore-bearing strata depends in turn on a variety of tectonic processes being “ just right , ” including magmatic , hydrothermal , and metamorphic processes.4 If the properties of the various mineral ores , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Earth ’ s crust and mantle , if the viscosity of crustal rocks , etc.
, had been somewhat different , then perhaps no ore-bearing mineral strata would have formed , and despite our genius we would be trapped forever in a Stone Age culture .
Over a century ago Alfred Russell Wallace alluded to the same fortuity : The seven ancient metals are gold , silver , copper , iron , tin , lead , and mercury .
All of these are widely distributed in the rocks .
They are most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state , and are also obtained from their ores without much difficulty , which has led to their being utilised from very early times… Each of the seven metals ( and a few others now in common use ) has very special qualities which renders it useful for certain purposes , and these have so entered into our daily life that it is difficult to conceive how we should do without them .
Without iron and copper an effective steam-engine could not have been constructed , our whole vast system of machinery could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Copper wire and cable , ” Wikipedia , April 24 , 2016 accessed on May 23 , 2016 , https : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_wire_and_cable .
• Taylor , Stuart Ross , and Scott M. McLennan .
Planetary Crusts : Their Composition , Origin and Evolution .
Cambridge Planetary Science .
Cambridge , UK ; New York : Cambridge University Press , 2009 .
7 and 361 .

Photo: A 100 percent copper penny, by US Mint (coin), National Numismatic Collection (photograph by Jaclyn Nash) / Public domain.
Editor’s note: We are pleased to present a series adapted from biologist Michael Denton’s book, Fire-Maker: How Humans Were Designed to Harness Fire and Transform Our Planet, from Discovery Institute Press. Find the whole series here. Dr. Denton’s forthcoming book, The Miracle of the Cell, will be published in September.
The fitness of metals because of the conjunction of their ductility and electrical properties is certainly an arresting fact. And it is not just their strength and hardness that are maximally useful in the ambient temperature range. Curiously, several metals — especially copper, the conductor par excellence — are far better conductors at ambient temperatures than at higher temperatures. Copper, for example which is still indispensable for dynamos and electric motors, conducts electricity ten times more efficiently (that is, its resistivity is ten times less) at 100° C than 600° C.1 If the conductivity of copper were ten times less, wires would have to be ten times the cross-sectional area to provide the same conductivity, ruling out many applications and make the construction of motors and dynamos far more difficult.
Ideal Fitness for Electrical Devices
Copper does indeed have ideal fitness for its applications in electrical devices:
The inherent strength, hardness, and flexibility of copper building wire make it very easy to work with. Copper wiring can be installed simply and easily with no special tools, washers, pigtails, or joint compounds. Its flexibility makes it easy to join, while its hardness helps keep connections securely in place. It has good strength for pulling wire through tight places (“pull-through”), including conduits. It can be bent or twisted easily without breaking. It can be stripped and terminated during installation or service with far less danger of nicks or breaks. And it can be connected without the use of special lugs and fittings. The combination of all of these factors makes it easy for electricians to install copper wire.2
Copper also resists corrosion more than aluminum or iron. In an article on copper posted on the web the author waxes lyrical about its utility:
Copper’s unique properties make it an invaluable component of our future. Copper is so good at managing heat and electricity, it is practically irreplaceable for use in sustainable energy — from solar panels to wind turbines. Copper can be 100% recycled — making it a perfectly green material. Just shy of 1 trillion pounds of copper have been mined since the dawn of human history — and most of it is still in circulation thanks to copper’s recycling rate (which is higher than that of any other engineering metal)… The entire industry of copper mining and copper alloys is dependent upon the economic recycling of any surplus products. Not only can copper be recycled from post-consumer equipment like old plumbing pipes or discarded electrical cable, but the scrap pieces of copper from factory floors can be recycled into new grade A copper. About half of all copper that is recycled is post-consumer scrap copper and copper alloys have been recycled for thousands of years. In fact, one of the wonders of the old world, the Colossus of Rhodes, a statue spanning the entrance to Rhodes Harbour in ancient Greece, was said to have been made of copper. No trace of it remains since it was recycled to make other items.3
So Helpful of Nature
Nature lent a hand in the initial development of metallurgy. Metals would never have been discovered in the first place nor could their magical properties have been exploited if their ores were not relatively plentiful and accessible in the crustal rocks. The existence of plentiful and common metal ore-bearing strata depends in turn on a variety of tectonic processes being “just right,” including magmatic, hydrothermal, and metamorphic processes.4 If the properties of the various mineral ores, if the abundance of metal atoms in the Earth’s crust and mantle, if the viscosity of crustal rocks, etc., had been somewhat different, then perhaps no ore-bearing mineral strata would have formed, and despite our genius we would be trapped forever in a Stone Age culture.
Over a century ago Alfred Russell Wallace alluded to the same fortuity:
The seven ancient metals are gold, silver, copper, iron, tin, lead, and mercury. All of these are widely distributed in the rocks. They are most of them found occasionally in a pure state, and are also obtained from their ores without much difficulty, which has led to their being utilised from very early times… Each of the seven metals (and a few others now in common use) has very special qualities which renders it useful for certain purposes, and these have so entered into our daily life that it is difficult to conceive how we should do without them. Without iron and copper an effective steam-engine could not have been constructed, our whole vast system of machinery could never have come into existence.5
Tomorrow, “All the Right Fuel.”
Notes


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-07-30--Beauty, Coherence, Semiotics, and the Coronavirus — Webinar Series Continues Thursday

Please join us for the third in a series of webinars on Covid-19 from an intelligent design perspective , organized @ @ @ @ @ the Centre for Intelligent Design .
In this free lecture , Thursday , July 30 @ @ @ @ @ time or 8 pm British , Dr. Hugo van Woerden , a public health physician @ @ @ @ @ not believe that philosophical and methodological naturalism can give a holistic explanation for some of @ @ @ @ @ , including its coherence and complexity .
You can watch archived versions of the two @ @ @ @ @ , taught respectively by biologists Michael Behe and Jonathan McLatchie , below : Based on @ @ @ @ @ that is , the study of the use of signs and symbols in communication , @ @ @ @ @ purely physical explanations have difficulty in explaining the language-like features of communication between the coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ advocates for a world view that integrates all the evidence within and beyond science , @ @ @ @ @ philosophical or methodological naturalism as a complete explanation for natural phenomena .

Image: Fusion Medical Animation, via Unsplash.
Please join us for the third in a series of webinars on Covid-19 from an intelligent design perspective, organized by our U.K. sister, the Centre for Intelligent Design. In this free lecture, Thursday, July 30, at 12 pm Pacific time or 8 pm British, Dr. Hugo van Woerden, a public health physician, explains why he does not believe that philosophical and methodological naturalism can give a holistic explanation for some of the features of the coronavirus, including its coherence and complexity.
Find the webinar here:
You can watch archived versions of the two previous classes in the series, taught respectively by biologists Michael Behe and Jonathan McLatchie, below:
Based on the idea of semiotics, that is, the study of the use of signs and symbols in communication, Dr. van Woerden argues that purely physical explanations have difficulty in explaining the language-like features of communication between the coronavirus and a cell. He advocates for a world view that integrates all the evidence within and beyond science, and that rejects a strict philosophical or methodological naturalism as a complete explanation for natural phenomena.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-08-01--Oxford Mathematician John Lennox Reviews AI Predictions Through the Ages

On a new episode of ID the Future , host Robert J .
Marks continues his conversation with Oxford University @ @ @ @ @ ’ s new book , 2084 : Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Humanity .
@ @ @ @ @ fiction writing stretching from the ancient poet Hesiod to the novelist Dan Brown and MIT @ @ @ @ @ the podcast or listen to it here .
Dr. Lennox says that artificial intelligence ( @ @ @ @ @ the ages are all heavily dependent on theological and philosophical presuppositions .
He and Marks @ @ @ @ @ , transhumanism , its surprising history , and its potentially very dark future , including @ @ @ @ @ S. Lewis called “ the abolition of man .
”

Photo: Ancient bust, thought to be of the poet Hesiod, by Massimo Finizio / CC BY-SA 2.0 IT (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/it/deed.en).
On a new episode of ID the Future, host Robert J. Marks continues his conversation with Oxford University mathematician John Lennox about Lennox’s new book, 2084: Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Humanity. Lennox reviews mythology and science fiction writing stretching from the ancient poet Hesiod to the novelist Dan Brown and MIT physicist Max Tegmark. Download the podcast or listen to it here.
Dr. Lennox says that artificial intelligence (AI) predictions down through the ages are all heavily dependent on theological and philosophical presuppositions. He and Marks discuss AI’s cousin, transhumanism, its surprising history, and its potentially very dark future, including the risk of what C. S. Lewis called “the abolition of man.”