evolutionnewsandviews--2020-09-14--Why Should a Baby Live?

Why Should a Baby Live?

Editor ’ s note : This is part one of a two-part series by Dr. Wells .
My title is adapted from a 2012 article by two philosophers , Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva .
The article was titled “ After-birth abortion : why should the baby live ?
” Giubilini and Minerva argued that “ fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons.
” In a follow-up article defending their position , the authors pointed out that “ Catholic and pro-life philosophers , ” among others , hold that “ fetuses and newborns share @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not a Roman Catholic , but the published Roman Catholic view is that fetuses , like newborns , have full human rights : “ From the moment of conception… a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person — among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.
” Giubilini and Miverva simply turned the logic around and argued that since “ abortion is largely accepted , ” newborns ( like fetuses ) do not have the rights of a person .
According to several online @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” includes “ person.
” Obviously , however , the noun “ person ” has for many people become a philosophical and legal term , divorced from the noun “ human.
” Things have gone so far that some animal-rights advocates now claim that the great apes should be recognized as persons .
What follows , however , is not a philosophical or legal discussion of personhood .
Instead , as a developmental biologist I will simply try to give scientific answers to two questions : ( 1 ) Does the union of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ produce a human being ?
And ( 2 ) At what point in its development can a human being feel pain ?
Before I answer the questions , I will explain what I mean by “ science.
” In one sense , science is the enterprise of seeking truth by formulating hypotheses and testing them against the evidence .
If a hypothesis is repeatedly tested and found to be consistent with the evidence , we may tentatively regard it as true .
If it is repeatedly found to be inconsistent with the evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it as false .
This is empirical science .
In a second sense , science can refer to the enterprise of providing natural explanations for everything — that is , accounting for all phenomena in terms of material objects and the physical forces among them .
But this is equivalent to materialistic philosophy , which regards material objects and physical forces as the only realities .
Mind , free will , spirit , and God are considered illusions .
This is materialistic science .
In a third sense , science can refer to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people who are trained and employed to conduct research in various areas .
The majority opinion of this group is referred to as “ the scientific consensus.
” Unfortunately , the scientific consensus has changed many times in the course of history , so it is not a reliable guide to the truth .
And although many people in the scientific establishment do excellent empirical science , the scientific consensus is currently dominated by materialistic philosophy .
I am not a materialist , and I do not rely on the scientific consensus .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and what matters is the evidence .
So I will rely on evidence in attempting to answer the two questions I posed above .
The Union of a Human Sperm and a Human Egg In what follows , development is assumed to be normal .
In a mother-to-be , ovulation ( the release of an egg from an ovary ) occurs approximately two weeks after the beginning of her last menstruation .
If sperm are present , the egg is fertilized as it travels down the fallopian tube on its way to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( and hence fertilization ) is approximate , pregnancy is conventionally measured from the beginning of the last menstrual period ( LPM ) .
Paradoxically , this means that a human embryo is already about two weeks old when it forms .
As the embryo develops , “ gestational age ” refers to the time from the LPM , while “ embryonic age ” is its actual age .
Both are approximate .
Within the first day or so after the sperm enters the egg , the male nucleus ( from the sperm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ egg ) combine in a process called “ syngamy ” to form the “ zygote.
” This cell is completely human genetically .
But isolated cells from a human body are also genetically human , yet they are not complete human beings .
So some people have argued that the zygote ( and subsequently the embryo and fetus ) is simply a part of the mother .
The zygote soon begins dividing , and by the third day ( embryonic age ) the embryo consists of 8-16 cells .
It is still traveling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
On approximately the sixth day ( embryonic age ) the embryo attaches itself to the wall of the uterus ( a process called “ implantation ” ) .
The placenta soon begins to form .
During this time the embryo can split to produce “ identical ” ( monozygotic ) twins or ( rarely ) triplets .
By the end of two weeks ( embryonic age ) , the cells that will become the embryo have formed a disc , and in the following week a groove forms in the disc through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the major tissues and the body plan .
This process is called “ gastrulation.
” According to embryologist Lewis Wolpert , “ it is not birth , marriage , or death , but gastrulation which is truly the most important time in your life.
” By the time of gastrulation , it is clear that the embryo is not just a part of the mother .
Although it is still dependent for many things on the mother , it is by now an integrated , self-directing organism with a life of its own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week ( embryonic age ; sixth week gestational age ) the embryo starts passing through what some biologists have called the “ phylotypic stage , ” a period during which the embryos of various vertebrates ( animals with backbones ) somewhat resemble each other .
In 1868 , German Darwinist Ernst Haeckel published a drawing of six embryos : a fish , a salamander , a turtle , a chick , and four mammals ( hog , calf , rabbit , and human ) .
Each was shown in three stages of development @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the top ) , the embryos are strikingly similar .
Charles Darwin considered the supposed similarity of early embryos “ by far the strongest single class of facts in favour of ” his theory of descent with modification .
He wrote in 1869 , “ it is highly probable that with many animals the embryonic or larval stages show us , more or less completely , the state of the progenitor of the whole group in its adult condition.
” Along the same lines , Haeckel argued that in the course of development @ @ @ @ @ @ @ history .
A century later , shortly before the U.S. Supreme Court ’ s decision in Roe v. Wade , legal scholar Cyril Means Jr. published a letter in the New York Times using Haeckel to justify abortion .
Means argued that “ embryological investigation beginning with Haeckel ” showed that it was permissible “ to destroy a fetus , still at the stage known to zoologists and embryologists as that of subhuman ancestral reminiscence.
” ( For other uses of Haeckel to justify abortion , see Chapter 14 of John G. West @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) But Haeckel ’ s drawing was known to misrepresent the truth even in his own lifetime .
For one thing , the embryos portrayed as the earliest in his drawing were distorted to look more alike than they really are .
For another , they were notfrom the earliest stage of development .
The early embryos of the animals in Haeckel ’ s drawing actually look very different from each other : As this more realistic drawing shows , mammals ( the column on the far right ) are very different from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ divisions ( the second row from the top ) .
Differences among the five groups continue to be evident at every stage up to and including the “ phylotypic stage ” that Haeckel misrepresented as the first ( second row from the bottom ) .
The figure above shows that mammals differ dramatically from fish , amphibians reptiles , and birds .
But gastrulation in human embryos ( third row from the bottom ) is also different in some respects from gastrulation in mice.1 So the available embryological evidence suggests that early human @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amphibians , reptiles , and birds , but also from other mammals .
As the human embryo continues to develop , it forms a heart that begins to beat .
The embryo also develops eyes , ears , and a nose ; arms with fingers and legs with toes ; external genitals ; and all its internal organs .
By the end of eight weeks ( embryonic age ; ten weeks gestational age ) , the embryo looks fully human and is now called a fetus .
Clearly , at this point — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first trimester of pregnancy — the fetus is physically identifiable as a human being .
But there is another line of evidence that suggests the baby was a human being much earlier .
Embryologists know that a fertilized egg of the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster , if it survives and is provided with suitable conditions , will always develop into an adult Drosophila melanogaster .
Fruit flies have been widely studied by embryologists , who have generated and studied hundreds of developmental mutations in them .
The evidence from decades of such studies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outcomes : a normal Drosophila melanogaster , a defective Drosophila melanogaster , or a dead Drosophila melanogaster .
Not even a sister species , Drosophila simulans .
Embryologists have also generated and studied hundreds of mutations in the roundworm Caenorhabditis elegans , in the zebrafish Danio rerio , and in the house mouse Mus musculus .
Again , there are only three possible outcomes : normal , defective , or dead .
The embryo remains the same species from fertilization to adulthood .
Although it would be highly unethical to generate mutations in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reason to believe that the possible outcomes would be any different in Homo sapiens .
So from the embryological evidence we can conclude that a human zygote is a human being from the moment of its formation .
Just as a developing fruit fly is never anything but a fruit fly , so a developing human being is never anything but a human being .
To deny this is to deny the evidence — which is equivalent to denying empirical science .
Next , “ At What Point In Its Development Can a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ G. S. Eakin and R. R. Behringer , “ Gastrulation in Other Mammals and Humans , ” pp .
275-287 in Claudio D. Stern ( ed . )
, Gastrulation : From Cell to Embryo ( Cold Spring Harbor , NY : Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press , 2004 ) .

Photo credit: Christian Bowen, via Unsplash.
Editor’s note: This is part one of a two-part series by Dr. Wells.
My title is adapted from a 2012 article by two philosophers, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. The article was titled “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” Giubilini and Minerva argued that “fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons.” In a follow-up article defending their position, the authors pointed out that “Catholic and pro-life philosophers,” among others, hold that “fetuses and newborns share the same moral status.”
I am not a Roman Catholic, but the published Roman Catholic view is that fetuses, like newborns, have full human rights: “From the moment of conception… a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person — among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.” Giubilini and Miverva simply turned the logic around and argued that since “abortion is largely accepted,” newborns (like fetuses) do not have the rights of a person.
According to several online dictionaries, the definition of “human” includes “person.” Obviously, however, the noun “person” has for many people become a philosophical and legal term, divorced from the noun “human.” Things have gone so far that some animal-rights advocates now claim that the great apes should be recognized as persons. What follows, however, is not a philosophical or legal discussion of personhood. Instead, as a developmental biologist I will simply try to give scientific answers to two questions: (1) Does the union of a human sperm and a human egg produce a human being? And (2) At what point in its development can a human being feel pain?
What Is Science?
Before I answer the questions, I will explain what I mean by “science.” In one sense, science is the enterprise of seeking truth by formulating hypotheses and testing them against the evidence. If a hypothesis is repeatedly tested and found to be consistent with the evidence, we may tentatively regard it as true. If it is repeatedly found to be inconsistent with the evidence, we should revise it or reject it as false. This is empirical science.
In a second sense, science can refer to the enterprise of providing natural explanations for everything — that is, accounting for all phenomena in terms of material objects and the physical forces among them. But this is equivalent to materialistic philosophy, which regards material objects and physical forces as the only realities. Mind, free will, spirit, and God are considered illusions. This is materialistic science.
In a third sense, science can refer to the scientific establishment, which consists of people who are trained and employed to conduct research in various areas. The majority opinion of this group is referred to as “the scientific consensus.” Unfortunately, the scientific consensus has changed many times in the course of history, so it is not a reliable guide to the truth. And although many people in the scientific establishment do excellent empirical science, the scientific consensus is currently dominated by materialistic philosophy.
I am not a materialist, and I do not rely on the scientific consensus. For me, science is empirical, and what matters is the evidence. So I will rely on evidence in attempting to answer the two questions I posed above.
The Union of a Human Sperm and a Human Egg
In what follows, development is assumed to be normal. In a mother-to-be, ovulation (the release of an egg from an ovary) occurs approximately two weeks after the beginning of her last menstruation. If sperm are present, the egg is fertilized as it travels down the fallopian tube on its way to the uterus. Since the day of ovulation (and hence fertilization) is approximate, pregnancy is conventionally measured from the beginning of the last menstrual period (LPM). Paradoxically, this means that a human embryo is already about two weeks old when it forms. As the embryo develops, “gestational age” refers to the time from the LPM, while “embryonic age” is its actual age. Both are approximate.
Within the first day or so after the sperm enters the egg, the male nucleus (from the sperm) and female nucleus (in the egg) combine in a process called “syngamy” to form the “zygote.” This cell is completely human genetically. But isolated cells from a human body are also genetically human, yet they are not complete human beings. So some people have argued that the zygote (and subsequently the embryo and fetus) is simply a part of the mother.
The zygote soon begins dividing, and by the third day (embryonic age) the embryo consists of 8-16 cells. It is still traveling down the fallopian tube toward the uterus. On approximately the sixth day (embryonic age) the embryo attaches itself to the wall of the uterus (a process called “implantation”). The placenta soon begins to form. During this time the embryo can split to produce “identical” (monozygotic) twins or (rarely) triplets.
By the end of two weeks (embryonic age), the cells that will become the embryo have formed a disc, and in the following week a groove forms in the disc through which cells will migrate as they establish the major tissues and the body plan. This process is called “gastrulation.” According to embryologist Lewis Wolpert, “it is not birth, marriage, or death, but gastrulation which is truly the most important time in your life.” By the time of gastrulation, it is clear that the embryo is not just a part of the mother. Although it is still dependent for many things on the mother, it is by now an integrated, self-directing organism with a life of its own.
By the end of the fourth week (embryonic age; sixth week gestational age) the embryo starts passing through what some biologists have called the “phylotypic stage,” a period during which the embryos of various vertebrates (animals with backbones) somewhat resemble each other.
Haeckel’s Embryos
In 1868, German Darwinist Ernst Haeckel published a drawing of eight embryos: a fish, a salamander, a turtle, a chick, and four mammals (hog, calf, rabbit, and human). Each was shown in three stages of development. In the earliest stage (at the top), the embryos are strikingly similar.
Charles Darwin considered the supposed similarity of early embryos “by far the strongest single class of facts in favour of” his theory of descent with modification.
He wrote in 1869, “it is highly probable that with many animals the embryonic or larval stages show us, more or less completely, the state of the progenitor of the whole group in its adult condition.” Along the same lines, Haeckel argued that in the course of development an embryo “recapitulates” its evolutionary history.
A century later, shortly before the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade, legal scholar Cyril Means Jr. published a letter in the New York Times using Haeckel to justify abortion. Means argued that “embryological investigation beginning with Haeckel” showed that it was permissible “to destroy a fetus, still at the stage known to zoologists and embryologists as that of subhuman ancestral reminiscence.” (For other uses of Haeckel to justify abortion, see Chapter 14 of John G. West’s Darwin Day in America.)
But Haeckel’s drawing was known to misrepresent the truth even in his own lifetime. For one thing, the embryos portrayed as the earliest in his drawing were distorted to look more alike than they really are. For another, they were notfrom the earliest stage of development. The early embryos of the animals in Haeckel’s drawing actually look very different from each other:
© 2000 by Jody F. Sjogren
As this more realistic drawing shows, mammals (the column on the far right) are very different from the other groups in their first cell divisions (the second row from the top). Differences among the five groups continue to be evident at every stage up to and including the “phylotypic stage” that Haeckel misrepresented as the first (second row from the bottom).
The figure above shows that mammals differ dramatically from fish, amphibians reptiles, and birds. But gastrulation in human embryos (third row from the bottom) is also different in some respects from gastrulation in mice.1 So the available embryological evidence suggests that early human development differs not only from fish, amphibians, reptiles, and birds, but also from other mammals.
As the human embryo continues to develop, it forms a heart that begins to beat. The embryo also develops eyes, ears, and a nose; arms with fingers and legs with toes; external genitals; and all its internal organs. By the end of eight weeks (embryonic age; ten weeks gestational age), the embryo looks fully human and is now called a fetus. Clearly, at this point — three weeks before the end of the first trimester of pregnancy — the fetus is physically identifiable as a human being.
A Rose Is a Rose Is a Rose
But there is another line of evidence that suggests the baby was a human being much earlier. Embryologists know that a fertilized egg of the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster, if it survives and is provided with suitable conditions, will always develop into an adult Drosophila melanogaster. Fruit flies have been widely studied by embryologists, who have generated and studied hundreds of developmental mutations in them. The evidence from decades of such studies suggests that there are only three possible outcomes: a normal Drosophila melanogaster, a defective Drosophila melanogaster, or a dead Drosophila melanogaster. Not even a sister species, Drosophila simulans.
Embryologists have also generated and studied hundreds of mutations in the roundworm Caenorhabditis elegans, in the zebrafish Danio rerio, and in the house mouse Mus musculus. Again, there are only three possible outcomes: normal, defective, or dead. The embryo remains the same species from fertilization to adulthood. Although it would be highly unethical to generate mutations in a human zygote, we have no reason to believe that the possible outcomes would be any different in Homo sapiens.
So from the embryological evidence we can conclude that a human zygote is a human being from the moment of its formation. Just as a developing fruit fly is never anything but a fruit fly, so a developing human being is never anything but a human being. To deny this is to deny the evidence — which is equivalent to denying empirical science.
Next, “At What Point In Its Development Can a Human Being Feel Pain?”
Notes


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-09-15--Kimberella — Controversial Scratch Marks

Editor ’ s note : We are delighted to present a series of posts by paleontologist Günter Bechly on the Ediacaran organism Kimberella .
If identified as an animal , it would “ predate the Cambrian explosion of bilaterian animal phyla as a kind of ‘ advance guard.
’ ” The question is of interest for debates about evolution and arguments about intelligent design raised by Stephen Meyer , among others .
Find the full series about Kimberella here .
Deposits from the Ediacara locality in South Australia and the White Sea area in Russia reveal abundant trace fossil evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the putative culprit trace maker Kimberella ( Martin et al .
2000 , Fedonkin et al .
2007b , Gehling et al .
2014 ) .
The structure of these trace fossils provided substantial indirect information about the feeding apparatus , feeding behavior , and locomotion of Kimberella .
Seilacher & Hagadorn ( 2010 ) mentioned that in the Ediacaran strata the fan-shaped feeding traces are much more common than Kimberella itself .
Ivantsov ( 2010b , 2012 , 2013 ) and Ivantsov et al .
( 2019 ) added that “ in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so numerous that they completely cover the entire fossil-bearing surface available for observation.
” This abundance of feeding traces suggests massive grazing activity in the Ediacaran era , but the absence of other types of feeding traces in these layers also proves that there existed only a single type of tracemaker and not a diverse biota of mobile grazers .
The trace fossils are hyporeliefs of parallel bifid scratch marks , arranged in arcuate sets forming overlapping and/or adjacent fan-shaped patterns .
They have been previously informally called Radulichnus ( e.g.
, by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ et al .
2005 , and Seilacher 2007 ) , but were later formally described as Kimberichnus teruzzii by Ivantsov ( 2013 ) , based on a holotype specimen ( no .
PIN 3993/5619 ) from the White Sea .
They were interpreted as the infilled feeding traces of Kimberella , which seem to have used a densely toothed radula-like organ at the end of a proboscis to graze on the microbial mats ( Seilacher 1999 ) .
Kimberichnus was thoroughly revised by Gehling et al .
( 2014 ) .
Fedonkin ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are preserved in positive relief on the sole of the accompanying bed ( sandstone ) .
” The Kimberichnus traces are very variable in size , but single fans never exceed 10 cm in length or width .
The distance between the paired ridges is 0.5-3.5 mm .
Kimberichnus differs from the typical Radulichnus of younger strata in the substantially larger size of the teeth and the opposite direction of teeth movement towards the animal , which is creeping backwards instead of forwards ( also see Ivantsov 2010b , 2012 ) .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taxon Kimberichnus , Ivantsov ( 2013 ) mentioned that this type of fossil “ was known for a long time from the Ediacaran section of Australia , although it has never been formally described.
” Glaessner ( 1960 ) considered the fan-shaped structures in the Ediacara layers as “ impressions of bundles of simple straight spicules ” of sponges ( Gehling & Rigby 1996 ) .
This assumption was rejected by later authors like Gehling et al .
( 2014 ) , who said that “ for taphonomic and structural reasons , K. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of structural elements such as spicules or organic fibers.
” First specimens of these trace fossils were collected for the South Australian Museum by the late Brian Daily in 1973 ( Gehling et al .
2014 ) , but they were first properly described by Gehling ( 1991 : pl .
6 , fig .
3 ) and initially believed to be scratch marks ( Monomorphichnus ) of the double clawed appendages of a feeding arthropod ( Jenkins et al .
1983 , Gehling 1991 , Jenkins 1992 : fig .
10 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Crimes 1994 ) .
A former teacher of mine at Tübingen University was the late Adolf Seilacher , who was an international leading authority on trace fossils and who for obvious reasons preferred to be just called “ Dolf ” instead of the historically loaded name Adolf .
He was the first to compare these Ediacaran trace fossils with younger genuine Radulichnus traces and proposed Kimberella as the tracemaker , which he considered as a limpet-like mat scratcher grazing on the microbial mats ( Seilacher 1997 , 1999 , 2007 , Seilacher et @ @ @ @ @ @ @ & Hagadorn 2010 ) .
Seilacher suggested that only the feeding traces of larger individuals could be preserved , because only they could penetrate the microbial mats and leave undertrace scratches in the sediment below them , while juvenile specimens could not scratch deep enough .
This was confirmed by Gehling et al .
( 2014 ) , who found that “ Kimberichnus teruzzii is rare in association with specimens of Kimberella less than 15 mm in length , due apparently to the smaller size of the scratching appendage in relationship to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the White Sea region were first mentioned by Ivantsov & Fedonkin ( 2001b ) and described by Fedonkin ( 2003 ) , Fedonkin et al .
( 2007b ) , and Ivantsov ( 2009 , 2010b ) .

Photo: Kimberella quadrata with associated scratch marks as putative feeding traces, by Masahiro miyasaka / CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0).
Editor’s note: We are delighted to present a series of posts by paleontologist Günter Bechly on the Ediacaran organism Kimberella. If identified as an animal, it would “predate the Cambrian explosion of bilaterian animal phyla as a kind of ‘advance guard.’” The question is of interest for debates about evolution and arguments about intelligent design raised by Stephen Meyer, among others. Find the full series about Kimberella here.
Deposits from the Ediacara locality in South Australia and the White Sea area in Russia reveal abundant trace fossil evidence for grazing and motility alongside co-preservation of the putative culprit trace maker Kimberella (Martin et al. 2000, Fedonkin et al. 2007b, Gehling et al. 2014). The structure of these trace fossils provided substantial indirect information about the feeding apparatus, feeding behavior, and locomotion of Kimberella.
Seilacher & Hagadorn (2010) mentioned that in the Ediacaran strata the fan-shaped feeding traces are much more common than Kimberella itself. Ivantsov (2010b, 2012, 2013) and Ivantsov et al. (2019) added that “in some burials, the Kimberichnus furrows are so numerous that they completely cover the entire fossil-bearing surface available for observation.” This abundance of feeding traces suggests massive grazing activity in the Ediacaran era, but the absence of other types of feeding traces in these layers also proves that there existed only a single type of tracemaker and not a diverse biota of mobile grazers.
Fan-Shaped Patterns
The trace fossils are hyporeliefs of parallel bifid scratch marks, arranged in arcuate sets forming overlapping and/or adjacent fan-shaped patterns. They have been previously informally called Radulichnus (e.g., by Dornbos et al. 2004, Seilacher et al. 2005, and Seilacher 2007), but were later formally described as Kimberichnus teruzzii by Ivantsov (2013), based on a holotype specimen (no. PIN 3993/5619) from the White Sea. They were interpreted as the infilled feeding traces of Kimberella, which seem to have used a densely toothed radula-like organ at the end of a proboscis to graze on the microbial mats (Seilacher 1999). Kimberichnus was thoroughly revised by Gehling et al. (2014). Fedonkin (2003) explained that “these ichnofossils are preserved in positive relief on the sole of the accompanying bed (sandstone).” The Kimberichnus traces are very variable in size, but single fans never exceed 10 cm in length or width. The distance between the paired ridges is 0.5-3.5 mm. Kimberichnus differs from the typical Radulichnus of younger strata in the substantially larger size of the teeth and the opposite direction of teeth movement towards the animal, which is creeping backwards instead of forwards (also see Ivantsov 2010b, 2012).
History
In his description of the new trace fossil taxon Kimberichnus, Ivantsov (2013) mentioned that this type of fossil “was known for a long time from the Ediacaran section of Australia, although it has never been formally described.”
Glaessner (1960) considered the fan-shaped structures in the Ediacara layers as “impressions of bundles of simple straight spicules” of sponges (Gehling & Rigby 1996). This assumption was rejected by later authors like Gehling et al. (2014), who said that “for taphonomic and structural reasons, K. teruzzii cannot be interpreted as casts of structural elements such as spicules or organic fibers.” First specimens of these trace fossils were collected for the South Australian Museum by the late Brian Daily in 1973 (Gehling et al. 2014), but they were first properly described by Gehling (1991: pl. 6, fig. 3) and initially believed to be scratch marks (Monomorphichnus) of the double clawed appendages of a feeding arthropod (Jenkins et al. 1983, Gehling 1991, Jenkins 1992: fig. 10, Jenkins 1995: pl. 1C, Crimes 1994).
A former teacher of mine at Tübingen University was the late Adolf Seilacher, who was an international leading authority on trace fossils and who for obvious reasons preferred to be just called “Dolf” instead of the historically loaded name Adolf. He was the first to compare these Ediacaran trace fossils with younger genuine Radulichnus traces and proposed Kimberella as the tracemaker, which he considered as a limpet-like mat scratcher grazing on the microbial mats (Seilacher 1997, 1999, 2007, Seilacher et al. 2003, 2005, Seilacher & Hagadorn 2010). Seilacher suggested that only the feeding traces of larger individuals could be preserved, because only they could penetrate the microbial mats and leave undertrace scratches in the sediment below them, while juvenile specimens could not scratch deep enough. This was confirmed by Gehling et al. (2014), who found that “Kimberichnus teruzzii is rare in association with specimens of Kimberella less than 15 mm in length, due apparently to the smaller size of the scratching appendage in relationship to the sediment grain size.”
Kimberella feeding traces from the White Sea region were first mentioned by Ivantsov & Fedonkin (2001b) and described by Fedonkin (2003), Fedonkin et al. (2007b), and Ivantsov (2009, 2010b).
Next, “Kimberella — Traces and a Trace-maker.”


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-09-17--Plastic-Eating Microbes — “Rapid Evolution” May Not Be Darwinian at All

Environmental scientists warn frequently that the world is drowning in plastic .
In addition to the plastic bottles that circle in gyres out at sea , synthetic microfibers from the laundry loads of millions of people each week are being found at coral reefs and in almost every bucket of sea water dredged up by marine biologists .
According to Wired , “ A single pair of jeans may release 56,000 microfibers per wash. ” Run the numbers and multiply that by billions of people wearing blue jeans , and you glimpse the scope of the problem .
Blue jean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Marine biologists are rightly concerned about the rapidly rising accumulation of plastics and synthetic fibers at sea , and the impacts these could have on sea turtles , fish , coral reefs , and the entire marine ecosystem .
In this worrying context , the following should not at all appear to minimize the environmental crisis of plastic in the oceans .
It is , however , interesting and unexpected .
A team of scientists from Saudi Arabia wrote a paper for the biology preprint server bioRxiv recently with the intriguing title @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Prevalent in the Global Ocean.
” They were surprised that plastic input ( production by humans , some 150 teragrams of plastic waste ) is not matching plastic output ( measurements at sea ) .
What could account for the mismatch ?
The team discovered that microbes are learning to eat plastic !
They say that “ 99 percent of the plastic that entered the oceans can not be accounted for.
” Now while this “ rapid evolution ” sounds like good news , it raises a number of questions .
How did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” the ability to digest plastic ?
How did they do it so fast ?
Is it a case of Darwinian evolution ?
The authors have no reason to doubt it , since they refer to “ selection pressures ” pushing the microbes to evolve the oPETase enzymes , presumably for their selfish fitness .
It just adventitiously provides ecological benefits ( a carbon source ) for deep microbial communities .
The first case of a natural oPETase enzyme able to digest polyethylene , they note , was observed very recently .
Whatever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not in the slow-and-gradual Darwinian way .
Readers might recall the case of the “ nylonase ” enzyme that evolutionists used to tout Darwinian evolution , leading to a flurry of debates about it in these pages ( e.g.
, see Ann Gauger , “ Adaptation in Action Yields a Repurposed Enzyme ” ) .
Gauger agrees with Michael Behe that adaptation by mutation and selection can occur in limited cases where the number of required mutational steps is small ( one or two ) , the number of trials is large , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ These kinds of changes fall within the “ Edge of Evolution , ” and are within the reach of chance , provide an existing enzyme exists and the modifications are minor .
Examples of this can be found in Behe ’ s book , The Edge of Evolution .
Clearly ocean microbes are abundant enough for many trials to take place .
In that same article , Gauger called attention to a discovery by Austin et al.
, published in 2018 in PNAS , of a PET enzyme that not only dissolved a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get more efficient at it over time .
The functional change was minor ; it involved a change to the size of a cleft in an existing enzyme to accommodate the new substrate .
Further slight modifications to the cleft improved the efficiency since there was an immediate benefit to the microbe to digest the molecule at each step .
The evolution of an enzyme de novo by a major chance event such as a frameshift mutation , she argued , is beyond the reach of chance , because enzymes must fold to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ folds is vanishingly small compared to the sequence space of random amino acid chains .
The discovery , therefore , was within the edge of evolution and not a threat to intelligent design .
What ’ s new in the current study ?
The authors refer to the same paper by Austin et al .
from 2018 , adding that rapid adaptation of enzymes to digest plastics appears to be much more widespread than thought .
Like Gauger , the authors see this is as a boon to the biosphere , providing hope @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pollution can be ameliorated by microbes .
Plastics are derived from hydrocarbons , after all , which microbes have been digesting from the beginning .
Indeed , environmental scientists rushing to clean up catastrophic oil spills have been surprised to see how quickly microbes aided the effort .
In summary , the results obtained confirm that PETases are prevalent and abundant in the global ocean microbiome , where they must have evolved recently , following the mass production of polyethylene terephthalate [ reference to Austin et al. ]
.
PETases are widespread from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reaching a maximum abundance and prevalence at about 1,000 m , where Pseudomonas has evolved an efficient PETase .
PETases were found in high abundance in some areas known to receive high loads of plastic waste , such as waters off the Indian subcontinent , Brazil , and Southern Africa .
The phylogeny constructed also shows a putative pathway for the evolution of oPETases from ancestral genes involved in hydrocarbon degradation .
The increased efficiency of the PETase along the phylogenetic sequences , along with the high abundance of bacteria containing efficient PETases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ driven by selection pressures providing advantages to bacteria able to use an increasingly available resource , plastic polymers , in the deep ocean , mainly where all other naturally-occurring organic substrates are extremely diluted .
The widespread prevalence , 90.1 % , of PETases across the ocean together with the acute carbon limitation in bathypelagic waters suggests that the ocean microbiome is rapidly evolving to degrade plastic waste , providing a hopeful , nature-based solutions for plastic already in the marine environment .
It ’ s great news .
None of this should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to be responsible stewards of the environment .
It is encouraging , though , to see microbial helpers with complex molecular machines that can be repurposed or retooled to clean up some of our waste products without our help .
Evolutionists tend to look at life as a collection of selfish individuals competing for their own fitness .
Individuals with the good fortune to hit on the right mutations outcompete others and become predominant .
Lately , Darwinians have been noticing more cases of cooperation in nature .
Advocates of intelligent design @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case of design here .
Is it not remarkable how quickly these microbes adapted to help other organisms unrelated to them ?
Is more than chance involved ?
Physiologists know of another case where apparent “ random ” mutations serve a greater good : the human adaptive immune system .
In the B-cell genes , a programmed pathway randomly assembles gene segments , providing millions of combinations of antibodies , one or more of which matches an antigen .
When successful , the resulting antibody fits the intruder and is rapidly cloned , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ antibody selfish ?
In a way , yes ; it does benefit if the host lives , so that it doesn ’ t “ go down with the ship ” so to speak .
But the complexity of the immune system looks more like a case of foresight , using a stochastic process to provide robustness for unpredictable threats .
Perhaps in a wider context , the ocean ecosystem is like that .
If it was designed for the good of biosphere , it would make sense that robustness is built in to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Given that de novo enzymes are beyond the reach of chance anyway , a designer would make them “ evolvable ” to a point — as in the antibody system — able to “ find ” a match for an unexpected intruder ( like plastic ) and reduce its harm .
Biochemists already know that mutational hotspots exist in genomes , indicating that not all mutations are purely random .
One clear difference is that the random antibody search occurs within a body , while microbes are solitary organisms .
Still , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and sharing genetic information by horizontal gene transfer .
How could the hypothesis of a guided search for plastic-digesting enzymes be tested ?
We ’ ll leave that up to a creative scientist intrigued with the thought .
The rapid adaptation of existing complex molecular machines to handle unpredicted environmental threats , though , resulting in benefit to other organisms and homeostasis for the biosphere , looks too good for a blind , unguided , natural process .

Photo credit: tkremmel via Pixabay.
Environmental scientists warn frequently that the world is drowning in plastic. In addition to the plastic bottles that circle in gyres out at sea, synthetic microfibers from the laundry loads of millions of people each week are being found at coral reefs and in almost every bucket of sea water dredged up by marine biologists. According to Wired, “A single pair of jeans may release 56,000 microfibers per wash.” Run the numbers and multiply that by billions of people wearing blue jeans, and you glimpse the scope of the problem. Blue jean fibers have been found in the Arctic. Marine biologists are rightly concerned about the rapidly rising accumulation of plastics and synthetic fibers at sea, and the impacts these could have on sea turtles, fish, coral reefs, and the entire marine ecosystem.
Unexpected Good News
In this worrying context, the following should not at all appear to minimize the environmental crisis of plastic in the oceans. It is, however, interesting and unexpected. A team of scientists from Saudi Arabia wrote a paper for the biology preprint server bioRxiv recently with the intriguing title, “Rapid Evolution of Plastic-degrading Enzymes Prevalent in the Global Ocean.” They were surprised that plastic input (production by humans, some 150 teragrams of plastic waste) is not matching plastic output (measurements at sea). What could account for the mismatch? The team discovered that microbes are learning to eat plastic!
Estimates of marine plastic stocks, a major threat to marine life, are far lower than expected from exponentially-increasing litter inputs, suggesting important loss factors. These may involve microbial degradation, as the plastic-degrading polyethylene terephthalate enzyme (PETase) has been reported in marine microbial communities. An assessment of 416 metagenomes of planktonic communities across the global ocean identifies 68 oceanic PETase variants (oPETase) that evolved from ancestral enzymes degrading polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Twenty oPETases show predicted efficiencies comparable to those of laboratory-optimized PETases, suggesting strong selective pressures directing the evolution of these enzymes. We found oPETases in 90.1% of samples across all oceans and depths, particularly abundant at 1,000 m depth, with a strong dominance of Pseudomonadales containing putative highly-efficient oPETase variants in the dark ocean. Enzymatic degradation may be removing plastic from the marine environment while providing a carbon source for bathypelagic microbial communities. [Emphasis added.]
They say that “99 percent of the plastic that entered the oceans cannot be accounted for.” Now while this “rapid evolution” sounds like good news, it raises a number of questions. How did multiple species of microbes independently “evolve” the ability to digest plastic? How did they do it so fast? Is it a case of Darwinian evolution? The authors have no reason to doubt it, since they refer to “selection pressures” pushing the microbes to evolve the oPETase enzymes, presumably for their selfish fitness. It just adventitiously provides ecological benefits (a carbon source) for deep microbial communities.
The first case of a natural oPETase enzyme able to digest polyethylene, they note, was observed very recently.
Exponential growth in plastic production along with poor waste management practices have led to over 150 Tg plastic waste delivered to the ocean since 1950, where it harms marine life, from zooplankton to whales. Synthetic plastic polymers are derived from oil hydrocarbons and designed to be durable in the environment, being largely resistant to microbial degradation. However, a newly-evolved plastic-degrading enzyme, polyethylene terephthalate hydrolase (PETase), was recently discovered in a Japanese waste processing plant. This PETase was inferred to have evolved since 1970, when the polyethylene terephthalate polymer was introduced at industrial scale.
Evolution’s Edge
Whatever happened “evolved” very rapidly, not in the slow-and-gradual Darwinian way. Readers might recall the case of the “nylonase” enzyme that evolutionists used to tout Darwinian evolution, leading to a flurry of debates about it in these pages (e.g., see Ann Gauger, “Adaptation in Action Yields a Repurposed Enzyme”). Gauger agrees with Michael Behe that adaptation by mutation and selection can occur in limited cases where the number of required mutational steps is small (one or two), the number of trials is large, and each step yields a benefit. These kinds of changes fall within the “Edge of Evolution,” and are within the reach of chance, provide an existing enzyme exists and the modifications are minor. Examples of this can be found in Behe’s book, The Edge of Evolution. Clearly ocean microbes are abundant enough for many trials to take place.
In that same article, Gauger called attention to a discovery by Austin et al., published in 2018 in PNAS, of a PET enzyme that not only dissolved a type of polyesterase, but appeared to get more efficient at it over time. The functional change was minor; it involved a change to the size of a cleft in an existing enzyme to accommodate the new substrate. Further slight modifications to the cleft improved the efficiency since there was an immediate benefit to the microbe to digest the molecule at each step. The evolution of an enzyme de novo by a major chance event such as a frameshift mutation, she argued, is beyond the reach of chance, because enzymes must fold to work, and the space of possible folds is vanishingly small compared to the sequence space of random amino acid chains. The discovery, therefore, was within the edge of evolution and not a threat to intelligent design.
A Boon to the Biosphere
What’s new in the current study? The authors refer to the same paper by Austin et al. from 2018, adding that rapid adaptation of enzymes to digest plastics appears to be much more widespread than thought. Like Gauger, the authors see this is as a boon to the biosphere, providing hope that at least some of human plastic pollution can be ameliorated by microbes. Plastics are derived from hydrocarbons, after all, which microbes have been digesting from the beginning. Indeed, environmental scientists rushing to clean up catastrophic oil spills have been surprised to see how quickly microbes aided the effort.
In summary, the results obtained confirm that PETases are prevalent and abundant in the global ocean microbiome, where they must have evolved recently, following the mass production of polyethylene terephthalate [reference to Austin et al.]. PETases are widespread from the surface to the deep ocean, reaching a maximum abundance and prevalence at about 1,000 m, where Pseudomonas has evolved an efficient PETase. PETases were found in high abundance in some areas known to receive high loads of plastic waste, such as waters off the Indian subcontinent, Brazil, and Southern Africa. The phylogeny constructed also shows a putative pathway for the evolution of oPETases from ancestral genes involved in hydrocarbon degradation. The increased efficiency of the PETase along the phylogenetic sequences, along with the high abundance of bacteria containing efficient PETases, points at an ongoing evolutionary process driven by selection pressures providing advantages to bacteria able to use an increasingly available resource, plastic polymers, in the deep ocean, mainly where all other naturally-occurring organic substrates are extremely diluted. The widespread prevalence, 90.1%, of PETases across the ocean together with the acute carbon limitation in bathypelagic waters suggests that the ocean microbiome is rapidly evolving to degrade plastic waste, providing a hopeful, nature-based solutions for plastic already in the marine environment.
It’s great news. None of this should rationalize pollution, of course; humans need to be responsible stewards of the environment. It is encouraging, though, to see microbial helpers with complex molecular machines that can be repurposed or retooled to clean up some of our waste products without our help.
Another Possible Design Hypothesis
Evolutionists tend to look at life as a collection of selfish individuals competing for their own fitness. Individuals with the good fortune to hit on the right mutations outcompete others and become predominant. Lately, Darwinians have been noticing more cases of cooperation in nature. Advocates of intelligent design might look wider and see a global case of design here. Is it not remarkable how quickly these microbes adapted to help other organisms unrelated to them? Is more than chance involved?
Physiologists know of another case where apparent “random” mutations serve a greater good: the human adaptive immune system. In the B-cell genes, a programmed pathway randomly assembles gene segments, providing millions of combinations of antibodies, one or more of which matches an antigen. When successful, the resulting antibody fits the intruder and is rapidly cloned, stopping the infection. Is the winning antibody selfish? In a way, yes; it does benefit if the host lives, so that it doesn’t “go down with the ship” so to speak. But the complexity of the immune system looks more like a case of foresight, using a stochastic process to provide robustness for unpredictable threats. Perhaps in a wider context, the ocean ecosystem is like that. If it was designed for the good of biosphere, it would make sense that robustness is built in to resist catastrophic perturbations, providing ecological homeostasis. Given that de novo enzymes are beyond the reach of chance anyway, a designer would make them “evolvable” to a point — as in the antibody system — able to “find” a match for an unexpected intruder (like plastic) and reduce its harm. Biochemists already know that mutational hotspots exist in genomes, indicating that not all mutations are purely random.
One clear difference is that the random antibody search occurs within a body, while microbes are solitary organisms. Still, microbes are good at signaling one another and sharing genetic information by horizontal gene transfer. How could the hypothesis of a guided search for plastic-digesting enzymes be tested? We’ll leave that up to a creative scientist intrigued with the thought. The rapid adaptation of existing complex molecular machines to handle unpredicted environmental threats, though, resulting in benefit to other organisms and homeostasis for the biosphere, looks too good for a blind, unguided, natural process.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-09-17--Kimberella — The Oldest Radula (Not)

Kimberella — The Oldest Radula (Not)

Editor ’ s note : We are delighted to present a series of posts by paleontologist Günter Bechly on the Ediacaran organism Kimberella .
If identified as an animal , it would “ predate the Cambrian explosion of bilaterian animal phyla as a kind of ‘ advance guard.
’ ” The question is of interest for debates about evolution and arguments about intelligent design raised by Stephen Meyer , among others .
Find the full series about Kimberella here .
Some authors have thought that Kimberella did indeed possess a true radula , like mollusks ( Seilacher 1997 , 2007 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
2012 , Stöger et al .
2013 , Vinther 2015 ) .
Seilacher ( 1999 ) said that “ the tracefossils … record a bilateral radula and its usage in pendulum grazing , which is definitely a molluscan feature.
” Seilacher & Hagadorn ( 2010 ) concluded that the trace fossil evidence and “ the inferred morphology of Kimberella … indicate that such key crown-group mollusk features as a radula and muscular foot had already evolved before the Cambrian.
” The latter authors therefore reconstructed ( see their Figure 2 ) the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Based on the descriptions by Fedonkin and Ivantsov mentioned below , Smith ( 2012 ) , who described the radula-like mouthparts of the possible Cambrian stem mollusks Odontogriphus and Wiwaxia , still suggested that the “ first fossil evidence of a radula-like organ comes from scrape-marks left by the putative Ediacaran mollusc Kimberella ” and even considered it to be a stereoglossan radula .
Nevertheless , Fedonkin ( 2003 ) , Fedonkin et al .
( 2007b ) and Ivantsov ( 2010b ) observed that the fan-shaped clusters of paired scratches instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the reverse movement documented by the absence of crawling over previous scratches , “ excluded interpretation of these scratches as the traces left by a radula in its classical sense.
” Thus , these leading experts on Kimberella did all not believe in a homology of its inferred teeth with the radula of mollusks .
A severe problem for the interpretation of the Kimberichnus traces as produced by a radular grazing organ is the fact that these traces occur in concentrically radiating fan-shaped pairs , while the molluscan radula is an unpaired organ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Butterfield ( 2006 ) found that the structure of the traces associated with Kimberella make it “ questionable whether a two-rowed ( or even a four-rowed ) feeding apparatus could work in any way analogous to a belt-like radula.
” The reconstructed movement of Kimberella is backwards in the direction of the aboral end ( Fedonkin et al .
2007b , Ivantsov 2009 , 2010b , 2012 , 2013 , Gehling et al .
2014 , Grazhdankin 2014 , Parkhaev 2017 : fig .
2B ) , away from the scratch marks , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in mollusks .
Indeed , Kimberella had a “ very unusual mode of grazing .
Modern molluscs ( and cows ) move their heads to the left and right while grazing and crawl a step forward after every swing .
Kimberella , however , stayed in place and foraged with the mouth at the tip of a retractable trunk ” ( Larson 2020 ) .
It is noteworthy that Martin Brasier ( 2009 : 161 ) , who is one of the world ’ s leading experts on Ediacaran fossils , cautioned that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ therefore less examined , explanation is that these ridges are simply partial moulds left behind by microbial filaments , by protozoans or even by decaying Dickinsonia.
” Budd & Jensen ( 2017 ) agreed that “ remain sufficient uncertainties in the interpretation of the fan-shaped ridges that a non-trace fossil interpretation should not be discarded.
” That should give at least some reason to pause .
Finally , there is a strange fact that shows that any interpretation of such trace fossils has to be taken with a grain of salt .
Knaust @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Kimberichnus teruzzii type from Middle Triassic microbial matgrounds of the “ Muschelkalk ” in Germany and the Netherlands .
Being more than 200 million years younger , these traces of course can not be attributed to Kimberella , so that the author speculated that gastropods or the cephalopod Germanonautilus could be the most likely candidates as trace-makers , although he could not rule out other groups of animals , such as annelids , arthropods , or even fish .

Image: Kimberella quadrata, by MUSE / CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0).
Editor’s note: We are delighted to present a series of posts by paleontologist Günter Bechly on the Ediacaran organism Kimberella. If identified as an animal, it would “predate the Cambrian explosion of bilaterian animal phyla as a kind of ‘advance guard.’” The question is of interest for debates about evolution and arguments about intelligent design raised by Stephen Meyer, among others. Find the full series about Kimberella here.
Some authors have thought that Kimberella did indeed possess a true radula, like mollusks (Seilacher 1997, 2007, Smith 2012, Vinther et al. 2012, Stöger et al. 2013, Vinther 2015). Seilacher (1999) said that “the tracefossils … record a bilateral radula and its usage in pendulum grazing, which is definitely a molluscan feature.” Seilacher & Hagadorn (2010) concluded that the trace fossil evidence and “the inferred morphology of Kimberella … indicate that such key crown-group mollusk features as a radula and muscular foot had already evolved before the Cambrian.” The latter authors therefore reconstructed (see their Figure 2) the feeding apparatus as a typical molluscan radula.
Based on the descriptions by Fedonkin and Ivantsov mentioned below, Smith (2012), who described the radula-like mouthparts of the possible Cambrian stem mollusks Odontogriphus and Wiwaxia, still suggested that the “first fossil evidence of a radula-like organ comes from scrape-marks left by the putative Ediacaran mollusc Kimberella” and even considered it to be a stereoglossan radula.
Nevertheless, Fedonkin (2003), Fedonkin et al. (2007b) and Ivantsov (2010b) observed that the fan-shaped clusters of paired scratches instead of meandering loops, as well as the reverse movement documented by the absence of crawling over previous scratches, “excluded interpretation of these scratches as the traces left by a radula in its classical sense.” Thus, these leading experts on Kimberella did all not believe in a homology of its inferred teeth with the radula of mollusks.
A Problem for Interpretation
A severe problem for the interpretation of the Kimberichnus traces as produced by a radular grazing organ is the fact that these traces occur in concentrically radiating fan-shaped pairs, while the molluscan radula is an unpaired organ (Ivantsov 2013). Likewise, Butterfield (2006) found that the structure of the traces associated with Kimberella make it “questionable whether a two-rowed (or even a four-rowed) feeding apparatus could work in any way analogous to a belt-like radula.” The reconstructed movement of Kimberella is backwards in the direction of the aboral end (Fedonkin et al. 2007b, Ivantsov 2009, 2010b, 2012, 2013, Gehling et al. 2014, Grazhdankin 2014, Parkhaev 2017: fig. 2B), away from the scratch marks, which is again a totally unknown behavior in mollusks. Indeed, Kimberella had a “very unusual mode of grazing. Modern molluscs (and cows) move their heads to the left and right while grazing and crawl a step forward after every swing. Kimberella, however, stayed in place and foraged with the mouth at the tip of a retractable trunk” (Larson 2020).
It is noteworthy that Martin Brasier (2009: 161), who is one of the world’s leading experts on Ediacaran fossils, cautioned that “a much less exciting, and therefore less examined, explanation is that these ridges are simply partial moulds left behind by microbial filaments, by protozoans or even by decaying Dickinsonia.” Budd & Jensen (2017) agreed that “remain sufficient uncertainties in the interpretation of the fan-shaped ridges that a non-trace fossil interpretation should not be discarded.” That should give at least some reason to pause.
Triassic Kimberichnus
Finally, there is a strange fact that shows that any interpretation of such trace fossils has to be taken with a grain of salt. Knaust (2015) described grazing traces of the Kimberichnus teruzzii type from Middle Triassic microbial matgrounds of the “Muschelkalk” in Germany and the Netherlands. Being more than 200 million years younger, these traces of course cannot be attributed to Kimberella, so that the author speculated that gastropods or the cephalopod Germanonautilus could be the most likely candidates as trace-makers, although he could not rule out other groups of animals, such as annelids, arthropods, or even fish.
Next, “Kimberella and Controversial Relationships — A Chronological Synopsis.”


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-09-16--Design on Time — Paley’s Watch Was Inside Him

If young William Paley had today ’ s high-tech imaging tools , he wouldn ’ t need to build his argument for design from a watch on a heath .
He would marvel at the clocks within his own body .
Indeed , clocks are universal within biology , from bacteria to birds , from yeast to beast , from mammals to man .
All the circadian rhythms in life are regulated by molecular clocks .
Biology runs on time !
Starting with a simple case , here is a new discovery about clocks in bacteria .
The cyanobacterium Synechococcus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a timekeeping system consisting of three parts : KaiA , KaiB , and KaiC .
This is one of the simplest biological oscillators in nature , and it has been studied in detail .
Scientists know that the actions of these proteins regulate transcription of other proteins in feedback loops tied to day-night cycles .
Researchers at Nagoya University in Japan found something new and interesting , which they published in PNAS on August 251 : a particular amino acid in KaiC , at position 402 , appears to be the central oscillator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clock .
KaiC proteins with mutations at 402 changed their period by a factor of 10 : from 0.6 days to 6.6 days .
Therefore , our results indicate that the circadian pacemaker of cyanobacteria , which functions without a transcription–translation feedback loop , can define the period of extra wide dynamic range , while keeping temperature compensation intact .
These features are installed in the structure of KaiC protein , as ATPase activity of KaiC can determine both circadian period and temperature compensation .
To establish both flexibility of period determination and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it is possible that novel physical mechanism inside the KaiC structure links energy derived from the ATP hydrolysis with circadian pacemaker function .
By maintaining such mechanism , cyanobacteria may have been able to adapt to the period of Earth ’ s rotation , which lengthened due to the tidal friction , and thus succeed among the organisms to inhabit this planet .
[ Emphasis added . ]
They don ’ t say this ability evolved .
Instead , they say that this amino acid allows the bacterium to tune its period @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clearly , there is still more to learn about the biological clock in one of the simplest of life-forms .
The tunability of these clocks was further suggested by another paper in Nature Scientific Reports2 .
Two kinds of mat-forming microbes in coastal communities were examined by a team in the Netherlands .
They both have the Kai-A-B-C system but respond differently depending on the consistency of the light .
In higher organisms including humans , biological clocks are much more sophisticated and less well understood .
Researchers know that the suprachiasmatic nucleus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ involved .
As recorded in Nature3 , a team from Harvard Medical School found some VIPs in the clock : “ vasoactive intestinal polypeptide-expressing ” neurons that are required for normal rhythmicity .
These SCNVIP neurons are heterogeneous , “ comprised of molecularly distinct populations.
” The complexity of this advanced biological clock quickly becomes overwhelming , but slow progress is being made : The team tried disrupting these neurons in mice to watch what happened to their sleep-wake cycles , locomotor activity , body temperature and wheel-running exercise .
They learned a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be required to understand how the clock works .
Among the many things that biological clocks control beside the obvious sleep-wake cycle are processes vital for health .
For instance , scientists at the University of Rochester found that circadian rhythms help guide waste from the brain .
This has implications for night owls and students burning the midnight oil while studying for finals .
In a related study from the University of Illinois in Chicago , scientists found that poor sleep leads to problems with the gut microbiome and high blood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 28-hour sleep-wake cycle , disruptions to digestion and circulation became evident .
The gut problems took a week to manifest themselves .
When the rats got back on the regular clock , the problems did not return to normal right away .
College students substituted for lab rats in another study from Brazil .
A team publishing in PLOS One4 concluded that “ Quality of sleep and anxiety are related to circadian preference in university students.
” The affects depended on the “ chronotypes ” of the students ( night owls versus early @ @ @ @ @ @ @ depend on the regular day/night cycle of sunlight to time their activities .
The biological clock switches on the right things at the right time .
Scientists know the clocks are there .
We know , too ; we can tell by the effects when our normal routines are disrupted , like in jet lag or long work hours .
Biologists can peer into the ticking gears in the simplest organisms and see some inputs and outputs of individual players involved .
But still , after years of research , biological clocks are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russian dolls inside other black boxes in hierarchical systems .
Darwin would best refrain from trying to explain such highly tuned wonders by unguided processes like natural selection .
• Ito-Miwa et al.
, “ Tuning the circadian period of cyanobacteria up to 6.6 days by the single amino acid substitutions in KaiC.
” PNAS August 25 , 2020 117 ( 34 ) 20926-20931. https : //doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2005496117 .
• Todd et al.
, “ Suprachiasmatic VIP neurons are required for normal circadian rhythmicity and comprised of molecularly distinct subpopulations.
” Nature Communications volume @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 ) .
https : //doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17197-2 .
• Silva et al.
, “ Quality of sleep and anxiety are related to circadian preference in university students.
” PLOS One , September 2 , 2020. https : //doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238514 .

Photo credit: André Lage Freitas / CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0).
If young William Paley had today’s high-tech imaging tools, he wouldn’t need to build his argument for design from a watch on a heath. He would marvel at the clocks within his own body. Indeed, clocks are universal within biology, from bacteria to birds, from yeast to beast, from mammals to man. All the circadian rhythms in life are regulated by molecular clocks. Biology runs on time!
A Bacterial Timekeeper
Starting with a simple case, here is a new discovery about clocks in bacteria. The cyanobacterium Synechococcus elongatus, like many bacteria, has a timekeeping system consisting of three parts: KaiA, KaiB, and KaiC. This is one of the simplest biological oscillators in nature, and it has been studied in detail. Scientists know that the actions of these proteins regulate transcription of other proteins in feedback loops tied to day-night cycles.
Researchers at Nagoya University in Japan found something new and interesting, which they published in PNAS on August 251: a particular amino acid in KaiC, at position 402, appears to be the central oscillator that controls the circadian period of the clock. KaiC proteins with mutations at 402 changed their period by a factor of 10: from 0.6 days to 6.6 days.
Therefore, our results indicate that the circadian pacemaker of cyanobacteria, which functions without a transcription–translation feedback loop, can define the period of extra wide dynamic range, while keeping temperature compensation intact. These features are installed in the structure of KaiC protein, as ATPase activity of KaiC can determine both circadian period and temperature compensation. To establish both flexibility of period determination and persistence of temperature compensation within KaiC protein, it is possible that novel physical mechanism inside the KaiC structure links energy derived from the ATP hydrolysis with circadian pacemaker function. By maintaining such mechanism, cyanobacteria may have been able to adapt to the period of Earth’s rotation, which lengthened due to the tidal friction, and thus succeed among the organisms to inhabit this planet. [Emphasis added.]
They don’t say this ability evolved. Instead, they say that this amino acid allows the bacterium to tune its period to the rotation of the Earth.
The periods of KaiC mutants range from 16 to 60 h, showing the extremely wide-range tunability of periods by KaiC point mutations. In this point, circadian clock system of cyanobacteria would be an ideal model for the study of tuning mechanism of the 24-h period. However, the tuning mechanism of the 24-h period installed in KaiC protein remains unclear, as the mutation sites are distributed in an apparently random fashion throughout the protein, and the effects of mutation on circadian period are not consistent.
Clearly, there is still more to learn about the biological clock in one of the simplest of life-forms. The tunability of these clocks was further suggested by another paper in Nature Scientific Reports2. Two kinds of mat-forming microbes in coastal communities were examined by a team in the Netherlands. They both have the Kai-A-B-C system but respond differently depending on the consistency of the light.
Although functionally similar, both species of cyanobacteria displayed different 24-h transcriptional patterns in response to the experimental treatments, suggesting that their circadian clocks have adapted to different life strategies adopted by these mat-forming cyanobacteria.
Paley’s Internal Watch
In higher organisms including humans, biological clocks are much more sophisticated and less well understood. Researchers know that the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) in the hypothalamus is involved. As recorded in Nature3, a team from Harvard Medical School found some VIPs in the clock: “vasoactive intestinal polypeptide-expressing” neurons that are required for normal rhythmicity. These SCNVIP neurons are heterogeneous, “comprised of molecularly distinct populations.” The complexity of this advanced biological clock quickly becomes overwhelming, but slow progress is being made:
Current understanding holds that circadian rhythms are generated within individual cells of the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) and that cell–cell interactions within the SCN network are required to sustain them. One of the emergent properties of these cell–cell circuit interactions is the circadian period, a fundamental property of the SCN circadian clock. While the SCN contains a variety of neuropeptides, as well as the fast transmitter GABA, that might variably contribute to SCN network function and hence the ensemble period, previous work has suggested an especially important role for SCNVIP cells as “master pacemakers” of circadian rhythms.
The team tried disrupting these neurons in mice to watch what happened to their sleep-wake cycles, locomotor activity, body temperature and wheel-running exercise. They learned a few things, but much more study will be required to understand how the clock works.
Altogether, our work establishes necessity of SCNVIP neurons for the LMA [mammalian locomotor activity] circadian rhythm, elucidates organization of circadian outflow from and modulatory input to SCNVIP cells, and demonstrates a subpopulation-level molecular heterogeneity that suggests distinct functions for specific SCNVIP subtypes.
Biological Clocks Are Vital
Among the many things that biological clocks control beside the obvious sleep-wake cycle are processes vital for health. For instance, scientists at the University of Rochester found that circadian rhythms help guide waste from the brain. This has implications for night owls and students burning the midnight oil while studying for finals.
New research details how the complex set of molecular and fluid dynamics that comprise the glymphatic system — the brain’s unique process of waste removal — are synchronized with the master internal clock that regulates the sleep-wake cycle. These findings suggest that people who rely on sleeping during daytime hours are at greater risk for developing neurological disorders.
In a related study from the University of Illinois in Chicago, scientists found that poor sleep leads to problems with the gut microbiome and high blood pressure. By putting rats on a 28-hour sleep-wake cycle, disruptions to digestion and circulation became evident.
“When rats had an abnormal sleep schedule, an increase in blood pressure developed — the blood pressure remained elevated even when they could return to normal sleep. This suggests that dysfunctional sleep impairs the body for a sustained period,” Maki said. Undesirable changes also were found in the gut microbiome — the genetic material of all bacteria living in the colon.
The gut problems took a week to manifest themselves. When the rats got back on the regular clock, the problems did not return to normal right away.
Human Rats
College students substituted for lab rats in another study from Brazil. A team publishing in PLOS One4 concluded that “Quality of sleep and anxiety are related to circadian preference in university students.” The affects depended on the “chronotypes” of the students (night owls versus early birds, for instance).
The high occurrence of anxiety levels and poor sleep quality in evening students may be a consequence of high academic demand in a shift incompatible with the phase delay of the circadian timing system of these individuals.
Organisms depend on the regular day/night cycle of sunlight to time their activities. The biological clock switches on the right things at the right time.
Living organisms experience several functional changes throughout one day. Examples of such changes are variations in hormone secretion, body temperature, and cognitive performance, among others. Most biological systems present some endogenous circadian timing system that are synchronized by exogenous photic and nonphotic cycles.
Scientists know the clocks are there. We know, too; we can tell by the effects when our normal routines are disrupted, like in jet lag or long work hours. Biologists can peer into the ticking gears in the simplest organisms and see some inputs and outputs of individual players involved. But still, after years of research, biological clocks are black boxes. They are nested like Russian dolls inside other black boxes in hierarchical systems. Darwin would best refrain from trying to explain such highly tuned wonders by unguided processes like natural selection.
Notes


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-09-16--Kimberella — Locomotory Tracks

Kimberella — Locomotory Tracks

Editor ’ s note : We are delighted to present a series of posts by paleontologist Günter Bechly on the Ediacaran organism Kimberella .
If identified as an animal , it would “ predate the Cambrian explosion of bilaterian animal phyla as a kind of ‘ advance guard.
’ ” The question is of interest for debates about evolution and arguments about intelligent design raised by Stephen Meyer , among others .
Find the full series about Kimberella here .
But what about tracks of the moving animal ?
There are indeed some fossils from the White Sea that show @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their creeping rearwards through burying sediment ( Ivantsov & Fedonkin 2001a , 2001b , Fedonkin 2001 , 2003 : fig .
14 , Fedonkin et al .
2007b : figs 20-22 , Ponder & Lindberg 2008 : fig 3.1B , Ivantsov 2009 : pl .
2 , 2010b : pl .
1 , 2012 : fig .
11 , Parkhaev 2017 : fig .
2b , Ivantsov et al .
2019 : fig .
1 ) .
This is indeed unequivocal und undeniable evidence for motility ( contra Evolution News 2015 ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the possibility Kimberella could be a misinterpreted representative of the sessile frond-like Ediacaran organisms ( e.g.
, as suggested at the Palaeos website ) , and it also makes a coelenterate grade affinity much less likely .
The curious fact that such locomotion traces are rare and never associated with feeding traces has been explained by the fact that the Ediacaran seafloor was covered with microbial biomats , which were “ soft enough to be scratched by radular teeth , but firm enough to carry the rather heavy animal itself , so that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the underlying sediment ( Seilacher 1999 , Seilacher et al .
2003 , Seilacher & Hagadorn 2010 , Sperling & Vinther 2010 , Gehling et al .
2014 ) .
It is also remarkable that the body fossils of Kimberella “ are almost never superimposed over these scratches , ” with the only exception of a specimen figured by Gehling ( 1996 : fig .
5:13 ) , and also “ these scratches were never erased by Kimberella ” ( Seilacher & Hagadorn 2010 ) .
From the structure of these locomotion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that often differs from the body width , the production of mucus sheets has been inferred for Kimberella ( Fedonkin et al .
2007b , Ivantsov 2009 , 2010b , 2012 Ivantsov et al .
2019 ) , which would of course agree well with a molluscan affinity .
Ivantsov et al .
( 2019 : fig .
1d ) figured the single known specimen of a small Kimberella specimen that is not preserved as usual at the end of its trace , but in the very middle of it , which suggests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ envelope of mucus and the animal retracted into its own trail of mucus band .
This also proves that Kimberella could move in both directions , which was also suggested by Gehling et al .
( 2014 ) , who found that “ the maker had the capacity to move in reverse as well as pivoting and moving forward.
” Strangely , only two fossils of a putative resting trace of Kimberella have been described , i.e.
, from the Ediacara locality in Australia ( Gehling et al .
2014 : figs 5-6 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kimberichnus scratch marks that do not overlap with the resting trace , which is actually another piece of convincing evidence that Kimberichnus indeed represents the feeding trace of Kimberella .
Why such resting traces are so rare is still an unexplained mystery , though ( Ivantsov et al .
2019 ) .

Photo: Traces from Kimberella, by Aleksey Nagovitsyn (User:Alnagov) / CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0).
Editor’s note: We are delighted to present a series of posts by paleontologist Günter Bechly on the Ediacaran organism Kimberella. If identified as an animal, it would “predate the Cambrian explosion of bilaterian animal phyla as a kind of ‘advance guard.’” The question is of interest for debates about evolution and arguments about intelligent design raised by Stephen Meyer, among others. Find the full series about Kimberella here.
But what about tracks of the moving animal? There are indeed some fossils from the White Sea that show specimens of Kimberella together with traces of their creeping rearwards through burying sediment (Ivantsov & Fedonkin 2001a, 2001b, Fedonkin 2001, 2003: fig. 14, Fedonkin et al. 2007b: figs 20-22, Ponder & Lindberg 2008: fig 3.1B, Ivantsov 2009: pl. 2, 2010b: pl. 1, 2012: fig. 11, Parkhaev 2017: fig. 2b, Ivantsov et al. 2019: fig. 1). This is indeed unequivocal und undeniable evidence for motility (contra Evolution News 2015). Such locomotion traces at least rule out the possibility Kimberella could be a misinterpreted representative of the sessile frond-like Ediacaran organisms (e.g., as suggested at the Palaeos website), and it also makes a coelenterate grade affinity much less likely. The curious fact that such locomotion traces are rare and never associated with feeding traces has been explained by the fact that the Ediacaran seafloor was covered with microbial biomats, which were “soft enough to be scratched by radular teeth, but firm enough to carry the rather heavy animal itself, so that it did not leave a trail” in the underlying sediment (Seilacher 1999, Seilacher et al. 2003, Seilacher & Hagadorn 2010, Sperling & Vinther 2010, Gehling et al. 2014). It is also remarkable that the body fossils of Kimberella “are almost never superimposed over these scratches,” with the only exception of a specimen figured by Gehling (1996: fig. 5:13), and also “these scratches were never erased by Kimberella” (Seilacher & Hagadorn 2010).
Inferring Mucus Sheets
From the structure of these locomotion traces, which are of variable width that often differs from the body width, the production of mucus sheets has been inferred for Kimberella (Fedonkin et al. 2007b, Ivantsov 2009, 2010b, 2012 Ivantsov et al. 2019), which would of course agree well with a molluscan affinity. Ivantsov et al. (2019: fig. 1d) figured the single known specimen of a small Kimberella specimen that is not preserved as usual at the end of its trace, but in the very middle of it, which suggests that the trace was stabilized by an envelope of mucus and the animal retracted into its own trail of mucus band. This also proves that Kimberella could move in both directions, which was also suggested by Gehling et al. (2014), who found that “the maker had the capacity to move in reverse as well as pivoting and moving forward.”
Strangely, only two fossils of a putative resting trace of Kimberella have been described, i.e., from the Ediacara locality in Australia (Gehling et al. 2014: figs 5-6). They are surrounded by fan-like Kimberichnus scratch marks that do not overlap with the resting trace, which is actually another piece of convincing evidence that Kimberichnus indeed represents the feeding trace of Kimberella. Why such resting traces are so rare is still an unexplained mystery, though (Ivantsov et al. 2019).
Next, “Kimberella — The Oldest Radula (Not).”


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-09-16--Using Bonobos to Bash Human Exceptionalism

The other day I heard an interview on NPR ’ s “ All Things Considered ” about bonobos and their capacity for “ culture.
” A couple of reporters were talking about a journal article for eLife , “ Social Learning : Does culture shape hunting behavior in bonobos ?
” It turns out that two groups of African bonobos occupying overlapping territories hunt different kinds of animals , one focusing on a kind of antelope , the other a flying squirrel .
The participants in the discussion were hosts Ailsa Chang and Sacha Pfeifer , talking with primatologist Liran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for more than four years , the researchers tracked two bonobo groups in the Democratic Republic of Congo , documenting the apes ’ social interactions and what they hunted .
And they found a striking dietary difference .
SAMUNI : So we had one group which specialized on the hunting of a small antelope called duiker , while the other bonobo group specialized on the hunting of anomalure , which is a gliding rodent .
PFEIFFER : Samuni says think about it in the context of humans .
You might have two cultures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but one prefers chicken ; the other prefers beef .
On the program , another primatologist pointed out that at the San Diego Zoo , the bonobos have a habit of switching back and forth between mutual grooming and clapping their hands or feet .
Hunting different animals , alternating grooming with clapping — this is “ culture.
” At the end , Ailsa Chang put a little chuckle in her voice and admonished listeners , “ And it ’ s also another reminder that we humans aren ’ t quite as unique @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was the chuckle that got me .
You can listen to it here .
When I heard this , I was driving to the office on a multilane freeway with high-rises , a range of businesses , art museums , shopping malls , hospital buildings , restaurants , and other evidence of human culture piled up high on either side of me .
I feel secure in stating that at the same time , no bonobos were driving to their office on a freeway with the monuments of bonobo civilization displayed on either @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in our physiology , there is no comparison between bonobo “ culture ” and human achievements .
None whatsoever .
Is this not perfectly obvious ?
Of course not all human culture is fine and noble , but it ’ s still unique .
At that moment , I was also driving under skies laden with poisonous wildfire smoke .
Elsewhere on the radio , people were debating the cause of fires consuming the West Coast , where I live .
Is it human-driven climate change , poorly conceived forest maintenance policies , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ view , the devastating fires and the evil yellow smoke follow from choices made by people .
Unlike humans , bonobos don ’ t profoundly change the environment with unwise choices .
They don ’ t conceive policies , or have debates about them .
These are all exclusively human phenomena , for better or worse .
The folks on NPR seemed unaware that bonobos never have had and never will have history , art , music , literature , sports , cooking , or technology .
This morning my eyes fell on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bobos in Paradise , by New York Times columnist David Brooks .
There is no Pan paniscus Brooks , the author of Bonobos in Paradise , and there never will be .
Bonobos will never be able to use fire and engage in metallurgy , a capacity of the profoundest significance and one that nature seems designed to make possible for us .
As biologist Michael Denton has shown in his recent series here on man as the fire-maker , manipulating fire is the key to almost all human cultural achievement .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a chuckle from Ailsa Chang .
As podcaster Scott Adams might express it , there is simply no “ payday ” for these people in recognizing what makes us , as humans , unique .
Yet there is a payday for saying the opposite , no matter how ludicrous .
It would take a deep psychoanalysis to say where the media and scientific hostility to human uniqueness comes from .
On that I defer to Wesley Smith .
Humans are manifestly exceptional in nature — not in our biology , but in everything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this requires a willed blindness .

A bonobo at the San Diego Zoo, by Mike Richey / CC BY-SA (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/).
The other day I heard an interview on NPR’s “All Things Considered” about bonobos and their capacity for “culture.” A couple of reporters were talking about a journal article for eLife, “Social Learning: Does culture shape hunting behavior in bonobos?”
Chicken or Beef?
It turns out that two groups of African bonobos occupying overlapping territories hunt different kinds of animals, one focusing on a kind of antelope, the other a flying squirrel. The participants in the discussion were hosts Ailsa Chang and Sacha Pfeifer, talking with primatologist Liran Samuni at Harvard:
CHANG: So for more than four years, the researchers tracked two bonobo groups in the Democratic Republic of Congo, documenting the apes’ social interactions and what they hunted. And they found a striking dietary difference. SAMUNI: So we had one group which specialized on the hunting of a small antelope called duiker, while the other bonobo group specialized on the hunting of anomalure, which is a gliding rodent. PFEIFFER: Samuni says think about it in the context of humans. You might have two cultures living near or among each other, but one prefers chicken; the other prefers beef.
On the program, another primatologist pointed out that at the San Diego Zoo, the bonobos have a habit of switching back and forth between mutual grooming and clapping their hands or feet. Hunting different animals, alternating grooming with clapping — this is “culture.” At the end, Ailsa Chang put a little chuckle in her voice and admonished listeners, “And it’s also another reminder that we humans aren’t quite as unique as we think we are.” It was the chuckle that got me. You can listen to it here.
Culture Piled High
When I heard this, I was driving to the office on a multilane freeway with high-rises, a range of businesses, art museums, shopping malls, hospital buildings, restaurants, and other evidence of human culture piled up high on either side of me. I feel secure in stating that at the same time, no bonobos were driving to their office on a freeway with the monuments of bonobo civilization displayed on either side of them. Despite undoubted parallels in our physiology, there is no comparison between bonobo “culture” and human achievements. None whatsoever. Is this not perfectly obvious?
Of course not all human culture is fine and noble, but it’s still unique. At that moment, I was also driving under skies laden with poisonous wildfire smoke. Elsewhere on the radio, people were debating the cause of fires consuming the West Coast, where I live. Is it human-driven climate change, poorly conceived forest maintenance policies, or some of both? Whatever your view, the devastating fires and the evil yellow smoke follow from choices made by people. Unlike humans, bonobos don’t profoundly change the environment with unwise choices. They don’t conceive policies, or have debates about them. These are all exclusively human phenomena, for better or worse.
The folks on NPR seemed unaware that bonobos never have had and never will have history, art, music, literature, sports, cooking, or technology. This morning my eyes fell on a book my wife is reading, Bobos in Paradise, by New York Times columnist David Brooks. There is no Pan paniscus Brooks, the author of Bonobos in Paradise, and there never will be.
Man the Fire-Maker
Bonobos will never be able to use fire and engage in metallurgy, a capacity of the profoundest significance and one that nature seems designed to make possible for us. As biologist Michael Denton has shown in his recent series here on man as the fire-maker, manipulating fire is the key to almost all human cultural achievement. I could go on. All this elicits a chuckle from Ailsa Chang.
As podcaster Scott Adams might express it, there is simply no “payday” for these people in recognizing what makes us, as humans, unique. Yet there is a payday for saying the opposite, no matter how ludicrous. It would take a deep psychoanalysis to say where the media and scientific hostility to human uniqueness comes from. On that I defer to Wesley Smith. Humans are manifestly exceptional in nature — not in our biology, but in everything else about us. Not to see this requires a willed blindness.