Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.
This transcript was tw**ted by Daniel Dale, Washington correspondent for the Toronto Star, as “the full transcript of President Trump’s speech to his Black History Month event.”
This is the unhinged ravings of a narcissist, ranting about fake news, Omarosa (one of the people on The Apprentice), etc. What an insult to black Americans—and to the world. What have we done?
A new paper in Nature by Jian Han et al. (reference and free link below; one of the coauthors is Simon Conway Morris, of Burgess Shale fame) describes the earliest known deuterostome: that superphylum of animals in which the blastopore (the first opening into the central part of the embryo) becomes the anus, and the second the mouth. (“Deuterostome” means “mouth second”). This is in contrast to the group of protostomes, in nearly all of which (there are exceptions) the first opening becomes the mouth, and the anus develops later at the other end.
Deuterostomes include all chordates (including vertebrates like us), echinoderms, and “hemichordates” (acorn worms and graptolites). Protostomes include everything else, including segmented and unsegmented worms, molluscs, insects, rotifers, and so on. Here’s a diagram showing the developmental difference, and a second diagram showing the big divisions of life.
The first deuterostomes, previously dated at 510-520 million years ago, have now been supplanted by Han et al.’s finding of a tiny creature (about 1.2 mm across) in central China, with the sediments dated to 540 million years ago. Although it has a huge mouth and no anus, it still shows features suggesting it was an early deuterostome, one that lived among the sand grains of the sea floor. The authors named it Saccorhytus coronarius, part of a new group called the Saccorhytida.
But first, some journalistic errors. If this creature was an early deuterostome, it would be one of the first creatures from the lineage that led to humans (and other chordates as well as echinoderms) after that lineage split from the lineage leading to protostomes. But that does not make it “humans’ oldest known ancestor,” as is blatantly (and erroneously) indicated by the title below.
That title is bogus! For all living and extinct species, including humans, had an ancestor that was much older than 540 million years—the “last universal common ancestor” (LUCA) of all creatures, which probably lived a bit over 4 billion years ago. The title above (click screenshot to go to link) was in fact from a press release by St John’s College in Cambridge, where Conway Morris works. How could they get it so wrong?
At any rate, that error seems to have been picked up by several other journalists. Here are two examples:
and this:
I like this one from LiveScience; it’s not only a bit more accurate, but funny. Actually, it’s not completely true, for this species didn’t have to be a human ancestor itself, for it could have gone extinct without descendants, like some of the early robust hominins. All its deuterostome ancestry shows is that it evolved after the split between the protostomes and the deuterostomes.
But on the paper, which I’ll summarize briefly. Han et al. report finding 45 of these creatures, with the reconstruction in color a couple of photos down. Here’s a scan of the anterior (front) part of the fossil itself, showing its big gob:
The most prominent feature of these fossils is the large mouth opening, clearly seen above, which is surrounded by several rows of papillae that may represent sensory organs. Each side of the body also bears four cones (8 total; you can see four above the mouth in the photo above). Han et al. suppose that the cones could have been used to expel water and waste, though they’re not sure.
These creatures were tiny, as I said, and were examined by both electron microscopy and CT scanning. Here are some photos; note the scale bars (a μm, or one micron, is one millionth of a meter, or one one-thousandth of a millimeter):
But if these are deuterostomes, with the mouth forming after the anus, where’s the anus on these things? They don’t have one! The authors explain its absence this way:
Early deuterostomes have a through gut, so the apparent absence of an anus in Saccorhytus could be secondary, as in brachiopods and ophiuroids. [That is, its ancestors could have had an anus but lost it.] It remains possible, however, that this feature was inherited from more primitive bilaterians, possibly linked to the acoels and xenoturbellids.
But if there’s no anus, how can they call this an early deuterostome? It turns out that the small creature has other features that link it with the deuterostomes, as shown in the phylogeny below derived from several characters (the bootstrap support isn’t all that high). In particular, they show that Saccorhytus bears resemblances to “vestulocystids,” or early echinoderms, which are clearly deuterostomes. These features, also studied by Conway Morris and his colleagues, include truncated cones on the body, a convoluted anterior part of the body, and “well developed radial ribs.”
Here’s the phylogeny showing the new species (in red) falling out with the deuterostomes:
Here’s a figure from a 2004 Nature paper showing the truncated cones (A and C) in some vestulocystids:
Finally, where the fossil was found and the appearance of the sediments (it must have been hard to spot these!):
The authors conclude that our earliest deuterostome ancestosr might well have been tiny and lived among sand grains of the sea floor; they were “meiofaunal”, meaning small bottom-dwelling animals that inhabit the sediments. They also conclude that since these species could have been very tiny, we may have missed even earlier appearances of deuterostomes in the fossil record. Finally, they conclude that respiration occurred through the body surface, and the presence of pharyngeal arches (structures bearing gill slits), which are present in all modern deuterostomes at some developmental stage, could have evolved later.
h/t: Gregory
_______________
Han, J., S. C. Morris, Q. Ou, D. Shu, and H. Huang. 2017. Meiofaunal deuterostomes from the basal Cambrian of Shaanxi (China). Nature advance online publication. doi:10.1038/nature21072
Today’s Jesus and Mo strip, called “fake,” came with the email note:
Did this conversation between Jesus & Mo really take place, or is it fake news?
Who knows what is real anymore?
The strip speaks for itself, except that I’d add this about door-to-door proselytizers: “Have you hear the good (fake) news?”
Assuming that Trump’s nominee Neil Gorsuch is confirmed (and he really shouldn’t even be up for confirmation since Obama’s nominee Merrick Garland was blocked), here’s what we have in store:
You can read more about Gorsuch’s philosophy on the ScotusBlog. He is only 49; if confirmed, he’ll be tilting the court to the Right for a long time.
Here’s the New York Times‘s “ideology line” showing where Gorsuch falls on the spectrum of Supreme Court justices, taken from an analysis by Lee Epstein, Andrew D. Martin and Kevin Quinn.
Should Gorsuch be confirmed? If Obama had not nominated Garland, whose nomination was simply deep-sixed—and wrongly—by Republicans, then Gorsuch is an appropriate candidate for a conservative President and a conservative seat on the Court. By all accounts , he’s smart and not horribly divisive. His record itself warrants confirmation.
But, mindful of l’affaire Merrick, Senate Democrats will be putting up a fight on this one. I’d say that they shouldn’t do that, as it’s just as obstructionist as we have accused Republicans of being. Fighting Gorsuch is a losing battle, and even if confirmed, he’s not going to change the court: it will still be 5-4 in favor of conservative justices, with the possibility of Anthony Kennedy being a swing vote toward the progressive side.
What happened to Merrick Garland was reprehensible, but we can’t compensate for that by going after Gorsuch. Time to suck it up, for that’s all we can do.
I’d like to say two things this morning. First, I issue my call for MOAR PHOTOS, just to keep me comfortable. Second, thanks to all the people who have sent their photographs in. Sometimes I worry that readers may be getting jaded by the daily presentation of such great pictures, but remember that they represent a lot of time and expertise on the part of the contributors. I’m constantly amazed at how good the photos are. So thank you, thank you all!
Today we have birds from reader Karen Bartelt, sent in an email called “‘Tanagers’ from Panama + one euphonia”. The IDs are hers:
Palm tanager (Thraupis palmarum):
Female summer tanager (Piranga rubra):
Female crimson-backed tanger (Ramphocelus dimidiatus):
Dusky-faced tanagers (Mitrospringus cassinii):
Female thick-billed euphonia (Euphonia laniiostris):
It’s the first day of February, 2017, which means it’s simultaneously Canned Food Month, National Chocolate Lovers Month, National Cherry Month, National Grapefruit Month, National Snack Food Month and National Potato Lovers Month. What a month! And today in particular is National Baked Alaska Day and National Dark Chocolate Day. I happen to love Baked Alaska, a truly retro dessert, but I haven’t had it for decades. Finally, it’s the beginning of Black History Month and National Bird-Feeding Month. To celebrate Black History Month, today’s Google Doodle honors African-American sculptor Edmonia Lewis. Google says this about her (her Wikipedia page is here):
Edmonia Lewis wasn’t afraid to reshape convention. As the first woman of African American and Native American heritage to achieve international fame as a sculptor, Lewis is known for incorporating African American and Native American cultural themes into her Neoclassical style sculpture.
. . . Today’s Doodle art depicts Lewis sculpting one of her most famous works, The Death of Cleopatra, which is on display at the Smithsonian American Art Museum in Washington, D.C. Her realistic portrayal of Cleopatra’s death received acclaim from critics, who called it “the most remarkable piece of sculpture in the American section” of the show. The vibrant colors of the Google letters also pay tribute to Lewis’s Native American roots – her Native American name was Wildfire.
Here’s the work and a picture of Lewis:
On this day in 1865, Abe Lincoln signed the Thirteenth Amendment to Constitution, prohibiting slavery. In 1918, Russia adopted the Gregorian calendar. On February 1, 1960, black students staged first of the Greensboro sit-ins at a lunch counter in North Carolina—brave demonstrations that helped catalyze the civil right movement. In 1968, Eddie Adams took the famous video of Viet Cong officer Nguyễn Văn Lém being executed on the street by by South Vietnamese National Police Chief Nguyễn Ngọc Loan (see link for the photo). On this day in 1979, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini returned to Iran after many years of exile, signaling the beginning of a theocracy that is still in force. Finally, on this day in 2002, Wall Street Journal writer Daniel Pearl was beheaded in Pakistan after being kidnapped by terrorists a week earlier.
Notables born on this day include Clark Gable (1901), Langston Hughes (1902), and Andrew Breitbart (1969; oy!). Those who died on this day include Mary Shelley (1851), Piet Mondrian (1944), Buster Keaton (1966), and the seven members of the space shuttle Columbia, which disintegrated on re-entry (2003). Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili is amusing herself with the cat pastime of Looking at Nothing:
A: What’s there?Hili: Actually I don’t know, maybe a ghost of a spider.
Ja: Co tam jest?
Hili: Właśnie nie wiem, chyba duch pająka.
Also, Leon is hiking in the mountains of southern Poland, and has asked his staff for solace:
Leon: Now I’m starting, protect me!
(In Polish: No to ruszam, asekuruj mnie!)
Lagnaippe: Reader Taskin sent some photos under the rubric “How to tell it’s winter.” I don’t know how cats can lie on radiators; my radiators get WAY hot!
How many parodies have used this scene? Well, we have a cute Tr*mp-themed one today. It’s a bit spoiled for me because I understand German, so I know what they’re really saying, and it ain’t about crowds. Still, it’s fun.
When I first heard of the proposed March for Science in Washington, D.C., I was moderately enthusiastic. Although I didn’t think it would accomplish much, the government being what it is, I thought it might at least alert the American public to the worries of a respected group about the Trump Administration’s cavalier attitude toward the truth. After all, a recent Pew poll showed that Americans largely trust scientists to act in the public interest—even more than they trust religious leaders, and a lot more than they trust elected officials!:
So what’s wrong with scientists marching together to emphasize our adherence to truth, and to urge politicians to not only do the same, but have some respect for the institution of science? Global warming, evolution, pollution, conservation: these are issues that science can monitor and teach about.
Well, Robert S. Young, a professor of coastal geology and director of the program for the study of developed shorelines at Western Carolina University, begs to differ. In an op-ed in today’s New York Times, “A scientists’ march on Washington is a bad idea,” Young says that such a march would erode scientists’ image by polarizing the public against them, making the electorate think that we’re just another political special-interest group:
But trying to recreate the pointedly political Women’s March will serve only to reinforce the narrative from skeptical conservatives that scientists are an interest group and politicize their data, research and findings for their own ends.
. . . A march by scientists, while well intentioned, will serve only to trivialize and politicize the science we care so much about, turn scientists into another group caught up in the culture wars and further drive the wedge between scientists and a certain segment of the American electorate.
Why does Young say this? Well, his answer isn’t that convincing. He discusses his own co-authorship of a 2010 scientific report for North Carolina’s Coastal Resources Commission, which found that sea levels could rise up to 39 inches by the end of the century. That didn’t sit well with either politicians, or, especially, real-estate developers, who didn’t want people to be wary of buying property near the coast. Young’s report was ignored, and the legislature even passed a law barring state agencies from making plans or regulations that took into account a rise in sea level!
That was dire, but from that experience Young concludes that political effectiveness can’t come from just speaking the truth; it requires getting politicians and businessmen to develop a close personal relationship with their Scientist Saviors:
What I learned was that most of those attacking our sea-level-rise projections had never met me, nor my co-authors. Not only that, most of the public had never met anyone they considered a scientist. They didn’t understand the careful, painstaking process we followed to reach our peer-reviewed conclusions. We were unknowns, “scientists” delivering bad news. We were easy marks for those who felt threatened by our findings.
. . . Rather than marching on Washington and in other locations around the country, I suggest that my fellow scientists march into local civic groups, churches, schools, county fairs and, privately, into the offices of elected officials. Make contact with that part of America that doesn’t know any scientists. Put a face on the debate. Help them understand what we do, and how we do it. Give them your email, or better yet, your phone number.
. . . . Scientists marching in opposition to a newly elected Republican president will only cement the divide. The solution here is not mass spectacle, but an increased effort to communicate directly with those who do not understand the degree to which the changing climate is already affecting their lives. We need storytellers, not marchers.
Well, Young does have a point here. Scientists don’t lobby nearly as much as they should, but of course we’re busy doing science. And the kind of intensive labor Young’s calling for isn’t in the cards—not unless scientists are allowed to hire lobbyists. Well, we can’t do that, and federal science agencies are also prohibited from lobbying. Yes, of course we should try to enlighten our public officials about science, but what Young says doesn’t convince me that a Science March is going to make things any worse for scientists and science funding.
What does make me worry is the increasing politicization of the March, which is fast changing from a pro-science march to a pro-social justice march. Now there’s nothing wrong with marching in favor of minority rights and against oppression, but if you mix that stuff up with science, as the March organization seems to be doing, well, that is a recipe for ineffectiveness. What would be the point of a march if it’s about every social injustice, particularly when, as the organizers did, they indict science itself for its racism and support of discrimination? The statement of aims below from the March’s organizers has now disappeared, but the tweet below that is still there. (You can find the full statement archived here.)
We hear you, we thank you for your criticism. In the March for Science, we are committed to centralizing, highlighting, standing in solidarity with, and acting as accomplices with black, Latinx, API, indigenous, Muslim, Jewish, women, people with disabilities, poor, gay, lesbian, bisexual, queer, trans, non-binary, agender, and intersex scientists and science advocates.
We recognize that many issues about which scientists as a group have largely remained silent -attacks on black & brown lives, oil pipelines through indigenous lands, sexual harassment and assault, ADA access in our communities, immigration policy, lack of clean water in several cities across the country, poverty wages, LGBTQIA rights, and mass shootings are scientific issues.
Science has historically – and generally continues to support discrimination. In order to move forward. In order to move forward as a scientific community, we must address and actively work to unlearn our problematic past and present, to make science available to everyone.
Science supports discrimination? No it doesn’t. Some (but by no means all) scientists support discrimination, but most of us don’t. And there’s that claim about social issues being scientific ones:
https://twitter.com/ScienceMarchDC/status/825496158269227009
If a March has any chance of being effective, it can’t consist of a bunch of penitentes who flagellate themselves loudly and publicly for bad behavior. After all, stuff like “immigration policy”, “native rights”, and many other issues of social justice are not, as the organizers maintain, “scientific issues.” They are moral issues, which means they reflect worldviews and preferences that are not objective. Of course once you set your goals on immigration, pipeline locations and who should not be near them, and so on, then science can inform your actions. But to claim that all issues of social justice are “scientific issues” is palpably wrong.
If we are to march, we should march in unity for truth, and against those who reject empirical truth. What unites all science—and makes it unique—is that it is a universal toolkit, used in the same way by members of all groups, regardless of gender, ethnicity, or religion. That is what holds us together. If we start dragging in issues of social justice—and I’m not of course saying they should be ignored in other venues—then we divide not only ourselves, but separate ourselves from much of the electorate, who, as we’ve seen above, generally trust us.
But the retraction of the statement makes me think that perhaps the March will develop decent aims in the end.
Readers: please weigh in below. Perhaps you disagree with me, or with Young.