Literature

Fact: human males have a voice pitch in the range 90-160 Hz, with a mean of 120 Hz. The range for women is 180-280 Hz. There is a significant difference - this is vocal sexual dimorphism.
Hypothesis: a Darwinian explanation suggests that there is a link between voice pitch and reproductive success.
Testing the hypothesis: an association has been found, in the Hazda tribe of Tanzania, between the depth of pitch of male voices and the number of children the subjects father.
Conclusion: "These findings suggest that the association between voice pitch and reproductive success in men is mediated by differential access to fecund women. Furthermore, they show that there is currently selection pressure for low-pitch voices in men."

Whilst this sounds like the authors are using the scientific method, the details are not so clear. The authors admit: "we don't know the exact reason that these men with deeper voices have fathered more children". They draw from the work of others to suggest possible mechanisms: "Previous studies have also shown a relationship between testosterone and deeper vocal pitch, and so increased testosterone may contribute to the male's ability to hunt." Successful hunters are likely to be recognised by the tribe, and these men may then be regarded as desirable husbands, perhaps marry earlier and thereby have greater opportunity to father children. None of these steps of the explanation appear to have been validated.
There appears to be no questions rising in the minds of researchers about extrapolating from the Hadza, a Tanzanian hunter-gatherer tribe, to humans in general. The press release comments:

Because of their similarity to the hunter-gatherer lifestyle of our ancestors, the reproductive success of the Hadza could be indicative the way that human beings evolved. "It's possible that vocal dimorphism has evolved over thousands of years, partly due to mate selection," says Apicella. "Perhaps at one time, men and women's voices were closer in pitch than they are today."

These comments deserve to be handled more critically, because although the Hazda are hunter-gatherers, they are not characterised as carnivores. They eat a starchy diet heavy in roots and tubers. How do we know they are not descendants of farming ancestors and no more representative of our ancestors than any other human community?
Can a design framework for research help us here? This framework would posit advantages for sexual dimorphism (including vocal characteristics) that would go beyond reproductive success by predicting a variety of other benefits for individuals and for society. The design framework is not inconsistent with reproductive success, but it would suggest that focusing on this one consequence is a case of trivialising the phenomenon.

Voice pitch predicts reproductive success in male hunter-gatherers
C.L. Apicella, D.R. Feinberg, F.W. Marlowe
Biology Letters, FirstCite, September 25 2007 | doi 10.1098/rsbl.2007.0410

Abstract: The validity of evolutionary explanations of vocal sexual dimorphism hinges upon whether or not individuals with more sexually dimorphic voices have higher reproductive success than individuals with less dimorphic voices. However, due to modern birth control methods, these data are rarely described, and mating success is often used as a second-rate proxy. Here, we test whether voice pitch predicts reproductive success, number of children born and child mortality in an evolutionarily relevant population of hunter-gatherers. While we find that voice pitch is not related to reproductive outcomes in women, we find that men with low voice pitch have higher reproductive success and more children born to them. However, voice pitch in men does not predict child mortality. These findings suggest that the association between voice pitch and reproductive success in men is mediated by differential access to fecund women. Furthermore, they show that there is currently selection pressure for low-pitch voices in men.

See also:

Male voice pitch predicts reproductive success in hunter-gatherers, EurekAlert, 25 September 2007.

"Mitosis and meiosis are the most exciting and elaborate processes that occur during the life of dividing cells. Over the course of little more than an hour (for mitosis), macromolecular structures throughout the cell are reorganized, signalling pathways are activated and silenced, proteins are degraded and, at the end of each division, two daughter cells are born. Not only are mitosis and meiosis wonderfully elaborate, it is also essential that they proceed without error, as mistakes can result in the death of the organism."

The authors of a significant review article ask: "How are all of these processes coordinated?" and go on to review the knowledge that has emerged to date. In particular, they focus attention on chromosomal passenger proteins. Previous suspicions that these passenger proteins "might regulate key mitotic processes by moving from place to place in the dividing cell" have been confirmed "and studies of these proteins comprise a major area of ongoing mitosis and meiosis research." What emerges is a fascinating picture of coordinated activity, with events "orchestrated with a precision that is worthy of a classical symphony, with different activities being switched on and off at precise times and locations throughout the cell." In this musical analogy, the chromosomal passenger complex (CPC) is the conductor.

"We now understand that the CPC orchestrates mitosis and meiosis at several different levels to ensure that two daughter cells are generated with an accurate distribution of genetic material. The regulation of kinetochore-microtubule attachments in a bipolar spindle, the delay of anaphase onset when spindle tension is aberrant, the regulation of sister chromatid cohesion and the completion of cytokinesis are among the crucial mitotic functions that require CPC activity."

The authors conclude by utilising the analogy again: "The score for the elaborate and wonderful symphonies that are mitosis and meiosis therefore remains unfinished, with much more to be written." This comment is worthy of further thought. An unfinished symphony implies that the composer ended the work prematurely. However, we would not be here if mitosis and meiosis were not working smoothly during our personal experience of life. The symphony IS already written, but we have not yet fully read the score. We have heard the music in part - much more awaits us! The control systems within cells evoke aesthetic feelings akin to hearing a skilled orchestra led by a gifted and inspirational conductor. The important point is that the awe and wonder is our response to what we find in the natural world. We discover a score (we do not write it) and the more we discover, the more we put the music back into our mechanistic models of the world. Contrast this with the much-quoted words of Richard Dawkins:

"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. As that unhappy poet A.E. Housman put it: 'For Nature, heartless, witless Nature Will neither care nor know.' DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music."
(Dawkins R., "River out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life," Phoenix: London, 1996, p.155.)

We are not dancing to music that is heartless and witless! We are dancing to music that has a depth of meaning we are only beginning to grasp.

Chromosomal passengers: conducting cell division
Sandrine Ruchaud, Mar Carmena and William C. Earnshaw
Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology, 8, 798-812 (October 2007) | doi:10.1038/nrm2257

Abstract: Mitosis and meiosis are remarkable processes during which cells undergo profound changes in their structure and physiology. These events are orchestrated with a precision that is worthy of a classical symphony, with different activities being switched on and off at precise times and locations throughout the cell. One essential 'conductor' of this symphony is the chromosomal passenger complex (CPC), which comprises Aurora-B protein kinase, the inner centromere protein INCENP, survivin and borealin (also known as Dasra-B ). Studies of the CPC are providing insights into its functions, which range from chromosome-microtubule interactions to sister chromatid cohesion to cytokinesis, and constitute one of the most dynamic areas of ongoing mitosis and meiosis research.

Quote:
"Perhaps the problem is that for some scientists reductionism functions as a security blanket. It avoids the need to ask too many questions, to stare into the abyss of fundamental uncertainty. If we abandoned the universality of the reductionist approach, who knows what would happen? For sure, the nature of biological science would change. But so it should!"
Denis Noble, The Music of Life: Biology beyond the Genome. Oxford UP, 2006, p. 66.

Homo erectus bones from Dmanisi, Georgia, have been identified as the "earliest known hominins to have lived outside of Africa in the temperate zones of Eurasia." Differences between them and other representatives of H. erectus have been carefully scrutinised. Some have commented that the differences suggest the Dmanisi bones are transitional between habilis and erectus, but others emphase the highly variable nature of early erectus fossil material.
In a News & Views essay, Daniel Lieberman wrote: "When viewed close up, however, the Australopithecus-Homo transition has always been murky. One problem is that we don't know enough about Homo habilis, the putative ancestor of H. erectus."
Also, "In some respects, H. habilis looks like a good candidate as the ancestor of H. erectus; it has a vertical face, teeth of intermediate size between those of australopithecus and H. erectus, and an intermediate sized brain. But the oldest fossils definitively attributed to H. habilis are 1.9 million years old and thus no older than the oldest H. erectus fossils. Moreover, Spoor et al also report a new H. habilis upper jaw dated to 1.44 million years ago, extending the species' temporal overlap with H. erectus. (For more on Spoor et al., go here).
Lieberman introduced his essay with these words: "The fossil record of human evolution is like a pointillist painting: one sees a different picture close up from when one stands back." This analogy is actually very helpful. Normally, in science, gaining more data helps to fill in the picture so that the details can be seen more clearly. However, this is not so in human evolution. Gaining more data frequently leads to headlines that suggest a radical rethink of previous "knowledge". In this case, we have more data implying a mosaic of characters and greater variability. Zooming in on the picture is not revealing the details of a transformation story. Like a pointillist painting, evolution is only apparent from a distant vantage point. Close up, we see masses of data, but no coherent picture. In situations like this, it is particularly important not to impose theory (of evolutionary transformation) on the data.

Postcranial evidence from early Homo from Dmanisi, Georgia
David Lordkipanidze, Tea Jashashvili, Abesalom Vekua, Marcia S. Ponce de Leon, Christoph P. E. Zollikofer, G. Philip Rightmire, Herman Pontzer, Reid Ferring, Oriol Oms, Martha Tappen, Maia Bukhsianidze, Jordi Agusti, Ralf Kahlke, Gocha Kiladze, Bienvenido Martinez-Navarro, Alexander Mouskhelishvili, Medea Nioradze & Lorenzo Rook.
Nature, 449, 305-310 (20 September 2007) | doi:10.1038/nature06134

Abstract: The Plio-Pleistocene site of Dmanisi, Georgia, has yielded a rich fossil and archaeological record documenting an early presence of the genus Homo outside Africa. Although the craniomandibular morphology of early Homo is well known as a result of finds from Dmanisi and African localities, data about its postcranial morphology are still relatively scarce. Here we describe newly excavated postcranial material from Dmanisi comprising a partial skeleton of an adolescent individual, associated with skull D2700/D2735, and the remains from three adult individuals. This material shows that the postcranial anatomy of the Dmanisi hominins has a surprising mosaic of primitive and derived features. The primitive features include a small body size, a low encephalization quotient and absence of humeral torsion; the derived features include modern-human-like body proportions and lower limb morphology indicative of the capability for long-distance travel. Thus, the earliest known hominins to have lived outside of Africa in the temperate zones of Eurasia did not yet display the full set of derived skeletal features.

See also:

Dalton, R., Treasure trove of Homo erectus found, news@nature.com: 19 September 2007; | doi:10.1038/news070917-6

Lieberman, D.E., Homing in on early Homo, Nature, 449, 291 - 292 (20 September 2007) | doi:10.1038/449291a

Luskin, C. Human Origins Update: Harvard Scientist and New York Times Reporter Get the "Plug Evolution Memo"...Sort of
Evolution News & Views, September 22, 2007

Most people interested in human evolution have learned that australopithecenes gave rise to Homo habilis which in turn gave rise to Homo erectus. Also, that Homo erectus is the ancestor to all the other Homo species including H. sapiens. This linear picture was undermined by recent finds east of Lake Turkana in Kenya. The research team discovered habilis and erectus fossils in the same rock formation. "The new fossils confirm the distinctiveness of H. habilis and H. erectus, independently of overall cranial size, and suggest that these two early taxa were living broadly sympatrically in the same lake basin for almost half a million years." This lengthy coexistence means that the species occupied distinct ecological niches. According to the lead author: "the easiest way to interpret these fossils is that there was an ancestral species that gave rise to both of them somewhere between two and three million years ago."
In a news report, Minkel writes: "The late evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould used to rail against the notion of a ladder of perfection rising from early humanlike species to Neandertals to Homo sapiens at the pinnacle. Two new fossils unearthed near a lake in Kenya bear out Gould's preferred metaphor for human evolution - that of a bush with many branches." Whilst the new finds do undermine the popular "linear" view of human evolution, they are not necessarily support for a "bush with many branches" view. The latter results from the data being viewed with the premise that evolutionary transformation must have occurred and that apelike animals did turn into Homo sapiens. Without this premise, the data are not compelling.

Implications of new early Homo fossils from Ileret, east of Lake Turkana, Kenya
F. Spoor, M. G. Leakey, P. N. Gathogo, F. H. Brown, S. C. Anton, I. McDougall, C. Kiarie, F. K. Manthi and L. N. Leakey.
Nature 448, 688-691 (9 August 2007) | doi:10.1038/nature05986

Sites in eastern Africa have shed light on the emergence and early evolution of the genus Homo1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. The best known early hominin species, H. habilis and H. erectus, have often been interpreted as time-successive segments of a single anagenetic evolutionary lineage3, 7, 8, 9, 10. The case for this was strengthened by the discovery of small early Pleistocene hominin crania from Dmanisi in Georgia that apparently provide evidence of morphological continuity between the two taxa11, 12. Here we describe two new cranial fossils from the Koobi Fora Formation, east of Lake Turkana in Kenya, that have bearing on the relationship between species of early Homo. A partial maxilla assigned to H. habilis reliably demonstrates that this species survived until later than previously recognized, making an anagenetic relationship with H. erectus unlikely. The discovery of a particularly small calvaria of H. erectus indicates that this taxon overlapped in size with H. habilis, and may have shown marked sexual dimorphism. The new fossils confirm the distinctiveness of H. habilis and H. erectus, independently of overall cranial size, and suggest that these two early taxa were living broadly sympatrically in the same lake basin for almost half a million years.

See also:
Minkel, J.R. New Fossils Illustrate "Bushiness" of Human Evolution, Scientific American News, 8 August 2007

Luskin, C. Paleoanthropologists Disown Homo habilis from Our Direct Family Tree, Evolution News & Views, August 9, 2007

"Several years ago, paleontologist Jennifer Clack of the University of Cambridge in the U.K. proposed that hearing evolved [in the Mesozoic] to help vertebrates catch the buzzing insects that were undergoing an evolutionary explosion around the same time." However, a report has now been published demonstrating the presence of true tympanic ears in reptiles from the Permian Period, reputed to be 60 million years earlier, when "buzzing insects were not as prevalent". "The researchers were able to identify six apparently closely related species, all of which showed clear evidence of large, eardrumlike structures covering much of their cheeks. In the better preserved specimens, inner ear bones similar to those of modern ears were found, including a stapes."
The researchers "examined the functional performance of this unique and unexpected auditory arrangement, and discovered that these little reptiles were able to hear at least as well as a modern lizard." New data like this is a stimulus to new hypotheses and the authors have suggested "that the auditory sense might have arisen among vertebrates that lived in dimly lit niches."
Rather than discuss the Darwinian tendency to explain origins via selection for functionality (hearing buzzing insects enhances survival/hearing allows hunting in the night and enhances survival), I want to draw attention to the early appearance of all the important complex organs: "By the end of the Paleozoic many of the major adaptive features characterizing amniote evolution had evolved; important examples include the ability for flight, secondary aquatic lifestyle, and high-fiber herbivory. The discovery of a highly-evolved auditory apparatus in Middle Permian parareptiles even further emphasizes that the entire groundplan for the impressive evolutionary history of amniotes was already largely in place by the end of the Paleozoic; what followed was in fact only a subsequent tinkering of earlier inventions." Darwinism needs time, but the fossil record no longer provides it. Complexity appears abruptly and most of the subsequent variations are adaptations. Welcome the day when evolutionary theorists appreciate that the origin of complexity and the "subsequent tinkering" are two distinct issues to address.

Impedance-Matching Hearing in Paleozoic Reptiles: Evidence of Advanced Sensory Perception at an Early Stage of Amniote Evolution
Johannes Muller, Linda A. Tsuji
PLoS ONE, 2007, 2(9): e889. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000889

Background: Insights into the onset of evolutionary novelties are key to the understanding of amniote origins and diversification. The possession of an impedance-matching tympanic middle ear is characteristic of all terrestrial vertebrates with a sophisticated hearing sense and an adaptively important feature of many modern terrestrial vertebrates. Whereas tympanic ears seem to have evolved multiple times within tetrapods, especially among crown-group members such as frogs, mammals, squamates, turtles, crocodiles, and birds, the presence of true tympanic ears has never been recorded in a Paleozoic amniote, suggesting they evolved fairly recently in amniote history.
Conclusions/Significance: Using modern amniotes as analogues, the possession of an impedance-matching middle ear in these parareptiles suggests unique ecological adaptations potentially related to living in dim-light environments. More importantly, our results demonstrate that already at an early stage of amniote diversification, and prior to the Permo-Triassic extinction event, the complexity of terrestrial vertebrate ecosystems had reached a level that proved advanced sensory perception to be of notable adaptive significance.

See also:

Balter, M., Let's Hear It for the First Ears, ScienceNOW Daily News, 12 September 2007.

Prehistoric Reptiles From Russia Possessed The First Modern Ears, Science Daily, September 12, 2007.

It is interesting to find a biological article referring to "mountains of data" challenging "old views" that is not concerned with the supposed "mountains of evidence" against the concept of design in nature! In this case, the focus is on genes: "Only 6 years later, the landscape of the genome is already proving to be dramatically different than most scientists had expected."
The trigger for the new views has been a project called the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE), previously noted here for contributing to the overthrow of the Junk DNA paradigm. Barry: "Even more surprisingly, the junk DNA may not be junk after all. Most of this supposedly useless DNA now appears to produce transcriptions of its genetic code, boosting the raw information output of the genome to about 62 times what genes alone would produce."
However, this is only part of the challenge to the "old views". There is a need for some radical thinking about genes themselves. Barry summarises the situation in his useful online article. An academic paper developing these new ideas is by Gingeras. He writes: "studies focused on noncoding transcripts of known biological function have begun to reveal a complexity in genome organization not captured by the current collection of annotations, prompting a reconsideration of what constitutes the fundamental functional element of the genome and how it relates to phenotypic variation." He argues the case for the definition of a new operational unit which will supersede the gene in our thinking. "If each of the transcripts sharing sequence space with a protein-coding gene are capable of effecting the same phenotype/function, then a gene can consist of multiple (coding and noncoding) transcripts and regulatory regions (Fig. 1D). This increased complexity of both the components of a gene and its boundaries begs for a simpler operational unit that can be used to link a specific DNA sequence to phenotype/function. Individual RNA transcripts provide these fundamental operational elements."
Whilst this conclusion appears eminently justified by the evidence, there are dramatic implications for evolutionary theory, which has so often been developed using concepts that are now out-of-date. We have to discard not only Junk DNA, but also the "Central Dogma", the "selfish gene" and the conceptual model of characters controlled by single genes and under the influence of natural selection forces. Barry puts his finger on a significant challenge this brings to neoDarwinian evolutionary theory:

"The same sequences are being used for multiple functions," says Thomas R. Gingeras of Affymetrix. That introduces complications into the evolution of the genome, which had until recently been assumed to act through single DNA mutations affecting single genes. Now, "a mutation in one of those sequences has to be interpreted not only in terms of [one gene], but [of] all the other transcripts going through the region," Gingeras explains.
The implications of this single mutation-multiple consequence model are still a matter of debate. In some cases, the RNA transcripts from DNA that overlaps a protein-coding gene regulate that same gene, so a mutation could affect both the structure and the regulation of a protein. But often, those transcripts regulate genes that are far away, or even on different chromosomes. This complex interweaving of genes, transcripts, and regulation makes the net effect of a single mutation on an organism much more difficult to predict, Gingeras says.

Nickerson has some significant comments on the significance of these findings:

The discoveries have one common theme: Cellular processes long assumed to be "genetic" appear quite often to be the result of highly complex interactions occurring in regions of DNA void of genes. This is roughly akin to Wall Street waking to the realization that money doesn't make the world go 'round, after all.
"It's a radical concept, one that a lot of scientists aren't very happy with," said Francis S. Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute. "But the scientific community is going to have to rethink what genes are, what they do and don't do, and how the genome's functional elements have evolved." "I think we're all pretty awed by what we're seeing," Collins said. "It amounts to a scientific revolution."

The complexity discovered has been difficult to describe. One researcher is quoted as saying: "The picture that's emerging [of how living cells actually operate and evolve] is so immensely more complicated than anyone imagined, it's almost depressing". Casual observers might say they find chaos in the emerging picture of the genome, but systems biology is tracking down extraordinary sophistication at the molecular biology level, indicating that theories (like Darwinism) that are undirected and stochastic have little to offer 21st Century biology.

Genome 2.0 - Mountains of new data are challenging old views
Patrick Barry
Science News, September 8, 2007; 172(10), p. 154

First para: When scientists unveiled a draft of the human genome in early 2001, many cautioned that sequencing the genome was only the beginning. The long list of the four chemical components that make up all the strands of human DNA would not be a finished book of life, but a road map of an undiscovered country that would take decades to explore. Only 6 years later, the landscape of the genome is already proving to be dramatically different than most scientists had expected.

Origin of phenotypes: Genes and transcripts
Thomas R. Gingeras
Genome Research, 2007 17: 682-690. [Open Access]

Abstract: While the concept of a gene has been helpful in defining the relationship of a portion of a genome to a phenotype, this traditional term may not be as useful as it once was. Currently, "gene" has come to refer principally to a genomic region producing a polyadenylated mRNA that encodes a protein. However, the recent emergence of a large collection of unannotated transcripts with apparently little protein coding capacity, collectively called transcripts of unknown function (TUFs), has begun to blur the physical boundaries and genomic organization of genic regions with noncoding transcripts often overlapping protein-coding genes on the same (sense) and opposite strand (antisense). Moreover, they are often located in intergenic regions, making the genic portions of the human genome an interleaved network of both annotated polyadenylated and nonpolyadenylated transcripts, including splice variants with novel 5' ends extending hundreds of kilobases. This complex transcriptional organization and other recently observed features of genomes argue for the reconsideration of the term "gene" and suggests that transcripts may be used to define the operational unit of a genome.

See also:

Nickerson, C. DNA unraveled, Boston Globe, September 24, 2007

The quest for signs of life in the Earth's oldest rocks shows no signs of diminishing. Wen-Long Zang is concerned with information coming from metamorphosed rocks, where there is growing evidence for the preservation of single-celled animals in metamorphosed chert. Newly published is his discovery of spinose acritarchs in the Harris Greenstone Domain in South Australia. This is dated as Late Archaean, around 2500 million years, and part of the first supercontinent Kenorland.
The significance of his report is that these particular fossils are eukaryotes, not the bacterial cells that we normally associate with the Archaean. Previous to this finding, eukaryotes were suspected in the Archaean because researchers had detected biomarkers, but the "oldest confirmed macroscopic eukaryotic algae were reported from the 2100-1900 Ma Neganee Iron Formation, Michigan." This led many to link the evolution of eukaryotes with the rise of oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere (the Great Oxidation Event is dated about 2.4 Ga). However, there have been several significant and related finds: Archaean oil, eukaryotic biomarkers in the Archaean, and reinterpretation of evidences relating to lack of atmospheric oxygen prior to 2.4 Ga. Dutkiewicz et al (2006) write: "The presence of abundant biomarkers for cyanobacteria and eukaryotes derived from and trapped in rocks deposited before the Great Oxidation Event is consistent with an earlier evolution of oxygenic photosynthesis than previously thought and suggests that some aquatic settings had become sufficiently oxygenated for sterol biosynthesis by this time."
The picture emerging of the Late Archaean is one that includes prokaryotes and eukaryotes, photosynthesis, an oxygenated atmosphere and lots of biological activity. This is a big contrast from the picture even 10 years ago. The significance for our thinking about origins is that the eons of time demanded by Darwinian processes are not available. Eukaryotic life appears to be irreducibly complex, yet these life forms appear as body fossils in the Late Archaean and their origin is still one of the greatest mysteries of biology. This constitutes evidence that Darwinism is not a good way to gain understanding, and also evidence that an information-rich approach is the only viable way forward.

Deposition and deformation of late Archaean sediments and preservation of microfossils in the Harris Greenstone Domain, Gawler Craton, South Australia
Wen-Long Zang
Precambrian Research, June 2007, 156(1-2): 107-124.

Abstract: Late Archaean sediments, felsic, mafic and ultramafic volcanics in the Harris Greenstone Domain, central Gawler Craton, South Australia are interpreted to have been deposited at ~2520 Ma in back arc settings and were metamorphosed at ~2440 Ma. Sedimentary evidence suggests that the metasediments in the Domain might have been deposited in fluvial/estuarine to deltaic-shelf environments and deformed by intermediate amphibolite facies metamorphism accompanying the Sleafordian Orogeny at ~2440 Ma. Microfossils are preserved in metachert layers that had been boudinaged into lenses. These microfossils, including spinose acritarchs, are organic-walled as evidenced by Laser-Raman microscopy. Fossil-bearing off-cuts were then treated by HF and similar microfossils, degraded organic matter and acid-resistant minerals, such as zircon, were exposed in situ on the etched surface. Their morphologically complex forms and detailed wall structures suggest that these microfossils are of primary biological origin. The microfossils in foliated metachert lenses, either from original deposition or from post-depositional quartz veins, are older than the ~2440 Ma age of the Sleafordian Orogeny, which provides a minimum age for the host rocks. In either case, these spinose acritarchs are the oldest protists known to date.

See also:

Dutkiewicz, A., et al. Biomarkers from Huronian oil-bearing fluid inclusions: An uncontaminated record of life before the Great Oxidation Event. Geology: 2006, Vol. 34, No. 6, pp. 437-440.

Geneticist Michael Majerus has had a long-standing interest in melanism and specifically the peppered moth example of industrial melanism.

At a recent meeting of the European Society for Evolutionary Biology in Uppsala, he reported on experiments he has been carrying out since the year 2000 that were designed with a more rigorous methodology than was used by Bernard Kettlewell in the 1950s. "He released black or white moths into cylindrical cages on branches at dusk. Before dawn, he removed the cages and counted how many moths subsequently disappeared from their resting places. He showed that selection now favors pale moths, with 21% eaten by birds, compared with 29% of the black ones." It is possible to look critically at the methodology and at the statistics dealing with significance, but this only qualifies the conclusions. I am happy to accept that the evidence is now stronger that there is differential predation by birds. Where does this take us?
The concluding words of Majerus' lecture are these: "If the rise and fall of the peppered moth is one of the most visually impacting and easily understood examples of Darwinian evolution in action, it should be taught. It provides after all: The Proof of Evolution." This quote explains why the issue is still important: Darwinists have always sought to use the peppered moth story as a proof of Darwinian evolution. This is a burden that cannot be carried by the evidence. Even with Majerus' new improved methodology, we have an example of natural selection within the peppered moth population with differential predation being the causal mechanism. It is an extraordinary mental leap to go from this to the origin of novelty, complexity and new body plans - which remain the central challenges for any theory of evolutionary transformation.
According to the report, Majerus says that the new research will "conclusively rebut creationist claims." It is sad that Majerus and the Science reporter do not see this as an issue that must be faced by scientists. Is it scientifically defensible to find an example of natural selection within a population of an animal, and then use this as an evidence for evolutionary transformation from the first single cell to the extraordinary diversity of life that we find in the biosphere? When this simple question is answered with a negative, then we can have a more constructive dialogue. In the meantime, let's teach the peppered moth story, but without overloading it with Darwinian dogma. Kettlewell did make mistakes, and Majerus has made progress in correcting them. But Majerus has a long way to go before he addresses the real mistakes that still permeate our educational system.

Last Word on Moths
Random Samples
Science, 317, 7 September 2007, 1301.

A Cambridge University professor has completed a 6-year experiment with peppered moths that he says should conclusively rebut creationist claims. [snip].

See also:

Nelson, P. Michael Majerus: Peppered Moths DO Rest On Tree Trunks, And Incidentally, God Doesn't Exist
Uncommon Descent, 28 August 2007

Wells, J. Exhuming the Peppered Mummy, Discovery Institute, August 30, 2007

de Roode, J., Reclaiming the peppered moth for science, New Scientist, 08 December 2007.

Quotation from Fodor, J. Why Pigs Don't Have Wings, London Review of Books, 18 October 2007:
"It wouldn't be unreasonable for a biologist of the Darwinist persuasion to argue like this: 'Bother conceptual issues and bother those who raise them. We can't do without biology and biology can't do without Darwinism. So Darwinism must be true.' Darwinists do often argue this way; and the fear of hyperbole seems not to inhibit them. The biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky said that nothing in biology makes sense without Darwinism, and he is widely paraphrased. The philosopher Daniel Dennett says that 'in a single stroke, the idea of evolution by natural selection unifies the realm of life, meaning and purpose with the realm of space and time, cause and effect, mechanism and physical law.' (Phew!) Richard Dawkins says, 'If superior creatures from space ever visit earth, the first question they will ask, in order to assess the level of our civilisation, is: "Have they discovered evolution yet?"' Shake a stick at a Darwinist treatise and you're sure to find, usually in the first chapter, claims for the indispensability of adaptationism. Well, if adaptationism really is the only game in town, if the rest of biology really does presuppose it, we had better cleave to it warts and all. What is indispensable therefore cannot be dispensed with, as Wittgenstein might have said. The breaking news, however, is that serious alternatives to adaptationism have begun to emerge; ones that preserve the essential claim that phenotypes evolve, but depart to one degree or other from Darwin's theory that natural selection is the mechanism by which they do."

Roger White is interested in the way scientists think, in particular, those researching the origins of life (OOL). As is appropriate for a philosopher, he has no axe to grind regarding the technical details. "Let me be clear at the outset about the aim and scope of this paper. It is not my purpose to evaluate specific scientific proposals on the origin of life. My discussion will be very abstract, not entering into any of the details of cutting edge research. The reason for this, as I hope will become clear, is that my concern is with an abstract epistemological question which arises prior to detailed investigation, and does not hinge on the details of research."
He introduces his argument by considering three pebble patterns: scattered in a disorderly fashion, ordered on a beach according to size, and arranged to form a smiling stick figure. This allows him to discuss Chance, Law and Design as causal explanations (those familiar with Dembski's design filter will not struggle to grasp this).
Some OOL researchers belong to the "Chance" school, described here as the "Almost a Miracle Camp". Quotes are provided from Crick, Mayr and Monod. But this group is in the minority. "What interests me is just why the 'Almost a Miracle' camp is so small. Why is it that the vast majority of researchers in the field agree with Dawkins that we cannot credibly suppose that life arose by spontaneous random generation if the chance of this happening was extremely small." So White develops his argument by looking at the grounds for thinking that Law ("non-intentional biasing") must be invoked. This involves some logic analysis and a critical appraisal of what the OOL researchers are saying. Very quickly, this leads to comparisons with "intentional biasing" by an external agent. Interestingly, White does not give much credence to those who declare this option to be a science-stopper and alien to the scientific mind. Philosophically, it is a perfectly reasonable option to consider. The major objection to it is identified as the Preference Problem: how can we possibly know how such an external agent might act?
But non-intentional biasing does not fare well either. White looks first at physical parameters: "Does the fact that certain values are necessary for life make them more likely to be favored by laws? [. . .] Blind physical laws are no more naturally drawn toward states of affairs with value than blind chance is." He then goes on to discuss complexity. "What has struck scientists with such awe is that even the very simplest cell is an enormously complicated piece of machinery, more intricate and complex than any machine made by humans. No doubt life began in a somewhat simpler form, but it is widely held that the kind of systems required for a process of natural selection to get going would also have to be extraordinarily intricate and complex. It might seem that this alone is what stands in need of explanation, whether or not the machinery happens to be living or life-producing." The ensuing argument is highly reminiscent of Behe's definition of irreducible complexity. The conclusion is that non-intentional biasing does not take us beyond Chance in the discussion of causation. "Why then are most scientists so reluctant to allow too much chance into their accounts of life's emergence?" The explanation offered is that they have a "gut reaction to the data".
As far as the overall conclusion is concerned, White comments: "That molecular replicating systems appear to be designed by an agent is sufficient to convince us that they didn't arise by chance. But in scientific reasoning, non-intentional explanations are to be preferred, if possible (some would say at all costs), to intentional ones - hence the motivation to find a non-intentional explanation of life. [. . .] If the reason we doubt the Chance Hypothesis is that we suspect that life is due in part to intelligent agency, this by itself gives us no reason to expect there to be a non-intentional explanation for life. If on reflection we do not find the hypothesis of intentional biasing acceptable, then we are left with no reason at all to doubt that life arose by chance."
White's paper covers ground that is familiar to ID advocates and it is refreshing to read the analysis and conclusions. White cannot be dismissed as a mere philosopher, for there are a number of biologists who are coming to similar conclusions. One of these is Koonin, who has recognised that explaining the OOL is "a puzzle that defeats conventional evolutionary thinking". He appeals to infinities embedded in multiverse theory to find a mechanistic answer, thereby avoiding the need to make design inferences. I wonder what White would make of Koonin's argument?

Does Origins of Life Research Rest on a Mistake?
Roger White
Nous, 41(3),(September 2007) , 453-477. | doi:10.1111/j.1468-0068.2007.00655.x

No abstract. From the Introduction: What puzzles me is why, if appeals to intelligent agency are not on the table, we should be so reluctant to attribute the origin of life largely to chance. My purpose is to question a common approach to the subject of life's origin. Very roughly, this approach consists in an aversion to appeals to chance in accounting for life's origin prior to an evaluation of alternative hypotheses.