Science Literature

Recent discoveries of fish fossils from Devonian sedimentary rocks have raised expectations for a major rethink of fish phylogeny. The recent report of a Late Silurian sarcopterygian fish has made it certain that earlier evolutionary accounts are in need of a thorough overhaul.

Artist's restoration of Guiyu oneiros (Image credit: Brian Choo, source here)

The new fossil, Guiyu oneiros, is exceptionally well preserved in part and counterpart. It is an "articulated and three-dimensionally preserved bony fish lacking only the caudal fin." Although fish fragments have been found in Silurian rocks before, this discovery transcends them all, because it is so complete. Speculations about fragments suddenly have to address the realities of this new fossil. Previously, the important transitions in jawed vertebrates (gnathostomes) were considered a Devonian phenomenon. The (unresolved) discussions concerned placoderms and acanthodians, and their relationships with the chondrichthyans (cartilaginous fish) and osteichthyans (bony fish, subdivided into the ray-finned fishes - the Actinopterygii - and the lobe-finned fishes - the Sarcopterygii). The Silurian fish fossil fundamentally changes this debate.

"The straightforward message is that the origin of modern gnathostomes is not a Devonian phenomenon, after all. The basal divergence between osteichthyans and chondrichthyans occurred somewhat earlier.
[. . .]
"The very fact that Guiyu can be identified as a sarcopterygian provides further and arguably clinching evidence that a whole series of major branching events within the gnathostome crown group must have taken place well before the end of the Silurian."

The generic name given to the fossil draws attention to the mosaic of gnathostome characters it possesses. Gui is Chinese Pinyin for "ghost" or "secret" and yu is Chinese Pinyin for "fish". The research team interprets the mosaic morphology in terms of the animal being an intermediate, demonstrating "the incremental acquisition of osteichthyan apomorphies". However, mosaic morphologies are not exceptional (this was noted with the acanthodians), and the proof of "incremental acquisition" of characters is whether the fossil record documents this. Does it provide us with a tree, a bush, or something else? Like so many other groups of animals, the data appears to point to a bush.

Guiyu is said to have a mixture of "primitive and advanced features". Needless to say, the judgment of what is primitive and what is advanced rests largely with the researcher. This is the door for evolutionary presuppositions to colour the resulting analysis. The research team provide a cladistic analysis of these characters and present a cladogram in their Figure 5. It shows fossilised stem sarcopterygians co-existing in time with fossilised crown sarcopterygians. The crucial divergences are undocumented by fossil material. Guiyu is interpreted as a early stem sarcopterygian.

"The discovery of Guiyu offers an exceptional example of a primitive fish close to the split of crown osteichthyans. However, our understanding of the stem section of the Osteichthyes phylogenetic tree still remains vague owing to the rarity of relevant fossils."

To be fair to the authors, they do caution their readers to hold their analysis tentatively. "Our phylogenetic scenario, although it should be approached with some caution considering the lower Bremer indices at several nodes [. . .]". An example of the way presuppositions have guided the analysis comes in the placement of Ligulalepis at the base of the Sarcopterygii. They consider that "its neurocranium reveals the primitive osteichthyan condition". Guiyu and other species placed as stem sarcopterygians are said to be "more derived with regard to its dermal and endoskeletal intracranial joints". Yet, Guiyu and these other stem sarcopterygians, as well as most of the crown sarcopterygian analysed, all predate Ligulalepis as far as fossil evidence is concerned. More on the issues raised by cladistic analysis is here).

The new fossil necessarily brings big changes to the ways people should think about fish evolution. Although commentators are queuing up to say that the new fossil casts light on fish phylogeny and "illuminates an early stage in the evolutionary history of the bony fishes", the reality is that all the key transitions are pushed back into the Silurian - and the link with physical data is broken. The schemes that will emerge (unless significant new fossils are found) will all be based on cladistic analyses which presuppose evolutionary transformation. This may suit some, but this is not an acceptable way to pursue a scientific approach to origins. Coates is right to say:
"By pushing a whole series of branching points in gnathostome evolution out of the Devonian and into the Silurian, the discovery of Guiyu also signals that a significant part of early vertebrate evolution is unknown."

The oldest articulated osteichthyan reveals mosaic gnathostome characters
Min Zhu, Wenjin Zhao, Liantao Jia, Jing Lu, Tuo Qiao & Qingming Qu
Nature 458, 469-474 (26 March 2009) | doi:10.1038/nature07855 (abstract)

Abstract: The evolutionary history of osteichthyans (bony fishes plus tetrapods) extends back to the Ludlow epoch of the Silurian period. However, these Silurian forms have been documented exclusively by fragmentary fossils. Here we report the discovery of an exceptionally preserved primitive fish from the Ludlow of Yunnan, China, that represents the oldest near-complete gnathostome (jawed vertebrate). The postcranial skeleton of this fish includes a primitive pectoral girdle and median fin spine as in non-osteichthyan gnathostomes, but a derived macromeric squamation as in crown osteichthyans, and substantiates the unexpected mix of postcranial features in basal sarcopterygians, previously restored from the disarticulated remains of Psarolepis. As the oldest articulated sarcopterygian, the new taxon offers insights into the origin and early divergence of osteichthyans, and indicates that the minimum date for the actinopterygian-sarcopterygian split was no later than 419 million years ago.

See also:

Coates, M.I. Beyond the Age of Fishes, Nature 458, 413-414 (26 March 2009) | doi:10.1038/458413a (text)

Octopuses are very unlikely to be fossilised. To get anything preserved, exceptional conditions are needed. Palaeontologists have to look in a site identified as Lagerstaette, known for exceptional preservation - often involving soft tissues. One such place is found in rocks from the Middle Cretaceous in Lebanon, known for producing excellent specimens of fossil fish. Over 100 years ago, a fossil octopod named Palaeoctopus was found in these rocks, and additional specimens have not been discovered until now.

"The body of an octopus is composed almost entirely of muscle and skin, and when an octopus dies, it quickly decays and liquefies into a slimy blob. After just a few days there will be nothing left at all. And that assumes that the fresh carcass is not consumed almost immediately by hungry scavengers. The result is that preservation of an octopus as a fossil is about as unlikely as finding a fossil sneeze, and none of the 200-300 species of octopus known today has ever been found in fossilized form. Until now, that is."

The holotype specimen Keuppia levante (Image credit: Dirk Fuchs, Source here)

The new octopuses were worth waiting for. They are remarkable for their condition and have attracted widespread interest. There are three new species of fossil octopus represented by five specimens.

"[These,] astonishingly, preserve the octopuses' eight arms with traces of muscles and those characteristic rows of suckers. Even traces of the ink and internal gills are present in some specimens. 'These are sensational fossils, extraordinarily well preserved' says Dirk Fuchs of the Freie University Berlin, lead author of the report."

The researchers have given the three species names and compared them with living and fossil animals. This is where there was another big surprise. In papers published during the past 15 years, a variety of dates have been proposed for the evolutionary origins of the octopoda. Palaeoctopus was perceived as a stem group animal rather than representative of modern forms. All this has now changed, because one of the three species can be located within the family of extant animals.

"But what surprised the scientists most was how similar the specimens are to modern octopus: "these things are 95 million years old, yet one of the fossils is almost indistinguishable from living species." This provides important evolutionary information. "The more primitive relatives of octopuses had fleshy fins along their bodies. The new fossils are so well preserved that they show, like living octopus, that they didn't have these structures." This pushes back the origins of modern octopus by tens of millions of years, and while this is scientifically significant, perhaps the most remarkable thing about these fossils is that they exist at all."

The first take-home message emerging from the new finds concerns stasis. This theme appears from time to time on this blog and it will continue to do so because stasis is an important characteristic of the fossil record. Darwinians are so fixated on variation that they search avidly for minor changes without embracing the big picture (represented by stasis). For more on this, go here and here.

The second point worth making is that the literature is wedded to the paradigm of evolutionary transformation. There is so strong a focus on tracing evolutionary lineages that other explanatory frameworks are not even considered. All variants tend to be given an evolutionary interpretation, and the grand claim is made: these new finds help us understand the way these animals evolved. In the case of octopods, there is so little data that any claims like this should be treated with suspicion. We do not know what environmental factors could be influencing the way animals speciated and we cannot say with any confidence whether there was an evolutionary trajectory or a bush-like diversification. The discovery of a member of the Recent family Octopodidae at least puts some constraints on evolutionary speculations.

New Octopods (Cephalopoda: Coleoidea) From The Late Cretaceous (Upper Cenomanian) Of Hakel And Hadjoula, Lebanon
Dirk Fuchs, Giacomo Bracchi and Robert Weis
Palaeontology, 2009, 52(1), 65-81 | doi 10.1111/j.1475-4983.2008.00828.x

Abstract: Three previously unknown octopods are described from Upper Cenomanian limestones of the Haqel and Hadjoula localities (Lebanon). Keuppia levante gen. nov., sp. nov., Keuppia hyperbolaris gen. nov,. sp. nov. and Styletoctopus annae gen. nov, . sp. nov. are regarded as the earliest representatives of the Octopoda (= Incirrata). [. . .]. Based on a pair of widely separated stylets, which closely resemble the rods of modern octopods, Styletoctopus annae gen. nov., sp. nov. is assigned to the Recent family Octopodidae. [. . .] The surprising existence of a stylet-like gladius vestige in Styletoctopus annae sp. nov. suggests that the octopod clade branched off much earlier than previously believed. Octopod apomorphies such as the development of stylets, loss of fins and cirri must have been occurred before the Cenomanian.

See also:

Dell'Amore, C. Rare Octopus Fossil Found, National Geographic News, March 19, 2009

Cretaceous octopus with ink and suckers - the world's least likely fossils? EurekAlert, 17 March 2009

For most people, the extraordinary sophistication of each of our senses is only dimly appreciated. Touch is a good example. Most of us struggle when feeling Braille characters, but they are a lifeline to those who can sense and understand them. The problems of gaining effective tactile feedback are well-known to robotics engineers, who know that solutions do not come easily.

Musicians know the importance of precise control of finger position, pressure and micro-movements (Source here)

Human touch sets the standard in robotics research, as this provides an example of "exquisite tactile sensitivity". We have four types of mechanoreceptor that convey information about touch. Perception of fine features is associated with Pacinian corpuscles located in our skin. New research has sought a better understanding of how textural information is gained by finger/substrate contact.

"Because there is currently no way to measure experimentally the subcutaneous stress using a human subject, our approach is based on the use of a biomimetic tactile sensor whose functioning principle and main geometrical characteristics are matched to those of the human fingertip. This allows us to test, in particular, the role of epidermal ridges (fingerprints) in this transduction process."

Fingerprints can be inferred to have a function. The ridges are not random in size and distribution, but show a distinctive pattern. Although a design inference seems obvious, it is not at all clear what functionality fingerprints provide. Two hypotheses are to be found in the literature. The first is that fingerprints improve grip (analogous to the tread on car tyres). The second is to enhance tactile perception by "increasing the subsurface strain with respect to the surface deformation." The new research validates the second hypothesis.

"Here, we show that fingerprints may have a strong impact on the spectral filtering properties of the skin in dynamic tactile exploration."

After describing the experimental work and the findings, the authors present three conclusions. First, and most significant, is that the regular ridged topography of fingerskin is an effective amplifier of the minute vibrations generated by surface sliding. Amplification factors of up to 100 are reported. Furthermore, the inter-ridge distances are optimised to amplify the relevant frequencies. The mechanical system works best at a frequency that is of -

"the order of the best frequency of the Pacinian fibers that mediate the coding of fine textures. Fingerprints thus allow for a conditioning of the texture-induced mechanical signal that facilitates its processing by specific mechanoreceptors."

Secondly, observations are reported which are suggestive of why our fingerprints are not straight (we can compare ourselves with "macaque monkeys [that] have ridges parallel to the long axis of their fingers"). Experiments show that the amplification effect is "strongly dependent on the orientation of the ridges with respect to the scanning direction". So, at the level of hypothesis, it is suggested that our elliptical ridges respond well, whatever the direction of sliding.

"In humans, fingerprints are organized in elliptical twirls so that each region of the fingertip (. . .) can be ascribed with an optimal scanning orientation."

Thirdly, the observed response behaviour of the sensory system is suggestive of several other valuable performance characteristics, described as "interesting functional consequences of fingerprints".

"Remarkably, the response function of the fingerprinted system displayed in Fig. 3 is analogous to a Gabor filter because it provides both spatial and spectral resolution. Such filters are classically used in image analysis and have been identified in visual systems at the neural level. They are known to provide orientation discrimination, contrast enhancement, and motion detection."

In a commentary article by Miller, the thoughts of a biomedical engineer are documented:

"It's a really interesting finding because it demonstrates the extent to which the physical and mechanical properties of a sensor can perform a computation". Selecting and amplifying the signals important for texture perception could in principle be accomplished within the nervous system. [. . .] But in this case, it seems to be the design of the hardware rather than the programming of the neural software that does the trick.

So, next time you are contemplating your fingerprints, it is worth reflecting, not only on the fact that you are unique, but also on the difference fingerprints make to your quality of life. By coupling hardware design with programming of neural software, you have been equipped with a tactile sensory system that beats any robot capability. All this talk of hardware design features and software programming is fully consistent with the conceptual framework of Intelligent Design, but it must be an aggravation to those who want to ban the D-word from biology.

The Role of Fingerprints in the Coding of Tactile Information Probed with a Biomimetic Sensor
J. Scheibert, S. Leurent, A. Prevost, and G. Debregeas
Science, 323, 13 March 2009: 1503-1506 | DOI: 10.1126/science.1166467

Abstract: In humans, the tactile perception of fine textures (spatial scale <200 micrometers) is mediated by skin vibrations generated as the finger scans the surface. To establish the relationship between texture characteristics and subcutaneous vibrations, a biomimetic tactile sensor has been designed whose dimensions match those of the fingertip. When the sensor surface is patterned with parallel ridges mimicking the fingerprints, the spectrum of vibrations elicited by randomly textured substrates is dominated by one frequency set by the ratio of the scanning speed to the interridge distance. For human touch, this frequency falls within the optimal range of sensitivity of Pacinian afferents, which mediate the coding of fine textures. Thus, fingerprints may perform spectral selection and amplification of tactile information that facilitate its processing by specific mechanoreceptors.

See also:

Miller, G. Fingerprints Enhance the Sense of Touch, Science, 323 (30 January 2009), 572b | DOI: 10.1126/science.323.5914.572b

The question in the title is asked, and answered, by Gunter Theissen, a geneticist from Friedrich Schiller University Jena. He points out that "many of the biologists criticizing gradualism have been geneticists". These scientists are not looking for a fight with the consensus evolutionary theory, and if the Modern Synthesis were "able to fully explain the origin and diversification of life", they would embrace it.

"Unfortunately, the Synthetic Theory and its contemporary derivatives have major shortcomings, for example in explaining evolutionary novelties and constraints, and the evolution of body plans, which to me appear to be especially interesting aspects of the evolutionary process. As long as population genetic based evolutionary theories such as the Synthetic Theory cannot fully explain all aspects of evolution, scientists as well as lay people will, for good reasons, keep looking for better explanations."

Sssssh! Stop rocking the boat of gradualism! (Source here and here)

The key problem is one of explaining the origin of "evolutionary novelties". Theissen suggests that a major reason supporting Darwin's commitment to gradual change "seems quite trivial". This relates to observations about minor variations in living things and the conclusions he published in his 1859 book.

"Despite Darwin's undeniable merits, explaining how the enormous complexity and diversity of living beings on our planet originated remains one of the greatest challenges of biology."

Gradualism has always been more influenced by ideology than evidence. Lyell's mentoring provided Darwin with spectacles that permitted only the light of uniformitarianism to pass. On the Origin of Species presented Darwin's best case for gradual change, but the verdict of several generations of scholars is that the data speaks otherwise.

"And indeed, up to now the empirical basis of strict gradualism is weak at best. For instance, with its abrupt transitions, the fossil record provides little evidence for a gradual evolution of new forms. Also the branching patterns of higher taxa in both animals and plants as revealed by cladistics and systematics do not support the idea that the major features of body plans and their constituent parts arose in a gradual way. It is not surprising, therefore, that alternatives to Darwin's gradualism have been considered many times during the past one and a half century."
[. . .]
"Advocates of these views often do not completely deny gradual changes (typically during adaptation or microevolution), but consider them unable to explain the origin of phenotypic novelties, or species and higher order taxa."

Theissen's interests revolve around evolutionary developmental biology or "evo-devo". The key thought is that biological novelties usually result from changes in developmental control genes. Whilst closer analysis of an apparently novel structure can sometimes reveal a gradualist mechanism, neoDarwinians are not justified in thinking that they can infer that the same conclusion can be drawn for all structures. (Note, when ID advocates use reasoning like Theissen, it is often described as "the argument from incredulity".)

"So there is always the hope that detailed analysis of the developmental and genetic basis of a phenotypic feature may in the end make it possible to explain its origin in a gradualistic way. This is unlikely to happen in many cases, however, where a reasonable story of continuous change is simply beyond imagination."

Theissen's paper has an interesting set of case studies that are illustrative of his thesis that saltational evolution is a reality. The first set relate to plants and the second set to animals. These are significant arguments, but all too frequently there is a major problem in that relevant data is limited. One, in particular, is worth highlighting: "Cirripedes as the descendants of hopeful monsters". This group, commonly described as barnacles, engaged Darwin's attention for many years (go here). In 2006, a study was published that pointed out the absence of a particular Hox gene abdominal-A in several species belonging to three orders of Cirripedes. This was deemed significant because the gene is present in a sister group, the Ascothoracida. Theissen writes:

"It thus appears likely that the deletion (or substitution) of a homeotic gene resulted in the saltational origin of an organism [. . .] that established a new evolutionary lineage. Based on their data the authors raise the question as to whether Cirripedes are hopeful monsters. However, since Cirripedes represent an old, widely distributed and quite species rich group of animals, they are in my view neither monsters nor just hopeful, but well adapted and successful extant organisms. Therefore, it would be more appropriate to consider Cirripedes as putative descendants of hopeful monsters rather than hopeful monsters themselves.
Is not it ironic that the favourite animals of the hard-core gradualist Darwin may represent an excellent example for non-gradualistic (saltational) evolution?"

No doubt there are many issues that can be usefully discussed here. If there has been a deletion of a homeotic gene that has led to the origin of the Cirripedes, questions about the origins of hox genes and the supporting infrastructure are still unanswered. ID scientists would also like to enquire whether there are design reasons for the lack of this particular gene. But the most relevant discussion points relate to the genuine controversies that are found within evolutionary biology. That the differences are serious is obvious from these comments:

"Few contemporary biologists will doubt that gradualism reflects the most frequent mode of evolution, but whether it is the only one remains controversial. [. . .] In conclusion I argue that the complete dismissal of saltational evolution is a major historical error of evolutionary biology tracing back to Darwin that needs to be rectified."

Contrast these words with some of the forthright affirmations coming from neo-Darwinists.
Alan Lesher, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science: "But there is virtually no controversy about evolution among the overwhelming majority of researchers".
Professor Jerry Coyne, of the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago, rejects all "teach the controversy" initiatives, saying "never mind that the controversy about evolution is not scientific, but social and political."
78 leaders of science and educational associations endorsed these words: "Evolutionary theory ranks with Einstein's theory of relativity as one of modern science's most robust, generally accepted, thoroughly tested and broadly applicable concepts. From the standpoint of science, there is no controversy."

The more discerning commentators will qualify their words and say that whilst there is no controversy over the principle of evolution from a single-celled common ancestor, there is considerable controversy over mechanisms. However, even this stance needs to be critiqued because there is also a scientific debate to be had about common ancestry. One outcome is clear from all this: teachers need to incorporate such thinking into their educational programmes. Those who only want to sweep scientific controversies under the rug of social and political agendas are not representing the science properly to their students. The way to handle controversy is not for the teacher to take sides, but to help students recognise different perceptions of the same data and to develop strategies for evaluating the various positions. When the principle of critical analysis is applied, it means the hegemony of neoDarwinism as establishment science will be over (because it will have to use reasoned arguments rather than an appeal to consensus). Then, perhaps, we can get beyond the hype and the hubris associated with origins and ultimate causes.

Saltational evolution: hopeful monsters are here to stay
Gunter Theissen
Theory in Biosciences, 128(1), 43-51 | DOI 10.1007/s12064-009-0058-z

Abstract: Since 150 years it is hypothesized now that evolution always proceeds in a countless number of very small steps, a view termed "gradualism". Few contemporary biologists will doubt that gradualism reflects the most frequent mode of evolution, but whether it is the only one remains controversial. It has been suggested that in some cases profound ("saltational") changes may have occurred within one or a few generations of organisms. Organisms with a profound mutant phenotype that have the potential to establish a new evolutionary lineage have been termed "hopeful monsters". Recently I have reviewed the concept of hopeful monsters in this journal mainly from a historical perspective, and provided some evidence for their past and present existence. Here I provide a brief update on data and discussions supporting the view that hopeful monsters and saltational evolution are valuable biological concepts. I suggest that far from being mutually exclusive scenarios, both gradual and saltational evolution are required to explain the complexity and diversity of life on earth. In my view, gradual changes represent the usual mode of evolution, but are unlikely to be able to explain all key innovations and changes in body plans. Saltational changes involving hopeful monsters are probably very exceptional events, but since they have the potential to establish profound novelties sometimes facilitating adaptive radiations, they are of quite some importance, even if they would occur in any evolutionary lineage less than once in a million years. From that point of view saltational changes are not more bizarre scenarios of evolutionary change than whole genome duplications, endosymbiosis or impacts of meteorites. In conclusion I argue that the complete dismissal of saltational evolution is a major historical error of evolutionary biology tracing back to Darwin that needs to be rectified.

When science is perceived as 'How things work' ("the understanding of physical systems"), there is no tension with the "spiritual and moral issues" often associated with religion. The harmony appears to be broken when more fundamental questions are asked. This is the territory explored recently by two social psychologists:

"Although science and religion do not always conflict, a frequent source of tension concerns the competition for explanatory space."

Are polarised views inevitable? (Source here)

Before considering their experiments in more detail, it is worth examining their perceptions of intelligent design (ID) arguments. They locate ID on the religious side of the divide and consider that ID aims to provide an explanation of the world around us in terms of divine causation. They write:

"The central argument of intelligent design theory is to point out gaps or failings in scientific explanations, thereby enabling explanations based on other (generally divine) causes. This is sometimes called the God of the Gaps argument - where science cannot explain, God is invoked as a cause. [. . .] Most modern day religions depict God as the "unmoved First Mover" that is the ultimate cause of everything but itself has no cause."

It would be good practice for researchers to spend a bit of time talking to ID advocates. They could learn first-hand that ID does not perceive its arguments as "God of the Gaps", but as 'inference from evidence'. The argument proceeds from knowledge, not from ignorance. Furthermore, ID advocates perceive their inferences as part of a scientific process: causation can be according to natural law, stochastic processes or intelligent agency. Science should not be in the business of declaring what the world is like before it has fully explored the solutions space; rather it should identify and test alternative hypotheses for observed phenomena. ID theorists are troubled by the behaviour of some fellow scientists, who do not test ID hypotheses as part of a scientific discourse, but choose to exclude ID on ideological grounds.

This brings us to the authors' perception of science. When they unpack their understanding of this discipline, what we read is a clear description of scientism!

"Science theoretically promises a method for understanding all of one's natural observations, with the principal goal to uncover the mechanisms that underlie all known phenomena. The search for the theory of everything, a single equation that would be able to describe all aspects of matter and physics without appealing to any deeper explanatory base, has been dubbed the holy grail of physics (Barrow, 1992) in a nod to the anticipated meaning that such an equation would provide."

These flawed definitions do not necessarily undermine the design principles of their experiments, but they do open the way for a different perspective on their findings. The subjects were university students who were seated in front of a computer and asked to make instant reactions to information provided. The researchers explain their aims thus:

"Experiment 1 investigated the use of scientific theories as ultimate explanations. We were interested in questions of origin that might be explained by a creator, specifically the origin of the universe and the origin of life on Earth. We predicted that better theories would increase automatic positive evaluations of science, whereas weaker theories would decrease these evaluations. More important, we predicted that evaluations of God should be inversely related to the explanatory power of these scientific theories. Experiment 2 investigated whether manipulating the perceived value of a religious explanation would produce the opposite interaction, increasing positive automatic evaluations related to religion but decreasing those related to science."

In Experiment 1, students were supplied with a passage of text that informed them about the Big Bang theory of origins and another that described the Primordial Soup Hypothesis. 50% of students were supplied with the additional information: "this was the best scientific theory on the subject to date, and does much to account for the known data and observations" (the Strong explanation). The rest of the students were told "this was the best scientific theory on the subject to date, but it does not account for the other data and observations very well, and raises more questions than it answers" (the Weak explanation). Then, for each passage, students were asked to choose between "God" and "Science". The result:

"In Experiment 1, exposure to apparently poor scientific explanations for the origins of the Universe and life on Earth enhanced positive automatic evaluations of God relative to Science, whereas apparently strong scientific explanations resulted in more positive evaluations of Science relative to God."

The second experiment was informed by previous research work involving people who actively used religious explanations in their daily lives. These students were divided into two groups. The Explanation group was asked to "list SIX things that you think God can explain". The Control group was given the instructions: "list SIX things that you think can explain or influence God". Then both groups completed Experiment 1 and some other exercises. The researchers reported their findings thus:

"In Experiment 2, a reciprocal relationship was found when God was used as a strong explanation. When people actively used God as an explanation for a variety of phenomena, automatic evaluations of science were diminished as evaluations of God were enhanced."

The conclusions of the researchers are not good news for those who support the NOMA approach of Stephen Jay Gould, or the complementarity approach of Theistic Evolutionists:

"These data suggest that using scientific theories as ultimate explanation can serve as an automatic threat to religious beliefs, and vice versa. Perhaps more important, these findings also indicate that explanatory weakness in one belief system can bolster automatic evaluations of the other. These automatic oppositions emerged despite making no explicit mention of the potentially opposing belief system or to the possible conflict between science and religion."

According to some, the most obvious implication of the research is that "to be compatible, science and religion need to stick to their own territories, their own explanatory space". Jesse Preston, co-author, is quoted as saying:

"However, religion and science have never been able to do that, so to me this suggests that the debate is going to go on. It's never going to be settled."

Further discussion of these findings is needed. I have received some comments from John Calvert of Intelligent Design Network, Inc., which are worth sharing. He starts by pointing out some implications relating to the philosophy of science:

This research confirms the seemingly obvious conclusion that origins explanations have an unavoidable impact on religion. It also shows that Methodological Naturalism (MN), a doctrine that permits only strong natural cause explanations of origins, necessarily produces an automatic negative evaluation of God and positive evaluation of no-God or Atheism. Since Atheism is a religion, the research shows that MN is effectively a religious orthodoxy.
Thus, the research is inconsistent with the unsupported assertions of many science "experts" that MN and evolution's materialistic theories of origins do not conflict with theistic religions.
The Authors focused on scientific explanations of origins because they concluded that origins explanations were "ultimate explanations." Unlike an explanation of photosynthesis, origins explanations deal with a "fundamental human issue."

There are legal implication for US citizens:

The Supreme Court agrees that religion in the comprehensive sense contemplated by the First Amendment address matters of ultimate concern, such as the relation of the life of man to the world in which he lives. Origins explanations do precisely that and are therefore religious or "ultimate explanations." Accordingly, courts have held that natural as well as supernatural explanations of origins are inherently religious and that religion includes non-theistic beliefs like Atheism and Secular Humanism.

The Authors propose no solution that might resolve the conflict [they have identified].
The obvious solution is simply for science to recognize that religion is not limited to just theistic beliefs and that it includes non-theistic religions like Atheism and "Secular" Humanism. Those non-theistic religions depend on strong natural cause explanations just as theistic religions depend on weak explanations.
When science defines religion inclusively, then it will recognize that it cannot use Methodological Naturalism in origins science without promoting a particular religious perspective. This is because MN mandates only strong natural cause explanations of origins, the core tenet of non-theistic religions.

The science community also needs to respond. Scientism is not science, but the inevitable consequence of the secularising trend that started in the Enlightenment. But secularism, like Darwinism, is a dangerous idea. It consumes all in its path and ends up destroying itself. Those science leaders who are steering their communities down this path carry heavy responsibilities: not the least is to encourage academic freedom to discuss these issues without the threat of dissenters being ostracised or outlawed.

Science and God: An automatic opposition between ultimate explanations
Jesse Preston and Nicholas Epley
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45 (2009) 238-241

Science and religion have come into conflict repeatedly throughout history, and one simple reason for this is the two offer competing explanations for many of the same phenomena. We present evidence that the conflict between these two concepts can occur automatically, such that increasing the perceived value of one decreases the automatic evaluation of the other. In Experiment 1, scientific theories described as poor explanations decreased automatic evaluations of science, but simultaneously increased automatic evaluations of God. In Experiment 2, using God as an explanation increased automatic evaluations of God, but decreased automatic evaluations of science. Religion and science both have the potential to be ultimate explanations, and these findings suggest that this competition for explanatory space can create an automatic opposition in evaluations.

See also:

Yates, D. God or science? A belief in one weakens positive feelings for the other, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 15 December 2008

Calvert, J.D. Kitzmiller's error - Use of an exclusive rather than inclusive definition of religion. Liberty University School of Law, February 6, 2009

Placoderm fish, although extinct since the end of the Devonian, have surprised researchers on two occasions during the past year. The first surprise was the discovery of embryos with an umbilical cord in the ptyctodontids. These animals are a small group of placoderms that are regarded as "phylogenetically basal to the largest group, the Arthrodira". The second surprise came when embryos were also detected inside fossil specimens belonging to the Arthrodira.

"These new finds confirm that reproduction by internal fertilization and viviparity was much more widespread in the earliest gnathostomes than had been previously appreciated."

Incisoscutum ritchiei (source here)

The ptyctodont find stimulated the search "for signs of internal fertilisation in other placoderm fish", including samples from the Arthrodira.

"In two of the fossils' body cavities were smaller fish, originally presumed to be a well-preserved meal. But based on the position of the tiny fish and the similarity to the ptyctondontid finds, the group concluded that the tiny arthrodire fish were actually embryos. "Finding that first embryo was the key, the Rosetta stone for knowing what to look for," Long said."

Further analysis led to the identification of bony elements coming off the pelvic fins. These were interpreted as "similar to the claspers that males sharks insert into females to fertilize eggs". Sharks all have internal fertilisation and 55% are live bearers. The Rosetta Stone analogy is a striking one: when the researchers found the first embryo, they knew that if they looked systematically, they were likely to find more of what previously had been interpreted as food.

The surprised reactions have come because placoderms have been regarded as stem gnathostomes. They are considered ancestral to acanthodians, chondrichthyans and osteichthyans. However, as Ahlberg explains, external fertilisation by spawning is considered to be the mode of reproduction for evolutionary ancestors of gnathostomes.

"The ancestral mode of reproduction for osteichthyans seems to be external fertilization. The distribution of live-bearing among living vertebrates strongly suggests that internally fertilizing live-bearers are unlikely to give rise to externally fertilizing spawners, so we would not expect the osteichthyan stem lineage, or the gnathostomer stem lineage below it, to contain a segment characterized by live-bearing."

In other words, internal fertilization and live-bearing are associated with derived characters that are understood to have evolved from an ancestor with an external fertilization/spawning reproduction behaviour. Long et al. comment:

"Once viviparity develops, the complex physiological requirements that accompany live-bearing generally prohibit reversal back to external spawning, although there are rare cases of reversal from live-bearing to egg-laying in squamate reptiles."

Thus, placoderms as a group cannot be regarded as stem gnathostomes, for at least two members of the placoderm group cannot be ancestral to osteichthyans. So, a major rethink of placoderms is needed, as Ahlberg explains:

"Ideas about the origin of gnathostomes are currently in a state of flux. [. . .] A new analysis by Brazeau suggests that placoderms may not be a natural group at all, but a 'paraphyletic array' spread out along the gnathostome stem."

Clearly, gnathostome phylogeny is in the melting pot and placoderms are providing some crucial evidence relating to viviparity among the earliest jawed vertebrates. This is not what evolutionary theorists predicted. They expected primitive before derived, but two placoderm groups give them derived before primitive. One of the co-authors, a palaeontologist at London's Natural History Museum (which houses the fossils) said: "We expected that these early fishes would show a more primitive type of reproduction, where sperm and eggs combine in the water and embryos develop outside the fish". The search is now on for a paraphyletic structure for the placoderms and for an ancestral group that is definitely not viviparous, with antiarchs being the prime candidate.

Evolutionists are very reluctant to acknowledge when their predictions are falsified. Instead, they have cultivated the ability to say the new finds have broadened their thinking and that it places their understanding "on a much firmer footing". Indeed, the new finds "may prove to have far-reaching implications for our understanding of early vertebrate evolution". The reality is that these new finds do not confirm evolutionary predictions. Instead, there are now modified evolutionary predictions (as yet untested) that attempt to accommodate the data within an evolutionary framework. This is the well-documented behaviour of Kuhnian "normal" science.

I am reminded of a conversation with a friend of mine whose PhD was in fish development. He came to the conclusion that fish do not provide a Darwinian story of evolutionary transformation. These recent finds seem to confirm his assessment.

Devonian arthrodire embryos and the origin of internal fertilization in vertebrates
John A. Long, Kate Trinajstic & Zerina Johanson
Nature 457, 1124-1127 (26 February 2009) | doi:10.1038/nature07732

Evidence of reproductive biology is extremely rare in the fossil record. Recently the first known embryos were discovered within the Placodermi, an extinct class of armoured fish, indicating a viviparous mode of reproduction in a vertebrate group outside the crown-group Gnathostomata (Chondrichthyes and Osteichthyes). These embryos were found in ptyctodontids, a small group of placoderms phylogenetically basal to the largest group, the Arthrodira. Here we report the discovery of embryos in the Arthrodira inside specimens of Incisoscutum ritchiei from the Upper Devonian Gogo Formation of Western Australia (approximately 380 million years ago), providing the first evidence, to our knowledge, for reproduction using internal fertilization in this diverse group. [. . .]

See also:

Cressey, D. Fossils reveal early evidence for penetrative sex, Nature, 25 February 2009 | doi:10.1038/news.2009.122

Ghose, T. Early fish had live birth, The Scientist blog, 25th February 2009

Tyler, D. Live birth in a supposedly primitive Devonian fish, ARN Literature blog (4 June 2008)