How Science Works - Giraffes - A single Pan-African Species Or Several Distinct Species?

Giraffe trio crossing plain, Etosha, Namibia

Photo: Mogens Trolle

Reticulated giraffe, Buffalo Springs, Kenya. Photo: Mogens Trolle

Photo: Mogens Trolle

Gene flow in giraffes and what it means for their conservation – Department of Biology - University of Copenhagen

In an evolutionary picture that resembles that of humans, giraffes appear to have speciated, or partially speciates at different times and in different parts of their range, then hybridized, before splitting again with regular gene-flow between the groups.

Similarly, though over a greater range, humans seems to have partially speciated into isolated populations in Africa before coming together again and spreading to Eurasia as Homo erectus which then split into Neanderthals, Denisovans and possibly others before meeting up with H. sapiens coming out of Africa in a second wave, to interbreed with the Eurasian species. The result is genetically distinct populations with evidence of ancient hybridization and gene flow.

Because conservation efforts tend to be directed at the species level, it is important for giraffe conservation to determine whether there is a single pan-African species with local sub-species or whether there are four or more species, each with a smaller population and therefore more vulnerable to habitat destruction and extinction.

To try to resolve this issue, as part of the African Wildlife Genomics research framework led by research groups at the Department of Biology at the University of Copenhagen, scientist carried out an extensive genome analysis to establish whether the different populations have been genetically isolated for long enough to be regarded as distinct species, even though, in captivity, they freely interbreed.

The results were a little surprising but highlight the difficulty in determining whether speciation has occurred within a population where differentiation is still in progress and few barriers to hybridisation have arisen. The problem is compounded by the fact that there is not a fixed definition of species, although biologists understand what the term means in a given context.

I've previously written blog posts about this problem, using the Eurasian crows as an example - an article incidentally which was recommended reading for Scottish biology students doing their 'Highers'.

The researchers have published their findings open access in the online Cell Press journal, Current Biology and explain it in a news item from the University of Copenhagen Biology Department:

Malevolent Design - How The Malaria Parasite is 'Designed' To Evolve And Outwit Medical Science

The Malaria parasite generates genetic diversity using an evolutionary ‘copy-paste’ tactic.

Credit: Karen Arnott/EMBL-EBI,
Isabel Romero Calvo/EMBL

The malaria parasite generates genetic diversity using an evolutionary ‘copy-paste’ tactic | EMBL

Devotees of creationism’s divine malevolence would be conflicted by this news if they understood it, because it shows the creative genius of any intelligent designer who could come up with this system, but, it looks like it did so (if you believe it couldn't happen naturally) by setting up an evolutionary process that creationists are obliged by dogma to believe doesn't work.

The news is that the organisms that causes malaria, Plasmodium falciparum, is 'designed' to quickly find a way to overcome the anti-malarial drugs medical science has developed to cure people suffering from it and to prevent others from getting malaria, by evolving very quickly.

The discovery was by researchers at European Molecular Biology Laboratory's (EMBL’s) European Bioinformatics Institute who have identified a mechanism of ‘copy-paste’ genetics that increases the genetic diversity of the parasite at accelerated time scales. This helps solve a long-standing mystery regarding why the parasite displays hotspots of genetic diversity in an otherwise unremarkable genetic landscape. Copy-paste' is a way of doing something creationists insist is impossible without the aid of god-magic of increasing the genetic information in a genome and making it available for evolution by mutation and selection without any loss of function in the original copied genes.

The team have recently published their finding in the open access journal PLOS Biology and describe it in an EMBL news item:

Unintelligent Malevolence - Pathogens 'Designed' to Beat Medical Science In Two Different Ways

Acinetobacter baumannii

Escherichia coli

Acinetobacter baumannii seen under a scanning electron-microscope

---

Escherichia coli

What makes a pathogen antibiotic-resistant? | Sanford Burnham Prebys

One of todays examples of the stupidity of creationism is something of a novelty. Usually, by applying the central tenets of creationism, any putative designer of living things like parasites either appears malevolent (and sometime it has to be said, malevolent at a near genius level in the ways it finds to make us and other animals sick) or it looks incompetent in that its 'solutions' are often to problems of its own making and more often than not to solutions it designed for one side of an arms race which it now trets as problems for the other side.

But today's example can only be described as an example of incompetent malevolennce, as creationism's putative designer, faced with the same 'problem' of medical science developing antibiotics effective against two different species of pathogen, set about designign two completely different 'solutions' to this problem. - Talk about re-inventing the wheel!

The pathogens are: Escherichia coli and Acinetobacter baumannii.

Creationists will probably be familiar with Escherichia coli (E. coli) because they believe their guru, Michael J Behe, 'proved' their god exists by claiming (falsely) that E. coli's flagellum must have been intelligently designed because he didn't know it evolved out of a pre-exiting structure and couldn't think how else it could have evolved. But then such is the standard of creationist apologetics!

What Behe had unwitting done was destroy the traditional excuse creationists use to explain pathogens like E. coli by blaming them on another 'designer' called 'Sin' which somehow creates living organisms although the creationit designer god is the only entitiy capable of designing livign things, so any example of 'intelligent design, real or imaginary, if 'proof' of this designer god's existance.

So, what creationists are now left with is an E.coli with a flegellum designed by their god to make it better at making us sick, and now resitant to antibiotics to help it win against medical science trying to prevent it makign us sick!

But what creationists are less likely to be familiar with is the pathogen, Acinetobacter baumannii, so here is a little background:

Unintelligent Design - RuBisCO Is Slowly Evolving - And Becoming Even More Embarrassing For Any Creationist Who Understands It

Photo by Kumiko SHIMIZU on Unsplash

The world’s most prolific CO₂-fixing enzyme is slowly getting better | University of Oxford

The world’s worst enzyme, ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase, or RuBisCo as it is known, has featured in these blog posts several times and it described in my book, The Unintelligent Designer: Refuting the Intelligent Design Hoax as an example of the lack of intelligence in biological systems, and, as such, why it would be a major embarrassment to creationists - if they understood it.

Briefly, RuBisCo is one of the most ancient enzymes known and became an essential component of photosynthesis early on in the history of life on Earth when the first cyanobacteria evolved the ability to use the energy from sunlight to fix the carbon in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) to build the sugar glucose. Eventually, these photosynthesising cyanobacteria became incorporated into plant cells as the chloroplasts to produce the green plants at the base of most food chains. Because it is so inefficient, it quickly became probably the most abundant enzyme on Earth, making up with quantity what it lacked in quality.

But, evolution, unlike good intelligent design, is a one-way, utilitarian process in which whatever works better than preceded it will be retained and will provide the next basis for further evolution, because evolution has no mechanism to scrap a bad design and start again as any backward step will inevitably be worse, so will be quickly eliminated.

Tell me all about RuBisCo and why it's so inefficient. RuBisCo, or ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase, is an enzyme crucial for the process of carbon fixation in plants, algae, and some bacteria. It catalyzes the first major step of the Calvin cycle, which is the primary pathway for carbon dioxide fixation in photosynthesis. Despite its importance, RuBisCo is often considered inefficient for several reasons:

Malevolent Design - How a Bacterium Carries a Virus That Selectively Kills Male Insects And Only Allows Infected Females To Breed

How does a virus hijack insect sperm to control disease vectors and pests? | Penn State University

Wolbachia are a genus of bacteria that form a symbiotic relationship with about 50% of arthropod species, including insects and spiders but they can also manipulate the species for their own ends (in terms of breeding success). They are aided in this by a virus which is incorporated in their genome which has been shown to join forces with Wolbachia to ensure their own reproductive success in the form of females infected with the virus-bearing Wolbachia.

So completely have Wolbachia integrated with insects that one species of fruit fly has the entire Wolbachia genome incorporated into its own genome, making it, biologically, both bacterium and fruit fly.

One way Wolbachia ensure their own survival at the expense of the species of insect they infect is by making the sperm and egg incompatible if the female is not also a carrier of the right species of Wolbachia. And, to be on the safe side, two proteins produced by the virus break the sperm's DNA so any resulting embryo will be defective and will fail to develop. This ensures that only the females carrying the infection can breed, so increasing the Wolbachia and its virus in the gene pool.

The team who discovered this nasty little virus and how it acts selfishly, was co-led by Professor Seth R. Bordenstein, of the One Health Microbiome Center at Pennsylvania State University. They have published their findings in Science and described it in a Penn State News item.

But first, a little background on Wolbachia:

Unintelligent Design - How Epigenetic Settings Are Passed To Daughter Cells - Even William Heath Robinson Would Be Impressed

Cracking Epigenetic Inheritance: HKU Biologists Discovered the Secrets of How Gene Traits are Passed on - Press Releases - Media - HKU

It all started when single-celled organisms started to form colonies of like-minded individuals. The easiest way to do it was for the two daughter cells of a dividing cell to stick together instead of going their own way. They in turn would have had more daughter cells until they formed large clump of cells, but, unless the cells began to perform distinct functions, there was no advantage to forming clumps like that instead of each cell going its own way and fending for itself. Fortunately, there were no large predators around, otherwise a clump of cells would have made a tasty snack and the whole idea would have been abandoned as too risky by half, and we would be stuck now with a world of single-celled organisms and nothing else.

However, with the trial and error which characterises biological development, some of the cells in the clump began to perform specialist functions. For example, as the clump got larger, specialist cells would have been needed to exchange gasses with the environment or the cells at the centre would have been deprived of oxygen and their waste in the form of carbon dioxide would have accumulated because diffusing across a large mass of cells would be too slow to keep up with production and the supply of oxygen would be too slow to keep up with the demand. The same thing applied to getting nutrients into the center of the clump.

So, the clumps which had specialist cells fared better in the competition for resources than those which were just undifferentiated clumps. In fact, the clumps with specialised cells would probably have eaten the undifferentiated clumps and become predators. And with predators there was pressure for increased specialisation for movement, ingestion and excretion, for more efficient respiration and for reproduction. And predation also produced pressure for more motility, for senses like sight and smell and maybe hearing and as the organisms became more complex so they needed nervous systems to coordinate their activities and process and respond to the stimuli their senses were receiving from their environment and some would have evolved defensive armour such as scales and spikes and hard shells and internal structures like cartilage and bone to give their bodies shape and form and to make their swimming apparatus stiffer and more powerful.

But what they never managed to do was find a different way to produce all the different specialist cells by a different method to that used by their single-celled ancestors, so every cell in their body had the full genome whether they needed it or not, and more often than not, they didn't need most of it. A bone cell doesn't need to do what a nerve cell does, and a nerve cell doesn't need to do what a muscle cell does, and neither muscle nor nerve cells need to make bone, and what else needs to make elbow skin other than an elbow skin cell, except perhaps a scrotum skin cell? Yet they all have the genes for doing everything any one cell needs to do.

So, cue creationism's intelligent [sic] designer who has been designing and modifying all these different clumps of specialised cells but who, for some reason, seems incapable of recognising that its designs are heading for disaster unless it can think up a way to make sure each specialised cell has only the genes it needs. For reasons which no creationist apologist has ever managed to explain, their putative designer always behaves as though it can't undo a bad design and start again but is compelled to try to make the best of what it has muddled through with so far. In every way, creationism’s 'intelligent [sic] designer' behaves just like a mindless process operating without a plan, handicapped by acute amnesia, and constantly surprising itself with a new problem it designed just yesterday.

Just like the eccentric British designer and cartoonist, William Heath Robinson, no solution to a problem can be too complex even if it creates a new problem for which another overly complex solution has to be found. Unlikely objects, designed for a completely different purpose, will be pressed into service; a stepladder will be balanced precariously on top of a piano and an umbrella will be used to push a button when prodded by a sink plunger swinging on a length of knotted string. A labour-saving device for peeling potatoes will take half a dozen, intense and serious-looking men to operate it and peeling the potatoes will take considerably longer than had each man been given a potato peeler and left to get on with it. Eggs will be fried in a frying pan held over a candle lit by a match rubbed against a matchbox which swings into action when released by a lever when the scuttle-full of coal, or the boulder suspended on knotted string, lands on it.

Covidiot News - Just Because You Haven't Had COVID-19 Yet, Doesn't Mean You Won't!

The SARS-CoV-2 virus needs to attach to receptors to gain access to our cells.

Kateryna Kon/Shutterstock

Haven't had COVID yet? It could be more than just luck

There are some scary questions for creationists at the end of this article. They follow on naturally from what's being discussed, so creationists should probably avoid reading too far, unless they have a responsible adult with them.

This article from The Conversation is from May 2022, when we were into the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic and most vulnerable people had had the two-step vaccinations and many would have had the spring booster. At that point neither me nor my partner had had COVID-19, which we put down to rigorously following the recommendations regarding mask-wearing, social distancing, hand washing, etc. and had tried to reduce our vulnerability to the sever forms of it by losing about 3 stone in weight and, in my case, getting my blood pressure under control with medication. We also tried to ensure our immune systems were healthy by taking vitamin D3, vitamin C, zinc and iron supplements.

In the early days of the pandemic, even before the official restrictions on social contact, we had observed the basic rules of hygiene and everyone who came into the house used hand-cleanser at the front door. I had even managed to obtain a supply of face-masks and plastic gloves online, which we wore at all times outside the house. Every package that was delivered to the house was left for several hours before we touched it, and all our weekly shopping was delivered or bought with click and collect. Delivered bags were left for four hours before unpacking. And we took weekly tests just in case we had it asymptomatically. All that might seem a little over the top now, but we were vindicated as events were to prove.

We put the fact that we hadn't caught it by mid-2022 down to our preventative measures, not to luck or genetics - a view that was vindicated last year when we both came back from a two-week vacation in France with a mild form of COVID-19, despite having had all the boosters on offer. We probably picked it up in a crowded airport or on the plane, where all the social distancing measures had been forgotten and even face masks were no longer worn. We both felt like we had a mild case of flu for a couple of days and after a week we were testing negative. Had we contracted it in Spring 2020, the outcome would probably have been very different as we had no immunity, and both had three of the risk-factors - overweight, high BP and over 70. In addition, my partner had had a mastectomy and was receiving treatment for breast cancer.

One reason you can't ever be sure that you won't catch COVID-19 is because the virus keeps mutating to produce new variants so, even if you were fortunate enough to have natural or acquired immunity to the variants so far, it is quite possible that the next or subsequent variants will have evolved a way round it. The following chart from the UK NHS, shows the rise and fall of the main variants over the course of the pandemic:

Source: NHS UKHSA Date Dashboard

But still, a few people managed to stay free from the virus. In the following article, reprinted from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license, Lindsay Broadbent, Research Fellow, School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, explains why. Her article has been reformatted for stylistic consistency:

Creationism in Crisis - Geobiologists Discover The Cause of Earth's First Mass Extinctions Event - 550 Million Years Before 'Creation Week'

Impressions of the Ediacaran fossils Dickinsonia (at center) with the smaller anchor shaped Parvancorina (left) in sandstone of the Ediacara Member from the Nilpena Ediacara National Park in South Australia.

Photo: Scott Evans.

Impressions of the Ediacaran fossils Dickinsonia (at center) with the smaller anchor shaped Parvancorina (left) in sandstone of the Ediacara Member from the Nilpena Ediacara National Park in South Australia.

Photo: Scott Evans.

Geobiologists shine new light on Earth’s first known mass extinction event 550 million years ago | VTx | Virginia Tech

A big problem for Creationists, especially those who believe the Bible was written by an infallible creator god, so think Earth is just a few thousand years old, is that science keeps finding evidence that Earth is billions of years old, and finding fossils of the life-forms that were around then.

As though that wasn't refutation enough, a team of scientists from Virginia Tech have now explained the mass extinction that wiped out most of these early life forms several billion years ago - giving the lie that they were intelligently designed by a god with the ability of foresight. Such a god would have known about the future mass extinctions and either prevented it, designed his creations to survive it or at least waited till it was safe to create things. Creating things to go extinct is not the act of an intelligent or sane creator.

This mass extinction appears not to have been a sudden event, such as that that resulted in the extinction of the non-avian dinosaurs and large marine reptile predators, but to have occurred in two phases that resulted in a loss of about 80% of species and separated by about 10 million years.

But before creationists get over-excited, this does not mean all the Ediacarans were extinct at the Cambrian 'explosion' so the Cambrian biota had no ancestors. It means that there were still about 20% of the Ediacaran biota to evolve over the 6 million years of the Cambrian 'explosion' into the Cambrian biota.

The Ediacaran mass extinction was probably caused by falling Oxygen levels as Ediacarans that had evolved large mass to surface-area ratios suffered from a loss of oxygen more so than those which had retained a smaller mass to surface area ratio.

How this mass extinction was identified and related to changes in global oxygen levels was the subject of an open access paper in PNAS and a Virginal Tech News item:

Creationism in Crisis - Earth's Oldest Forest Was In Present-Day Dorset, UK - 390 Million Years Before Creationism's 'Creation Week'

Illustration of Calamophyton trees.

Credit: Peter Giesen/Chris Berry

Cliffs of the Hangman Sandstone Formation, where many of the fossils were found.

Credit: Neil Davies

Earth’s earliest forest revealed in Somerset fossils

Archaeologists have found what are believed to be the remains of the earliest forest so far discovered in Devonian sandstone rocks dated to 390 million years ago, which makes them 4 million years older than the previous record found in New York State, and means they were living almost 390 million years before creationism's 'Creation Week' when their god decided to create a small flat planet with a dome over it, centered on the Middle East.

The fossils were discovered in coastal cliffs near Minehead, Dorset, England in what is known as the Eifelian Hangman Sandstone Formation and consist of primitive trees which were ancestral to today's trees but looked more like palm trees. The discovery is the subject of a paper in the Journal of the Geological Society and a news release from the University of Cambridge, UK.

First a little about this rock formation:

Creationism in Crisis - How Genomic Imprinting Evolved - Unintelligently

Microscopic fluorescence image of a C.tropicalis mother worm. The worm carries eggs loaded with a toxin (red) which is expressed from a Toxin-Antidote selfish genetic element only when it was maternally inherited.

© Pinelopi Pliota/IMBA

Revealing the evolutionary origin of genomic imprinting 

Caenorhabditis elegans

Genomic imprinting is the process by which genes are suppressed by epigenetic settings that differ depending on whether the genes come from the father or the mother in a sexually-reproducing species.

This is an example of the sort of Heath Robinson machine which a natural, mindless evolutionary process can and does produce and which distinguishes evolved systems from intelligently designed processes. It comes from the fact that multicellular organism uses the same method to replicate their cells as their single-celled ancestors used, yet only need a small selection of the genes depending on how specialised the particular cells are.

But the reason for genomic imprinting involves something even more embarrassing to any creationists who understand it - it probably evolved out of an arms race not between the organism and a foreign parasite but between the organism and one of its genes that had gone rogue and turned into a 'jumping' gene or 'selfish genetic element':

What exactly are 'selfish genetic elements' and what do they do? Selfish genetic elements are DNA sequences that have evolved to enhance their own transmission to the next generation, often at the expense of the organism's overall fitness. These elements can manipulate various cellular and reproductive processes to increase their own propagation within a population, sometimes even if it is detrimental to the host organism.

One well-known example of selfish genetic elements is transposable elements, also known as jumping genes. These DNA sequences have the ability to move or copy themselves within the genome, potentially disrupting genes or regulatory sequences in the process. While transposable elements can sometimes contribute to genetic variation and evolution, they can also cause harmful mutations or genomic instability.

Another example of selfish genetic elements is meiotic drive elements. These elements bias their own transmission during meiosis, the process by which gametes (sperm and eggs) are formed. Meiotic drive can result in the preferential transmission of one allele (variant of a gene) over another, leading to distortions in genetic inheritance patterns within a population.

Selfish genetic elements can have significant implications for evolutionary processes, population genetics, and genome stability. They can influence patterns of genetic diversity, contribute to speciation, and even drive the evolution of complex biological systems. However, they can also pose challenges for organisms by causing genetic disorders or reducing overall reproductive success.

In the case of the nematode, Caenorhabditis elegans, this arms race has produced a truly bizarre result, and something only an unintelligent, mindless designer, or a malevolent designer, could come up with, known as toxic ascaris, or TAs:

Creationism in Crisis - Like Humans, Bumblebees Learn Through Social Interaction And May Have Cumulative Culture

Bumblebees teaching each other to solve a complex puzzle

Buff-tailed Bumblebee, Bombus terrestris

Source: Wikipedia.

Bees master complex tasks through social interaction - Queen Mary University of London

A sacred Tenet of creationism is that we humans are a special creation by the creator of the universe who made everything just for us. They point to the many 'unique' traits and abilities of humans as evidence of this - the ability to teach and learn, to form cultures, even walking upright are frequently cited as examples. It's also a sacred Tenet of creationism that anything which might refute the sacred tenets of creationism must be ignore, hand-waved aside or misrepresented but never, ever acknowledged for what it is - a refutation of creationism.

So, we can expect one or more of those tactics for handling the cognitive dissonance that news that bumble bees can teach and learn and so have at least the basis for forming cumulative cultures. The news itself comes in the form of an open access research paper in Nature by a team Led by Dr Alice Bridges and Lars Chittka, Professor of Sensory and Behavioural Ecology at Queen Mary University of London.

The team showed that a complex, two-step task, which needed to be performed to receive a reward in the form of a sweet liquid could be learned by bees who were allowed to watch a trained 'demonstrator' perform the task. The bees not only learned how to perform the steps involved but that there was a reward to be had for doing so.

The 'demonstrators' had previously been trained by giving intermediate rewards as each stage was completed successfully, which were eventually withdrawn, leaving only the final reward. The experiment and its significance are explained in a Queen Mary University news release:

Unintelligent Design - New Species Of Deep-Ocean Worm - But What Is It For, Exactly?

Pectinereis strickrotti

[Right caption/credit]

New Deep-Sea Worm Discovered at Methane Seep off Costa Rica | Scripps Institution of Oceanography

Fig 1. Pectinereis strickrotti gen. nov., sp. nov. in life.

A, B, D. Several epitokous males swimming near methane seeps of Mound 12 (~1,000 m depth) of the Costa Rica margin and videoed via the submersible DSV Alvin. A. A frame grab from a video taken on Alvin dive 4503 on Feb. 4, 2009. B and D. Frame grabs from video taken on Alvin dive 4987 on Nov. 2, 2018. C. A fragment of an atokous infaunal female was collected at the same depth and locality via sediment pushcore on Alvin dive 4984 on Oct. 30, 2018. A white egg ~350 μm in diameter is visible on the exterior. Scalebar 1 mm. E. An epitokous male swimming near methane seeps of Parrita Scar (~1,000 m depth) of the Costa Rica margin. The specimen was initially caught via slurp with the ROV SuBastian (dive S0218, Jan. 11, 2019) but escaped.

Images A, B, D, courtesy of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. E, courtesy of Schmidt Ocean Institute.

One of the hallmarks of good intelligent design is that the designed object must be designed for a purpose. No intelligent designer is going to waste time making something that doesn't have any use. Even a decorative use is a function. As the designer William Morris said, "Have nothing in your house that you do not know to be useful, or believe to be beautiful.", but creationism's designer seems to just design things for the sake of it - half a million different beetles, for example. And now we have the example of a deep-ocean worm that appears to have no other purpose than to make more deep-ocean worms.

It's almost exactly like these different organisms are being designed by a mindless, natural process without a plan and no sense of purpose!

According to creationist superstitions in Genesis, every living thing on Earth was created for the benefit of mankind, and, incidentally, named by Adam (as though Adam would have had enough time to name every living species!). So, a challenge to creationists is to tell us what these deep-ocean worms are for in terms of their utility value for humans, and how did Adam dive that deep to name them?

Its discovery if the subject of an open access paper in PLOS ONE and is described in a Scripps Institute for Oceanography news release:

Creationism in Crisis - Evolution of Porcini Fungus

Porcini mushrooms Boletus Edulis

A tale of terroir: Porcinis evolved to the local environment – @theU

This illustration is a little misleading because mycelia are often much larger than any of their mushrooms that appear on the surface of the soil or tree stumps. Fungi can grow up to a half a mile of the thread-like hyphae a day. In fact, the largest known organism on the planet is the Humongous Fungus (Armillaria ostoyae) in The Malheur National Forest, Oregon, measuring 2,385 acres (3.72 square miles) in area. It is estimated to be between 1900 and 8650 years old.

Photo credit: FoodPrint.org

The edible porcine fungus (Boletus edulis) also known as the boletus or penny bun is highly prized culinary delicacy throughout much of Europe. However, there is something strange about it evolution, especially in North America, according to a new report in the journal New Phytologist.

Creationists should note here that the scientists who produced the report see this 'problem' entirely within the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection (TOE). The strangeness is not a problem for the theory but an example of how a fundamental principle of the theory - environmental selection - operates in North America.

The 'problem' is that while Boletus edulis exists in North America as a number of different varieties and genetically distinct populations, probably caused not so much by geographical isolation as environmental adaptation, albeit with regular ingress from surrounding populations, In Eurasia, a single genetic lineage dominates from Spain to Georgia to Scandinavia, so the interesting question is why does is the species genetically continuous in Eurasia but fragmented in North America; what is the difference between the two landmasses that causes this difference.

The Eurasian and North American populations are believed to have become separated during a period of climatic change and the onset of glaciation, 1.62–2.66 years ago. Attempts to segregate populations of Boletus edulis into distinct species based on phenotype have foundered on the genetic evidence, illustrating how small genetic differences can give large phenotypic differences and how a species in the process of speciating passes through a stage at which the diverging populations have not diverged sufficiently to qualify as new taxons because the practice of taxonomy tries to fit a continuous process into a series of distinct events.

The 'problem' is the subject of a free access paper in the journal New Phytologist by Keaton Tremble and Bryn T. M. Dentinger from Utah University, Utah, USA. together with J. I. Hoffman from Bielefeld University, Germany, and was described in a University of Utah press release:

Creationism in Crisis - 500 Million Year-Old Fossils Reveal the Answer to an Evolutionary Riddle

Artist's reconstruction of Gangtoucunia aspera as it would have appeared in life on the Cambrian seafloor, circa 514 million years ago. The individual in the foreground has part of the skeleton removed to show the soft polyp inside the skeleton.

Reconstruction by Xiaodong Wang

Artist's reconstruction of Gangtoucunia aspera as it would have appeared in life on the Cambrian seafloor, circa 514 million years ago. The individual in the foreground has part of the skeleton removed to show the soft polyp inside the skeleton.

Reconstruction by Xiaodong Wang.

500 million year-old fossils reveal answer to evolutionary riddle | EurekAlert!

It must be galling to the leaders of the Creationist cults when science closes yet another gap and casually refutes the misleading claims they have fooled their cult followers with. It's much easier for the frauds to play to the parochial ignorance and childish thinking of their followers who will always assume that if science can't explain something, the locally popular god must have done it, ignoring the false dichotomy fallacy underpinning that deception.

Some of the gaps are artificial, obviously, being created by Creationists from misrepresentations of the actual science, such as claiming there are no transitional fossils showing, for example, a half chimpanzee - half human, but some of them are genuine gaps in the fossil record, although these tend to be ignored by creationist frauds because it would require a detailed knowledge of the evidence to appreciate where the real gaps are, and a detailed knowledge of the evidence is something no Creationist can afford to have.

One such gap, until now, was the early evolution of skeletal animals. The first fossils of skeletal animals appeared in the fossil record 550-520 million years ago during the so-called the Cambrian Explosion, which must be one of the slowest explosions on record, occurring over several tens of millions of years, but nevertheless a period of rapid evolution and diversification into different body-plans in the early history of multicellular organisms.

Many of these early fossils are simple hollow tubes ranging from a few millimetres to many centimetres in length. However, what sort of animals made these skeletons was almost completely unknown, because they lack preservation of the soft parts needed to identify them as belonging to major groups of animals that are still alive today.

Now though, a team of palaeontologist led by Dr Luke A. Parry of the Department of Earth Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, Dr Xiaoya Ma and PhD student Guangxu Zhang, of the Institute of Palaeontology, Yunnan University, Kunming, People's Republic of China, and Dr Jakob Vinther from the Schools of Earth Sciences and Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, UK have analysed a collection of exceptionally well preserved fossils from 514 million years ago that include four specimens of Gangtoucunia aspera with soft tissues still intact.

Just to clarify that , soft-tissue term, before Creationist quote miners misrepresent it: fossilised soft tissue is not soft. It simply means the soft tissue was preserved long enough for it to become mineralised, just as bones, shells and teeth become mineralised in fossils of hard tissue. It is not evidence that these fossils are just a few thousand years old, like Creationist fraud claim dinosaur soft tissue fossils are (they are not soft either, by the way).

Before long, we can expect Creationists to either be claiming these 'soft tissues' have been carbon-dated and found to be recent, or that they haven't been carbon-dated because the scientists were afraid they would be found to be recent!

As the Oxford University News release explains: