Evolution Intelligent Design

At Live Science: Scientists pinpoint the exact moment in evolutionary time when mammals became warm-blooded

Spread the love

And it happened much more quickly than scientists expected.

Ben Turner writes:

Scientists have pinpointed the moment in time our earliest ancestors evolved to be warm-blooded, and it happened much later and far more quickly than the researchers expected.

The discovery, made by studying the minuscule tubes of the inner ear, places the evolution of mammalian warm-bloodedness at around 233 million years ago — 19 million years later than scientists previously thought.

These semicircular canals are filled with a viscous fluid, called endolymph, that tickles tiny hairs lining the canals as the fluid sloshes around. These hairs transmit messages to the brain, giving it instructions for how to keep the body balanced. Like some fluids, the honey-like endolymph gets runnier the hotter it is, requiring the semicircular canals to change their shape so the fluid can still do its job. In ectothermic, or cold-blooded, animals, this ear fluid is colder and thus behaves more like molasses and needs wider spaces in which to flow. But for endothermic, or warm-blooded, animals, the fluid is more watery and small spaces suffice. 

This temperature-based property makes tiny, semicircular canals a perfect place to spot the moment when ancient mammals’ cold blood turned hot, researchers wrote in a paper published July 20 in the journal Nature

“This is because, like honey, the fluid contained inside semicircular canals gets less viscous [syrupy] when temperature increases, impacting function,” David explained. “Hence, during the transition to endothermy, morphological adaptations were required to keep optimal performances, and we could track them in mammal ancestors.”

To discover the time of this evolutionary change, researchers measured three inner ear canal samples from 341 animals — 243 living species and 64 extinct species — spanning the animal kingdom. The analysis revealed that the 54 extinct mammals included in the study developed the narrow inner ear canal structures suitable for warm-blooded animals 233 million years ago. 

Before this study, scientists thought mammals inherited warm-bloodedness from the cynodonts — a group of scaly, rat-like lizards that gave rise to all living mammals — that were thought to have evolved warm-bloodedness around the time of their first appearance 252 million years ago. However, the new findings suggest that mammals diverged from their early ancestors more markedly than expected.

And this drastic change happened surprisingly fast. Heat-friendly ear canals didn’t just appear later in the fossil record than the scientists expected. It happened far more rapidly, too — popping up around the same time the earliest mammals began evolving whiskers, fur and specialized backbones.

“Contrary to current scientific thinking, our paper surprisingly demonstrates that the acquisition of endothermy seem[s] to have occurred very quickly in geological terms, in less than a million years,” study co-lead author Ricardo Araújo, a geologist at the University of Lisbon in Portugal, said in the statement. “It was not a gradual, slow process over tens of millions of years as previously thought, but maybe was attained quickly when triggered by novel mammal-like metabolic pathways and origin of fur.”

See the full article at Live Science.

This recent research finding, if verified, is apparently more in line with the expectations of intelligent design than current evolutionary thinking. How many stumbling blocks does a theory need to encounter before it is shelved? Ascertaining an accurate view of reality can be challenging to our presuppositions, but the reward for pursuing truth is certainly worthwhile.

22 Replies to “At Live Science: Scientists pinpoint the exact moment in evolutionary time when mammals became warm-blooded

  1. 1
    Querius says:

    Scientists have pinpointed the moment in time our earliest ancestors evolved to be warm-blooded . . .

    Pinpointed. The exact. Moment. In time.

    Sheer puffery! “Scientists” don’t have a clue.

    -Q

  2. 2
    martin_r says:

    and here we go again:

    much later and far more quickly than the researchers expected.

    or the other article (from yesterday or so):

    This research overturns decades of thought [on what factors shape venom gene evolution…]

    Darwinists are always wrong … (of course they are wrong … they have to be, because they made up crazy absurd stories, and now, of course, these absurd just-so stories do not make any sense at closer/ deeper look)

    PS: off topic … an very interesting article at Creation.com about “Why reindeer eyes turn blue in winter”
    https://creation.com/reindeer-eyes-turn-blue-in-winter

  3. 3
    asauber says:

    “the exact moment in evolutionary time”

    There is no exact moment in evolutionary time. Evolution requires time spans to do it’s magic.

    Andrew

  4. 4
    relatd says:

    Woo hoo! I mean: Well, that’s fake.

  5. 5
    Seversky says:

    I don’t recall anything from ID about when warm-bloodedness appeared, nor do I see how anything about that could be inferred from a putative but unspecified designer.

  6. 6
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Seversky

    I don’t recall anything from ID about when warm-bloodedness appeared

    ID is the scientific proposal that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected, unintelligent cause.

  7. 7
    hoosfoos says:

    @5: suddenly. The sudden appearance of any complex feature or mechanism is consistent with ID expectations. It is counter to the expectations of gradualism.

  8. 8
    Seversky says:

    Silver Asiatic/6

    ID is the scientific proposal that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected, unintelligent cause.

    ID proponents going back to William Paley and before have been content with their belief that some form of intelligent agent – which for Christians is their God – is responsible for the world in which we find ourselves. They are less curious about the nature of this designer and investigating how it might have accomplished its designs.

    Darwin’s great achievement was to synthesize an explanation of how life diversified after it had appeared – an explanation that led to many lines of research which built out from his original theory. He didn’t just settle for a “who”. That is why evolution is a scientific theory and ID less so.

  9. 9
    Seversky says:

    Hoosfoos/7

    @5: suddenly. The sudden appearance of any complex feature or mechanism is consistent with ID expectations. It is counter to the expectations of gradualism

    Darwin stressed gradualism to try and convey to his readership the idea that large, complex organisms could have arisen from much simpler beginnings by long series’ of small, incremental steps. That said, he also allowed that evolution could proceed at different rates in different places and at different times, depending on circumstances.

    They appearance of an organism may appear sudden in the fragmentary fossil record but could still have taken place over millions of years. It may be abrupt in geological time but not so much in our time.

  10. 10
    ET says:

    sversky:

    ID proponents going back to William Paley and before have been content with their belief that some form of intelligent agent – which for Christians is their God – is responsible for the world in which we find ourselves. They are less curious about the nature of this designer and investigating how it might have accomplished its designs.

    Right, because they are more interested in how it all works and how it can be properly maintained. We can only speculate as to the nature of the designer. And it’s ok to not be able to understand how something was designed if said design is well above your understanding.

    Darwin’s great achievement was to synthesize an explanation of how life diversified after it had appeared – an explanation that led to many lines of research which built out from his original theory.

    He just made up a story. A narrative to rival Paley. Nothing more. No lines of research were built on evolution by means of blind and mindless processes.

    That is why evolution is a scientific theory and ID less so.

    There isn’t any scientific theory of evolution because evolution by means of blind and mindless processes, such as natural selection and drift, is total untestable nonsense. Unless you are discussing genetic diseases and deformities.

  11. 11
    ET says:

    seversky:

    Darwin stressed gradualism to try and convey to his readership the idea that large, complex organisms could have arisen from much simpler beginnings by long series’ of small, incremental steps.

    Right. One, long narrative. He never demonstrated that large, complex organisms could have arisen from much simpler beginnings by long series’ of small, incremental steps. No one has ever demonstrated that large, complex organisms could have arisen from much simpler beginnings by long series’ of small, incremental steps. That is why it isn’t a scientific theory.

  12. 12
    hoosfoos says:

    sev@9.
    Your understanding of the fossil record is not up to date.

    https://evolutionnews.org/2022/07/a-paleontologist-explains-intelligent-design-to-you/

  13. 13
    Alan Fox says:

    Followed your link, Horoscope. The assumption from you via David Klinghoffer is that Günter Bechly is representing an alternative (ID) perspective on palaeontology, am I right?

  14. 14
    Alan Fox says:

    Missed the predictive text alteration to horoscope, Hoosfoos.

    So, can we start here with Günter Bechly?

    https://evolutionnews.org/2022/04/species-pairs-a-new-challenge-to-darwinists/

    Seems he’s not up to speed on whale evolution in the fact that the nearest cousins of whales are hippos, not pigs.

    ETA Whippomorpha

  15. 15
    hoosfoos says:

    Alan @14
    Forgive me for chuckling, but your comment reminds me of a quote from the movie Groundhogs Day–“and watch your first step, it’s a doozie!”

    You have a golden opportunity to present to this forum the step-by-step process by which pigs, hippos, or cows, your choice, evolved into whales in a geologically short period of time.

  16. 16
    Caspian says:

    Why should we believe that natural forces (mainly gravity and the electromagnetic force), pushing and pulling on atoms, should be able to produce by chance a living cell (let alone a human)? Apart from the debated evolutionary paradigm for life’s origin on this planet, can we point to any other example where natural forces have accomplished anything close to what evolution assumes they can do? Valid scientific theories are affirmed by repeated observational evidence that is not restricted to single-case scenarios. Hiding behind the curtain of time and chance does make a real wizard out of nature. Any thoughts about this?

  17. 17
    ET says:

    Alan Fox:

    Seems he’s not up to speed on whale evolution in the fact that the nearest cousins of whales are hippos, not pigs.

    No one is up to speed on whale evolution, if by whale evolution you mean whales having a common ancestor that was a land mammal. That means there isn’t any such “fact” that hippos are any cousins of whales. You need a mechanism that is capable of accounting for the anatomical and physiological differences observed between whales and hippos. Yet no one even knows what makes a whale a whale nor a hippo a hippo.

  18. 18
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Seversky

    ID proponents going back to William Paley and before have been content with their belief that some form of intelligent agent – which for Christians is their God – is responsible for the world in which we find ourselves.

    Yes, because that inference is what best fits the data. Anti-ID attempts to refute that have been a failure so far.

    They are less curious about the nature of this designer and investigating how it might have accomplished its designs.

    On the contrary, they’re very curious about it, but ID doesn’t address that question. Again, ID is a scientific proposal not a religious postulate.

    Darwin’s great achievement was to synthesize an explanation of how life diversified after it had appeared – an explanation that led to many lines of research which built out from his original theory.

    Darwin’s ideas continue to be shown to be false and have led to many dead-ends and worse, some very destructive ideas. It’s an anti-human proposal based in irrational nihilism and is non-scientific.
    ID leads to a radical change of world-view for those who accept it. The idea that the world is ordered by intelligence and that humans emerged as part of an intelligent purpose has profound, positive effects on all areas of research and knowledge. So much so, that even Darwinian-atheists contradict their own professed views to embrace it.
    At the same time, the idea that human life is meaningless and is the result of a mindless event with no goal, purpose, moral conscience and ultimate destiny destroys the reason and meaning of any research.

    He didn’t just settle for a “who”.

    He settled for the Blind Watchmaker who has no vision for a future, can’t even see what tomorrow could bring, no awareness of value, beauty, understanding or goodness and cares only about eating and reproducing, and even those things are arbitrary and useless in the long run.
    That’s Darwin’s achievement and I think it’s something we could have all lived very well without.

  19. 19
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Caspian

    Apart from the debated evolutionary paradigm for life’s origin on this planet, can we point to any other example where natural forces have accomplished anything close to what evolution assumes they can do?

    We have gravity, water and erosion for example. We can see what those mindless forces create. We have volcanoes and ocean tides and tornadoes. They all produce certain effects.
    But no, nothing at all like what evolution claims.

  20. 20
    ET says:

    Alan Fox:

    Seems he’s not up to speed on whale evolution in the fact that the nearest cousins of whales are hippos, not pigs.

    Seems that Alan still cannot read for comprehension:

    The Sister Group of Whales
    In modern phylogenetic reconstructions hippos are consistently recovered as the sister group of whales. So, we might expect to find a comparable evolutionary disparity within this group. However, even though the river hippo (Hippopotamus amphibius) and pygmy hippo (Choeropsis liberiensis) diverged 9.6. million years ago, they share the same body plan and only differ somewhat in size and proportions. Still not convinced?

    Whoops.

    Alan must be referring to this:

    The fossil record shows that the transition from quadrupedal whale ancestors similar to Raoellidae (such as Indohyus) and Pakicetidae to fully marine pelagicete whales like Basilosauridae happened in just 4.5 million years. This implies that the body plan transition from a pig-like animal to a dolphin-like animal happened within the lifespan of a single species.

    Here he is talking about the alleged lineage, not the modern relationships.

  21. 21
    doubter says:

    Seversky, Alan Fox, et. al.:

    If you are so sure that great and complex biological designs can come about by an undirected blind chance happenstance-driven mechanism of millions of minute changes as speculated by Darwin, please show the evidence, starting with the Cambrian Explosion of animal body plans, and also include just one of the many mammalian body systems, in this case the thermoregulation system of warm-bloodedness featured in the Op. Also cover the well-known waiting-time problem for random mutations to produce the right adaptive micro-changes. According to the Op. article, for warm-bloodedness thermoregulation, this system probably came about in considerably less than the lifetime of a single species.

    A little information on this system:

    From https://www.rush.edu/news/how-body-regulates-heat:

    Temperature-regulating mechanism:

    This intricate apparatus balances heat production with heat loss, keeping the body at a temperature just right for optimal function. This balancing act is directed automatically and seamlessly by the hypothalamus, a small portion of the brain that serves as the command center for numerous bodily functions, including the coordination of the autonomic nervous system.

    Much like a thermostat regulates the temperature inside your home, the hypothalamus regulates your body temperature, responding to internal and external stimuli and making adjustments to keep the body within one or two degrees of 98.6 degrees.

    But unlike a thermostat, which simply turns the heat or air conditioning on or off until a desired temperature is reached, the hypothalamus must regulate and fine-tune a complex set of temperature-control activities. It not only helps to balance body fluids and maintain salt concentrations, it also controls the release of chemicals and hormones related to temperature.

    The hypothalamus works with other parts of the body’s temperature-regulating system, such as the skin, sweat glands and blood vessels — the vents, condensers and heat ducts of your body’s heating and cooling system.

    It looks like this system, like so many others, is probably irreducibly complex. We’re waiting.

  22. 22
    doubter says:

    Re. 21, as usual when asked to put up or shut up the Darwinists are strangely shy. I can hear the crickets it’s so quiet.

Leave a Reply