Saturday, 12 March 2011

Pondering a single Bible verse.

Naturally my chosen verse was used by Jesus to speak of Salvation, but its use seems to go beyond that:

“Very truly, I tell you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains just a single grain; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.” (John 12:24)

It is a verse which creationists should pay a fair bit of attention to, for it can teach us a lot. This verse, when read in English like this, is scientifically incorrect. (This is the same with other English translations, for example, "Very truly I tell you, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds." -NIV.) Some translators will point out that the Greek word used is flexible enough to mean something like "the ending of the former" leading to something new, instead of something dying. If we presuppose that the Bible is scientifically accurate then only this translation will do, however, contemporaries of Jesus believed that the grains died and it is likely that Jesus did too. This leads to two possibilities - either Jesus lacked knowledge, or he spoke to the people using their own misconceptions. 

If Jesus is THE incarnation of God and he lacked knowledge, then this is also possible of Scripture. Jesus is God's Word, whereas Scripture contains His words. The Bible, therefore, might actually be wrong on some things, such as science, whilst being eternally correct on Salvation issues. If Jesus comes down to the level of the listener and uses their own misconceptions, then the implication here is that God does the same. Genesis creation, for example, contains a lot of examples of contemporary views which are now outdated (pillars of the Earth for example). It does not become a push to suggest that God spoke to the authors at their own level, allowing them to use their own, irrelevant, scientific misconceptions. 

Even if this verse, in its original language, is not scientifically inaccurate, it still has some relevance to our understanding of science. Jesus describes a process of change, the bringing about of something new. This can be applied to Christ himself, where his death on the cross changed everything and brought about new life - this alone should be ample reading for seeing the death in the John verse as intended. Evolution by natural selection is a process which involves death, but it does not stop there. The death is instrumental in bringing about change, in bringing about new life. It is an act of redemption, which is small in scale compared to Christ on the cross, yet large in scale with regards to cosmic history. Many scientifically minded theologians have noted that evolution is a cruciform process. It redeems death into new life. What better way for Christ to create?

I expect that a creationist would not give these verses proper time. They might see the alternative Greek meaning and opt for that due to their presuppositions (we all do this now and again). As for evolution being cruciform, I have not yet seen a creationist response to that.

Friday, 11 March 2011

Shark Finning Should Be Stopped

Yesterday I watched A Serbian Film, which is fully intended to shock the audience and leave them disgusted with how depraved humanity can be (or the Serbian government, so the makers claim). Watching it did not shock me, I'm just not easily fazed. But this did:



Shark finning is a massive industry, with shark's fins being used for the eponymous shark fin soup. One of the annoying things is that the fins add no flavour, only a texture which is used more or less as a status symbol. Sharks are being killed in their millions, with potential irrevocable damage to the ecosystems in our oceans. But the most disgusting thing, to me at least, is that they throw the sharks back into the water without their fins, where they sink to the bottom and die.

I sadly missed a lecture on sharks recently, so I can't say much about them, though a look at their dermal denticles should show one of the many incredible facets of this beautiful group of animals which has been around for hundreds of millions of years. Dermal denticles are little tooth-like structures in the skin of sharks. They help provide streamlining, so running your hand from the head to toe of a shark feels really smooth; run your hand in the opposite direction and you will get a nasty little surprise - it is really jagged. Some shark denticles are very elaborate and make beautiful fossils, though you would need a microscope to truly appreciate them. Even though I know little about sharks I still have a favourite, meet Stethacanthus: 



Wednesday, 2 March 2011

Buy this book!

Every book which I have picked up in the last few months has ended up on an ever-growing pile of books I have not yet finished. I don't know why, but I have just not had the motivation to read a full book. Until last weekend. I had some travelling to do and had stumbled across a book which piqued my interest. The book is Darwin's Lost World - The hidden history of animal life by Martin Brasier, the professor of palaeobiology at Oxford. I first came across the author as he wrote the textbook Microfossils which is used on my course. I have also come across papers by him on one of my favourite topics - Ediacarans, so to find a pop. science offering was tantalising. I have also had personal communication with Prof Brasier, which was incredibly useful and prompt. I already had a good impression of him when I found the book and considering it covers my favourite topics, I did not expect disappointment. My expectations were met and there is a strong chance I will read it again.



The book takes a look at an enigma which stumped Darwin - the start of the Cambrian was marked by the sudden appearance of advanced animal forms with no precursors, something which Darwin put down to the insufficiency of the fossil record. Ever since Darwin we have accumulated more and more evidence of what was occurring before the Cambrian diversification, yet it still remains largely shrouded in mystery. The fossils we have found are all problematic and difficult to fit neatly into the grand scheme of things. Brasier tackles this mystery superbly and his contribution deserves to be on my list of recommended palaeontology books. If I were to recommend only three pop. palaeontology books they would be Gould's Wonderful Life, Fortey's Trilobite and this one. Interestingly enough these books all overlap in their subject and both of these authors get a good mention in Darwin's Lost World. I don't want to compare Brasier to Gould and Fortey, as it is unfair to compare any science writer to Gould (he really was in a league of his own) and Fortey is my personal favourite. Further to that though, Brasier's writing is spot on and stands on its own. He writes with clarity and his book should be highly accessible to non-palaeontologists. He writes very personally as well, recounting his own involvement in the deciphering of the fossil record of the events in question. He also writes with humour, throwing in some very playful analogies throughout.

The title might suggest that this is a book about Darwin, but it is so much more than that. Darwin is quoted often, however, the book is more a look into the enigma itself. Brasier does a good job of showing where palaeontologists in the past have been asking the wrong questions or making unwarranted assumptions. Politics also play a part and not in a boring way. Tensions ride high when countries are competing for the same goal, something which palaeontology is not devoid of. As with any good book written by an accomplished palaeontologist, Darwin's Lost World gives insight into palaeontology, from the competition, to the extreme field work sometimes required. It also gives a good sense of science's ability to cross international boundaries, with much of the important work coming from countries thousands of miles apart.

An important question, though, is whether or not I learnt anything. As this book covers my favourite subject there was a risk that I might already know the majority of things mentioned. I am pleased to say that I still have a lot to learn and Darwin's Lost World has taught me rather a lot, putting much of it into perspective too. I've never looked at the early Cambrian trilobite Fallotaspis before, which is now high on my 'to do' list, nor have I looked at the earliest brachiopods such as Aldanotreta. 


Fallotaspis - an early Cambrian trilobite, with holochroal eyes.


One of the stand out parts of the book is when Brasier looks at three different approaches to explaining the Cambrian explosion and whether it was a real phenomenon. He names these Lyell's Hunch, Daly's Ploy and Sollas's Gambit. Lyell's Hunch is the view that the Cambrian explosion is not real, but due to the paucity of the fossil record; this view exists today in a more modified form, where the ancestors of modern phyla are believed to be quite deep into the Precambrian, yet avoided fossilisation due to something such as having small-sized soft bodies. Daly's Ploy instead looks to environmental factors, suggesting that something such as ocean chemistry may have prevented the secretion of hard parts, so when this changed organisms were able to explode in diversity; this view is rather common today, with many scientists looking for environmental triggers. Sollas's Gambit is the view that the change was due to the organisms themselves, perhaps the ability to secrete shells had evolved; again, this view is found today and has many different variants. Brasier does an excellent job of exploring these possibilities and throughout the book he keeps a good level of scepticism towards the interpretations of others.


Predation, causing predator-prey relationships, is held to be one of the most important factors. The evolution of the mollusc shell is linked in with the evolution of predatory worms, perhaps chaetognaths, which Protohertzina might possibly be.  Brasier uses the analogy of a landslide to show how small changes within the system may cause large amounts of change, and although I agree with him on that point, I do think it gives an idea which is incorrect. It gives the idea that the origin of phyla were big changes, rather than pointing out that they are only phyla in hindsight, after millions of years of evolution, but at the time two groups diverged they were likely as similar as two closely related species. New body plans become difficult to evolve at later stages as they become rather fixed, so something we would label as a phylum is not to be expected as we look at more recent organisms. I get the feeling that Brasier did not intend for the interpretation of "large jumps in the past", but it is a plausible reading.

A modern chaetognath worm.

Darwin's Lost World explores many of the big ideas surrounding the Cambrian explosion. It is an excellent book to read for an introduction to how fossilisation has evolved and to how the substrate in the ocean changed significantly in the early Cambrian through bioturbation. It also takes a good look at the snowball Earth hypothesis and how it has been caught up in the conflation of cause and effect in the study of early animal life. Brasier raises the interesting possibility that the end of snowball Earth did not trigger multicellular evolution, but that the evolution of mutlicellularity caused the snowball Earth glaciations.

If you read the book and like me are interested in Ediacarans then this book will be highly informative, though if you desire resolution you will be disappointed (I personally loved that I came out with more questions than answers, which is a good sign with Ediacarans). Brasier beautifully shows just how enigmatic this fossil group is, keeping them shrouded in mystery even though he teaches us a lot about them. All connections to modern organisms are shown to be rather unreasonable and he even does so for Kimberella, which many believe to be a mollusc. He does this merely by suggesting that the least exciting explanation is more likely, offering the possibilities of partial moulds by either microbial filaments, protozoa or the decay of something like Dickinsonia, possibilities which have not been properly examined (I am sceptical, but the latter possibility intrigues me).

Brasier does not just successfully show how little we know about Ediacaran phylogeny, but also how little we know about such ancient ecosystems. We have a bad habit of trying to work out how things lived based on how their relatives live now. Sponges, for example, are considered to be very primitive, yet their modern ecological habits are intertwined and dependent on more advanced organisms. Trying to picture a world of simple sponges is simply wrong if we see them as functioning like their modern representatives.

Overall Darwin's Lost World is an excellent contribution from a world expert on such a fascinating subject, covering a breadth of evidence. It is easily accessible yet highly informative and even-handedly assesses the evidence, rather than forcing a particular conclusion. If you like science then this book should be a thrilling read. If you are interested in palaeontology this should be on your bookshelf. And if like me you are interested in the Cambrian diversification events, then this book is an absolute must read!