Monthly Archives: May 2020

The concept of the crossover is not a new one, but the marketing term that gave birth to the segment is. The SUV came into its own in the late 1980s and early 1990s as, mostly, a more comfortable truck. SUVs were, and still are, brawny and capable in all conditions, and utility was the keyword in the Sport Utility Vehicle. Then, in the mid-1990s, the crossover as we know it now showed up.

There's no official definition for a crossover, but we've mostly come to know it as an SUV style vehicle based around a car's chassis. A crossover typically has the everyday practicality of an SUV but sacrifices off-road and towing ability, to varying degrees, to gain the road manners of a car. In the mid-1990s, automakers started building crossovers to be family-friendly and with enough ride height to take on rough surfaces. Most crossovers also either came standard with all-wheel-drive or as an option. However, the first genuine attempt a crossover showed up in the US in 1980, and that's where we'll start.

Read the original:

The Evolution Of The Crossover: 40 Years In The Making - CarBuzz

Robert F. Shedingers interesting post yesterday onLouis Agassizbrought to my mind some additional thoughts on this complex figure in the annals of American science. Shedinger is quite correct in highlighting Agassizs staunch opposition to Darwin and his creationist perspective. He is also correct in pointing out Agassizs tireless efforts at working to bring American science up to the standards of Europe. This, as he points out, includes his establishment of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard as well as his role in founding the National Academy of Sciences. These are indisputably notable achievements.

Agassiz had his demons, however, and Shedinger cites my article, Plato Meets Polygeny, that discusses his rather benighted racial views (available open access in theJournal of the Southern Association for the History of Medicine and Science). In fact, those views make Agassiz a problematic figure in the complex intellectual terrain of mid-19th century Anglo-America. (Since this essay is readily obtainable, Ill not belabor the details here.) But despite the significance of Agassizs scientific accomplishments, his heavy historical baggage cannot be lightly discarded or ignored.

First of all, his biblical exegesis of multiple Adams with its presumption of separate racial origins (and hierarchies) incurred the ire of the vast majority of the Christian community even inhis own day, with only Southern sympathizers rushing to its defense more for political than religious reasons. Orthodoxy was quickly cast aside by apologists for the Souths peculiar institution, a dubious alliance at best for a man of science like Agassiz.

But second, and more importantly, Agassizs racial views were not, in the final analysis, that far from Darwins own. Like Darwin, Agassiz was convinced that craniometry was an accurate measure of racial difference and mental capacity. Darwins approving references to the craniometric data of Paul Broca and Joseph Barnard Davis were matched by Agassizs embrace of Samuel George MortonsCrania Americana(1839) andCrania gyptiaca(1844). Despite Agassizs vocal opposition to Darwinian evolution, he ended up siding with Darwin on the race question. Thomas Henry Huxley largely echoed Darwins and Agassizs sentiments on race.

How could this be? It turns out Agassiz makes the same mistake Darwin did; he failed to make an all-important distinction between human and animal. Agassiz wrote, the differences existing between races of men are of the same kind as the differences observed between the different families, genera, and species of monkeys or other animals; and that these different species of animals differ in the same degree one from the other as the races of men, some even more so. Agassiz emphasized that this is one of the most important and unexpected features in the Natural History of Mankind. This is hardly different from Darwins own assertion in hisDescent of Man(1871) that there is no fundamental difference between man and the higher mammals in their mental faculties. Whatever Agassizs creationist commitments, he (like Darwin) made a cardinal error: he rejected human exceptionalism, a foundational Judeo-Christian concept. In short, Agassiz practiced heterodox religion and bad science.

If I had to praise a contemporary of both Agassiz and Darwin who didnotshare these untenable notions it would be Richard Owen, an opponent of Darwin who defended racial equality on scientific grounds and held to a structuralist formulation of nature fully compatible with purpose and human exceptionalism. Owens courageous defense of racial equality and Huxleys disingenuous Darwinian racism is carefully examined in Christopher E. CosanssOwens Ape & Darwins Bulldog.

Whenever I think of Agassiz I can only recall his statue buried in the pavement in front of the Stanford zoology building following the San Francisco earthquake of 1906, a tragicomic reminder of a once famous scientist who ended up irrelevant even to a fellow Darwin doubter like American science polymath James Dwight Dana. As I conclude in my essay, Agassiz became a lamentable figure lost in the murky shadows of his own Platonist forms. And there he will likely remain.

Photo: Statue of Agassiz buried in the pavement, 1906, Stanford University, by Frank Davey / Public domain.

Read the rest here:

Louis Agassiz: Some Additional Thoughts - Discovery Institute

BusinessEvolving health research could catalyse demand for high-end office space in Scotlands cities from the burgeoning life sciences sector, according to Knight Frank.

Tuesday, 12th May 2020, 4:45 pm

The UK Life Sciences report from the property consultancy which has offices in Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Glasgow and Melrose has found that growing collaboration between companies in the industry and the wider tech sector, plus more computational science, will cause seismic shifts in the industrys property requirements.

As medical technology, biopharmaceutical, and digital health companies become more interdependent, property will need to reflect their growing need to cluster in new locations, according to the report. It also highlighted the 750 million expansion plans at Edinburghs BioQuarter and the establishment of the Medicines Manufacturing Centre in Renfrewshire as examples of the trend already taking hold in Scotland.

Knight Frank also said Edinburgh and Glasgow were among the top UK locations for investment in digital health, attracting 30m and 10.5m respectively.Scottish Development International says there are more than 750 life sciences organisations in Scotland, with the sector adding 2.4 billion to the economy, on track to reach turnover of 8bn by 2025.

Lee Elliott, Knight Franks global head of occupier research, said: Covid-19 has brought the growing importance of life science and health research companies to the fore. The needs of the NHS, and other health services, will likely cause an acceleration in the convergence of technology and life sciences, particularly around digital diagnostics and preventative medicine.

The restructuring of life sciences companies will bring a new wave of demand from the sector, particularly in Scotland where [small and medium-sized enterprises] make up the majority of the industry.

Indeed, landlords that are able to provide flexible, cost-effective space to accommodate the rapid growth these companies can achieve and help them track their investment will be well-positioned. So too will facilities that are future-proof and capable of manufacturing advanced therapeutics.

Occupier services partner Simon Capaldi said: The shift towards more computational [research and development] will see an increase in the need for more conventional office space in city-centre locations. It is perhaps no surprise that were seeing more demand from the sector in Edinburgh, which offers a deep pool of data science talent.

Tech, more broadly, has emerged over the past five years or so as a significant source of activity in Edinburghs office market, accounting for around one-third of city centre take-up.

A message from the Editor:

Thank you for reading this story on our website. While I have your attention, I also have an important request to make of you.With the coronavirus lockdown having a major impact on many of our advertisers - and consequently the revenue we receive - we are more reliant than ever on you taking out a digital subscription.Subscribe to scotsman.com and enjoy unlimited access to Scottish news and information online and on our app. With a digital subscription, you can read more than 5 articles, see fewer ads, enjoy faster load times, and get access to exclusive newsletters and content. Visit http://www.scotsman.com/subscriptions now to sign up.

Our journalism costs money and we rely on advertising, print and digital revenues to help to support them. By supporting us, we are able to support you in providing trusted, fact-checked content for this website.

Read the original:

Evolution of life sciences to spur need for high-end office space in Scots cities - The Scotsman

The video comes from Free Wheelie and covers 28 years of superbike development. It all started with the 1992 BMW R1100RS making 90 hp from its boxer engine and the motorcycle evolved into the track-focused superbikes like the limited edition HP4 Race and the latest generation S1000RR launched last year which makes 207hp and a top speed of 305 kph.

BMW R1100RS was fitted with a 1085cc air-cooled boxer engine making 90hp and 95 Nm (70 lb.-ft) of torque. Even the top speed was normal considering the modern-day track machines - 218 kph (135 mph). It weighed 239 kg (527 pounds) and featured a five-speed manual transmission with a shaft final drive.

The motorcycle was replaced in 98 with the R1100S model which came along with a slight increase in power and torque. It delivered 98 hp, 97 Nm ( 71 lb.-ft) of torque and reached a top speed of 227 kph (141 mph). The new model was slimmer with a weight of 208 kg (458 pounds) while the bodywork was more sport-focused.

Its bigger brother was launched in 2006 in the form of the R1200S. This time around the bike had an increase in engine size, a new 1170cc boxer making 122hp and 112Nm (82 lb.-ft) of torque. All this power was enough to help the bike reach a top speed of 241 kph (under 150 mph) while the weight sat at 198 kg (436 pounds).

Two years later, BMW introduced the HP2 Sport. Now, the 1170cc boxer engine developed 138 hp and a maximum torque level of 115 Nm (85 lb-ft). It was the third model of the HP range. The motorcycle had a top speed of 248 kph (154 mph) while the weight sat at 178 kg (392 pounds). These figures helped BMW to make a decision and develop the first generation of the S1000RR superbike.

Back in 2009, BMW launched the S1000RR model. Theyve ditched the boxer engine in favour of a 999cc inline-four configuration which had an output of 193 hp and a maximum torque of 112 Nm (82 lb-ft). The claimed top speed was 305 kph (just a slight under 190 mph). The motorcycle featured a dry weight of 183 kg (403 pounds) and it featured electronics like Race ABS, DTC, and a couple of rider aids.

Three years later, the model was upgraded and in 2015 a new generation was launched featuring 199hp, 310 kph (194 mph) top speed and a dry weight of 175 kg (386 pounds). Also, it had a new frame and geometry, pit lane limiter like a MotoGP bike, cruise control and launch control.

Moving two years later, BMW launched the track only HP4 Race boosting 212 hp, a top speed of 312 kph (195 mph) while the weight dropped to 146 kg (322 pounds). It has featured a carbon fibre frame, carbon wheels and a carbon fibre bodywork which made the bike lighter than the factory World Superbike Championship bikes. It was a limited edition of just 750 units.

Last year the German manufacturer unveiled the latest generation S1000RR. Its fitted with the 999cc inline-four, this time making 207 hp and 112 Nm (82 lb-ft) of torque. Top speed is set at 305 kph (190 mph).

The superbike features the new variable valve timing system based on the R1250 range Shiftcam technology which allows seamless adjustment of valve lift for enhanced efficiency and reduced emissions. Moreover, the bike is faster and easier to ride on track compared to its predecessor.

The S1000RR has a dry weight of 171 kg (377 pounds) while the electronic package includes partly-integral ABS as standard and has an option to be switched off, different riding modes, Gear Shift Assist Pro and an option to add the M package. This was the bike has track-focused electronic aids, such as DTC +/- Shift, ABS Settings, engine mappings, wheelie and slide control to name a few.

Continue reading here:

A Brief Insight on the Evolution of the BMW S1000RR - DriveMag Riders

Subrena SmithPhoto: University of New Hampshire

Its not often that a paperattempts to take down an entire field. Yet, this past January, thats precisely what University of New Hampshire assistant philosophy professorSubrena Smiths paper tried to do. Is Evolutionary Psychology Possible? describes a major issue with evolutionary psychology, called the matching problem.

The field of evolutionary psychology is no stranger to critiques, given its central idea: that human behaviors can be explained in evolutionary terms and that the core units governing our actions havent changed since the Stone Age. But Smiths paper garnered a particularly strong response after science journalist Adam Rutherford discussed it on Twitter and PZ Myers discussed it in his Pharyngula blog.

We at Gizmodo have long rolled our eyes at the often-nonsensical conclusions that some people come to when employing evolutionary psychology theory, so we were excited to chat with Smith about her work. This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.

Gizmodo: Your papers main refutation of the field is something called the matching problem. Can you explain what that is?

Subrena Smith: Evolutionary psychologists thought is that, for at least some of our behaviors, they believe that we havedare I use this termhard-wired cognitive structures that are operating in all of us contemporary human beings the same way they did for our ancestors on the savannas. The idea is that, in the modern world, we have sort of modern skulls, but the wiringthe cognitive structure of the brain itselfis not being modified, because enough evolutionary time hasnt passed. This goes for evolutionary functions like mate selection, parental care, predator avoidancethat our brains were pretty much in the same state as our ancestors brains. The sameness in how our brains work is on account of genetic selection for particular modules that are still functional in our environment today. [Editors note: These modules refer to the idea that the brain can be divided up into discrete structures with specific functions.]

The matching problem is really the core issue that evolutionary psychologists have to show that they can meet: that there is really a match between our modules and the modules of the prehistoric ancestors; that theyre working the same way then as now; and that these modules are working the same way because they are descended from the same functional lineage or causal lineage. But I dont see any way that these charges can be answered.

Gizmodo: What inspired you to write this paper?

Smith: I talked about some of these issues in my dissertation, but the ideas got mature and seasoned since graduate school. I suppose the question is, why evolutionary psychology? I was associated roughly with that scene some years ago. I found the evolutionary psychology explanations of human behavior in themselves evocative but also puzzling, given what I understood of the theory of evolution, particularly the importance of variation. People have been talking about it for so long, saying that its not workable, its problematic. Ive never taken that attitude. Ive seen evolutionary psychologists as scientists trying to figure things out. My approach has been to think carefully about what theyre doing. I didnt have an attitude of, this is just ridiculous. I wanted to carefully try to articulate what seems to be a fatal problem with the framework and to put it out there.

Gizmodo: Can you give some examples of scenarios of the matching problem in action?

Smith: Heres the problem. With respect to human beings, we dont have the relevant evidence about how our ancestors behaved to make any substantiative claims. We can only use evidence of our behavior and evidence of the likely kinds of behaviors that they would have exhibited in the past. We know that ancient humans avoided predation, for instance. What exactly they did is something evolutionary psychologists have to show. Did our ancestors avoid predation because they were good at hiding in bushes or because they were running? Evolutionary psychologists would say that the better explanation is that they were running. But the fact that they ran to avoid predation and the fact that we have the disposition to run when were endangered still does not establish that theres a singular module doing both of those jobs.

Gizmodo: You flesh out another example, from a paper by Aaron Goetz and Kayla Causey about cuckoldry. Can you explain this?

Smith: The hypothesis is that, in the environment of evolutionary adaptation, mate infidelity was costlier for males than it was for females. Presumably, its on accountof the fact that, if youre a man, you might end up taking care of someone elses child. So college students were asked how likely it is that theyd have sexual intercourse with someone other than their current partner. Now, one of my major charges with evolutionary psychologists is that they go to the ordinary folks, college students, and they ask them questions about such intimate things like their sexual behavior. We know that people are wanting to not be honest about such matters, and, of course, evolutionary psychologists are aware of this. The second issue is that the answers given to these sorts of questions are then generalized to humanity in general.

The thought is that we expect to find this particular behavior in the contemporary world, namely that respondents who answered these questions are apt to be vigilant around their mate; males in this context are inclined to be vigilant around their female partner. (The study authors didnt ask any questions about same-sex relationships, but lets set that aside). Evolutionary psychologists posit that, based on these questionnaire answers, mate guarding behavior is driven by a hard-wired, domain-specific cognitive module whose function is to procure and protect ones mate from extramarital relationships. But their evidence is nothing more than the responses given to these prying questions by contemporary college students. My worry is that it doesnt begin to be a scientific study. Theres no way to move from the contemporary case to the prehistoric case, which is a hypothesized case about how prehistoric males behaved with respect to their mates and cheating.

The hypothesis is: Were getting these reports from the U.S. context because theres a module they inherited from their ancestors. So were moving from a report of how people would behave in these situations to claims about how our ancestors did in fact behave. This is really deeply flawed. I dont think that this is good enough for the sorts of things that evolutionary psychologists want their theory to do. You need more than that.

Gizmodo: What are some of the potential harms of evolutionary psychology as a theory?

Smith: While I think that evolutionary theory is the only game in town to give us accounts of biological questions when were thinking about evolutionary history and claims about selection, I also think its grossly misappropriated. One of the things people tend to forget is that in On the Origin of Species, Darwin takes several chapters to talk about variations. And yet the impression one gets from evolutionary psychologists for uses of evolutionary theory is that, when were talking about human begins and our brains, evolution has given us this static system. That our brains are static. And in fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Our brains are dynamic, our behaviors are dynamic, were imaginative, we generate novel behaviors in contexts that never exhibited themselves. That variation is one of the things about evolution we should be including more in our theories.

The evolutionary psychologists I engage with are not silly people. They are thoughtful and philosophical about these matters. However, the attractiveness of evolutionary theory coupled with peoples ideological biases forces them to not be as careful as they might be otherwise. I think that the consequences for our world when we misappropriate evolutionary accounts are really serious. People are saying that people of color have smaller brains, which is not true, or that women arent as great as men, which is not true... I think we have a special responsibility, when we say evolution made us that way, to recognize that people will read innate or hardwired as synonymous with evolution. We should be especially careful to not be making claims like these, which can have consequences.

If you say evolution made us so, then governments can rightly say you dont have the capacity to do something, so we wont use our resources to make you do stuff you cant do. This is about the science and politicsmaking sure that were not misappropriating the science to underwrite our politics in a way to suit interests, be they my interests or their interests. If I have interests inconsistent with what the science says, I dont think I should be given a pass. But my view is that I dont see the framework of evolutionary psychology as-is providing us with an explanation of human behavior that we can get behind.

Gizmodo: I know the paper made a big splash. Can you tell me what the response has been like?

Smith: I did a [post] of sort for this evolution blog, and I understand that someone responded to me. Im happy to have the intellectual conversation. Im not a tweeter and I dont have a Twitter account. My spouse is, and he tells me that there have been some not-so-nice things, as well as people who are championing my cause. Adam Rutherford, who I really like, a British broadcaster who was a geneticist, was one of the first people to pick up the paper and say the arguments were compelling and that evolutionary psychologists should be answering these arguments. But otherwise, I told my husband I dont want to hear stuff from Twitter, particularly if its a teaching day. Its fair to say that its been not very nice, and also people who have been thoughtful in their responses, plus lots of people asking me if I want to write something for them. Thats a good thing, but I dont have time.

Gizmodo: Whats your end goal? What do you want from evolutionary psychologists?

Smith: My little paper isnt going to stop this discipline. Its not going to cease departments where evolutionary psychology is thriving from existing. I do hope it gets a conversation going. I actually think that it is a worthy project to ask ourselves questions about how are we related to our prehistoric ancestors in such things as behaviors.

My view is that while we might talk about similarity and ancestry with respect to normal physical phenotypes, I am reluctant to go there with behaviors. For me, its really because of the flexibility that is needed in order for any organism to thrive in the environments that they find themselves... Long story short, what I hope this paper does is gets us all thinking a little bit deeper about what is it to talk about evolution and psychology and human behavior.

Read the original:

This Philosopher Is Challenging All of Evolutionary Psychology - Gizmodo

Sponges are sessile marine invertebrates that are considered to be the most basal and most primitive branch of the multicellular animals (Metazoa). Therefore, evolutionists would expect to find such sponges as the earliest animals in the fossil record. Also, immunological evidence (Wilkinson 1984) and especially molecular clock data placed the origin of sponges long before the Cambrian and even before the Ediacaran era (Peterson et al. 2004,Sperling et al. 2007,Sperling et al. 2010,Erwin et al. 2011,Cunningham et al. 2017a). Consequently, the alleged discovery of sponge-like fossils from layers prior to the Cambrian explosion, which gave rise to all the more complex animal phyla, was welcomed by evolutionary biologists as clear confirmation of Darwins theory. When the branching order of reconstructed phylogenetic relationships agrees well with the stratigraphic order of appearance in the fossil record, evolutionary biologists speak of so-called stratigraphic fit. The existence of Precambrian fossil sponges was accepted as established fact in many textbooks and academic articles (e.g.,Debrenne & Reitner 2001,Reitner 2005,Budd 2008,Mller et al. 2009). A perfect example isCarrera & Botting (2008), who confidently stated that it is fairly clear that sponges possess a long record back to the Proterozoic, represented in the Ediacara fauna. The evidence seemed convincing enough that even most critics of Darwinian evolution acknowledged the existence of sponges prior to the Cambrian explosion (e.g.,Meyer 2013,Evolution News2016).

I will show that this concession was premature and much too generous. Lets see how good or rather how embarrassingly bad the case for Precambrian sponges really is and have an exhaustive look at all the potential candidates in alphabetical order.

Ausia fenestratais known from a few specimens from the Ediacaran of Namibia and Russia. These about 5 cm small fossils look like a triangular bag with numerous ovate depressions or openings in it. It has been considered to be a cnidarian sea pen by its original describers (Hahn & Plug 1985), or a halkieriid stem mollusk (Dzik 2011), or a chordate tunicate (ascidian) (Fedonkin et al. 2007, 2008,2012), or a sponge-like animal related to the Cambrian Archaeocyatha or even as a true sponge (Fedonkin 1996, McMenamin 1998: 38-39). This shows that the preserved characters are totally insufficient for any definite placement. Unsurprisingly,Antcliffe et al. (2014)consideredAusiaas failing to meet the diagnostic criteria of sponges, andMuscente (2015)commented that such interpretations of aspiculate organisms are inherently subjective, and the affinities of the fossils remain disputed. Interestingly, another genus and species that has been attributed to the same family Ausiidae,Burykhia huntifrom the Ediacaran of Russia, was considered by its describers (Fedonkin et al. 2012) as a possible tunicate, but no possible relation to sponges was even mentioned.

Coronacollina aculais a very strange Ediacaran organism described byClites et al. (2012)from Australia. The fossil is a triradial cone-like mound with four 37 cm long radial spicules, which has been considered as resembling the Cambrian demosponge genusChoia.Coronacollinahas been called the oldest organism with a skeleton and in this way considered as a precursor to the Cambrian explosion (UC Riverside 2012). Serezhnikova (2014) accepted the similarity withChoiaand stated that records of Coronacollina supported the Precambrian origin of sponges and their ability for biomineralization in the Late Proterozoic. In their revision of Ediacaran tri-radial body plans,Hall et al. (2018)excludedCoronacollinafrom the otherwise monophyletic group Trilobozoa or Triradialomorpha, but did not propose any other relationships.Muscente et al. (2015)refuted any structural similarity of the spicules with those of sponges.Cunningham et al. (2017a)observed that there is not even a definite association with the putative spicules and concluded: As such, neither Palaeophragmodictya nor Coronacollina are considered to reflect poriferans, or even metazoans, on the basis of current evidence. None of the recent exhaustive revisions of putative Precambrian sponges still consideredCoronacollinaworthy of discussion (Antcliffe et al. 2014,Botting & Muir 2017).

Cucullus fraudulentusis a bag-like or tube-like fossil and represents the most abundant and largest organism from the Neoproterozoic Miaohe biota of the Doushatuo Formation in China. It was described by Steiner (1994: 125) as a putative cyanobacterial colony or mega-alga of uncertain affinity. Chen et al. (1994) suggested that their new species,Sinospongia hubeiensis, later been synonymized withCucullus fraudulentus, is a poriferan. Therefore, Li et al. (1996) and Hu (1997) attributedCucullusto demosponges, whileSteiner & Reitner (2001)still considered them as microbial colonies. Due to poor preservation, its morphology and affinities remained unclear. ThusXiao et al. (2002)still could not decide if it was a sponge or a siphonous green alga. Finks et al. (2004) rejected an affinity ofCuculluswith sponges in their revised edition of the prestigiousTreatise on Invertebrate Paleontology.Xiao & Dong (2006)consideredCucullusto be a protoarenicolid, which these authors do not identify as an animal but as dasycladacean algae. When new and better preserved material became available from the Doushantuo Formation in China,Wang & Wang (2011)resurrected an affinity to demosponges based on the observation of assumed organic walls formed by non-mineralized spongin fibers.Antcliffe et al. (2014)disagreed and concluded:

There is however, no unequivocal morphological evidence to support assignment to the Porifera. Furthermore, no spicules have been described in association with Cucullus. We conclude that assignment to the Porifera is highly speculative and that Cucullus fails the diagnosis test as the possibility that the specimens are microbialites seems to us much more likely.

Lets repeat this in plain English:Cucullusis not a sponge but rather of microbial origin.Serezhnikova (2014)also found that the interpretation ofCucullusandSinospongiaas sponges and their comparison withVaveliksiaare difficult to support.Muscente (2015)basically agreed with that skeptical position.

Eocyathispongiaqianiawas described byYin et al. (2015)after a single specimen from the Early Ediacaran Doushantuo Formation in China, as a sponge grade fossil with cellular resolution. Of course, it was immediately celebrated in the popular media as the discovery of the oldest sponge (Yirka 2015).Cunningham et al. (2017a)remarked:

It represents the most plausible report of a sponge from the Precambrian. However, more analyses and specimens are needed to test this hypothesis. In particular, high-resolution tomographic analysis of the walls of the specimen could reveal whether pores are present, and therefore whether Eocyathispongia could have functioned as a sponge.

Cunningham et al. (2017b)commented, Eocyathispongiais considered to be one of the strongest candidates for a Precambrian sponge. However, although it could be a sponge, it has no convincing sponge apomorphies such as pores or spicules, just a generalized sponge gestalt.Bottjer et al. (2019)rather suggested that although it contains no characters that are exclusive to crown group sponges , if not a stem group sponge it could be an extinct organism between the last common ancestor of metazoans and the last common ancestor of living sponges. However,Botting & Muir (2018)in their review of early sponge evolution mention a severe problem for the sponge hypothesis:

Eocyathispongia is an extremely interesting fossil, but several features are not easily compatible with sponge biology. The morphology is problematic for a sponge, especially a very small one, as it appears to actively minimise the available surface area for incurrent pores, on which it would depend for feeding.

In my view this tiny fossil, which is only about a single millimeter in size, represents just another vase-shaped encysting protist from the Doushantuo layers (Li et al. 2008).

Namapoikiarietoogensisis a calcified reef-building organism of up to one meter size, discovered in the Ediacaran Nama group of southern Namibia. In the original description its affinities have been considered to be with either cnidarians or sponges (Wood et al. 2002).Zhuralev et al. (2012)agreed thatNamapoikiais only of a cnidarian or poriferan grade of organisationAntcliffe et al. (2014)clarified in their large revision of alleged Precambrian sponges that diagnostic poriferan morphological characteristics are lacking and that such a structure could arrive from the calcification of microbial colonies.Wood & Curtis (2015)still considered it to be of uncertain affinity, though resembling chaetetid sponges or simple colonial cnidarians.Cunningham et al. (2017a)said thatNamapoikiapossesses no characters diagnostic of any particular eukaryotic group.Wood & Penny (2018)finally placed its probable affinity within total-group poriferans, mainly based on similarities in growth pattern and (inferred!) biomineralization. They concluded that such an interpretation confirms the presence of poriferans, with calcareous skeletons, in the terminal Ediacaran. However,Tang et al. (2019)remained unconvinced and offered the qualification that Namapoikiahas been interpreted as an encrusting poriferan, but more work is needed to confirm that it is a calcified encrusting sponge rather than a microbial structure, which strongly suggests thatNamapoikiastill fails to meet the diagnostic criteria required byAntcliffe et al. (2014).

Curiously,Wikipediaclaims thatZhuralev et al. (2015)instead proposed an affinity with lophophorate bilaterian animals or their stem group. However, this is total nonsense and factually incorrect as this paper does not even remotely make such a claim. This example shows how utterly unreliableWikipediais as source for scientifically accurate information.

Otavia antiquais an irregular spheroid microfossil found in 760-550 million year old layers in Namibia, of which some predate the Ediacaran and even the assumed neoproterozoic snowball earth period called Cryogenian. It was described as a sponge-like fossil byBrain et al. (2012), and again celebrated by the press as Namibia sponge fossils are worlds first animals (AFP 2012,Gess 2012).Antcliffe et al. (2014)rejected its identification as a sponge and remarked that alternative hypotheses have not been sufficiently explored and/or have been rejected without sufficient reason. They even raised severe doubts thatOtaviais a genuine fossil of biogenic origin at all, or maybe of microbial origin rather than an animal. Antcliffe et al. concluded that no features are presented that are diagnostic of sponges. We interpret these objects as calciphosphate grains that have been pitted by sediment reworking. This sounds much less spectacular and thus did not hit the news headlines. Even the more recent textbook byJain (2016: page 7),Fundamentals of Invertebrate Palaeontology,ignored the refutation and still teaches gullible students the obsolete story thatOtaviais a calcareous sponge and the oldest animal.

The type speciesPalaeophragmodictya reticulatawas described byGehling & Rigby (1996)as long expected sponges from the Neoproterozoic Ediacara fauna of South Australia. The very title of their work shows how eagerly Darwinists longed for an empirical confirmation of their theoretical expectations. The sponge affinity was accepted by most other authors (e.g.,Seilacher 1999, Finks et al. 2004,McCall 2006). About ten years later a second speciesP. spinosawas discovered bySerezhnikova (2007)in the White Sea region of Russia and demolished these expectations again. She did not identifyPalaeophragmodictyaas sponge at all, but recognized that it is just a holdfast of an unknown sessile organism (again affirmed bySerezhnikova 2014) that might have been a cnidarian. Nevertheless, the story was apparently too nice to be spoiled by stupid facts, so that the sponge interpretation was retained in many recent articles (e.g.,Maloof et al. 2010,Brain et al. 2012,Dohrmann et al. 2013,Stearley 2013). But the truth could not be ignored forever. Antcliffe et al. (2014)

agree with Serezhnikova (2007a) that some of the material is likely to represent the holdfast of other Ediacaran-age organisms, we question whether these specimens represent sponges of any kind. No compelling arguments are presented that Palaeophragmodictya should be considered separately from other disc-like structures of Ediacaran age.

Furthermore, Antcliffe et al. present extensive evidence and arguments that these fossils indeed represent holdfasts of the typical Ediacaran frond-like organisms.Cunningham et al. (2017a)acknowledged thatPalaeophragmodictyais perhaps the most widely recognized candidate for a sponge within the Ediacaran macrobiota but the taxon may be more readily interpreted as decayed attachment discs from an organism of uncertain affinity.Likewise,Botting & Muir (2018)remarked that this fossil taxon was a misidentified holdfast of an Ediacaran frond and bears little resemblance to extant or early fossil sponges. Finally, the only potential sponge character inPalaeophragmodictyaand some other alleged Precambrian sponges, the presence of apparent skeletal nets, has been discredited by a new study byLuzhnaya & Ivantsov (2019), who documented such structures in the characteristic Ediacaran fronds, which were never considered as sponges and certainly are not because they have no openings for water circulation.

Rugoconites enigmaticusis another circular organism from the Ediacaran biota of Australia described byGlaessner & Wade (1966).Gehling & Rigby (1996)mentioned thatRugoconiteshas some characters in common withPalaeophragmodictya, but recognized that the lack of evidence of a spicular framework prevents a clear assignment of Rugoconites to the poriferans. Some authors considered them to be jellyfish (Cloud & Gessner 1982,Sepkoski 2002), while others considered them as possible sponges (Darroch et al. 2018). Nevertheless, the consensus among specialists today generally tends to classifyRugoconitesas member of the Ediacaran monophylum Trilobozoa or Triradialomorpha with a tri-radial body plan (Ivantsov & Fedonkin 2002,Xiao & Laflamme 2009,Hall et al. 2018).

The genusSinospongiais known from two species,S. typicaandS. chenjunyuani, from the Miaohe biota of the Doushantuo Formation in China (a third speciesSinospongia hubeiensiswas synonymized withCucullus fraudulentus, see above). It was considered as mega-algae by Steiner (1994), as microbial colonies bySteiner & Reitner (2001), and as Protoarenicolidae byXiao & Dong (2006), which these authors do not identify as animals but as dasycladacean algae with holdfasts.Xiao et al. (2002)suggested three possible interpretations: sponge, cnidarian, or siphonous green alga, because no convincing sponge spicules have been found in association with these fossils, and alternative algal interpretations are possible and alternative interpretations, such as a cnidarian-grade organism or a siphonous green alga (especially of the order Dasycladales), should be entertained. As already mentioned above,Serezhnikova (2014)concluded, Therefore, the interpretation of Cucullus and Sinospongia as sponges and their comparison with Vaveliksia are difficult to support. The more recent revisions of alleged Precambrian sponges byAntcliffe et al. (2014),Muscente et al. (2015), andBotting & Muir (2018)did not even bother to further discussSinospongiaas a putative sponge.

Thectardis avalonensisis a conical organism of about 9 cm length and 3 cm diameter, known from numerous specimens from the Ediacaran Mistaken Point locality in Newfoundland (Clapham et al. 2004). It is believed to have been attached with its pointed end to the bacterial mat sea floor as a suspension feeding mat sticker, but it lacks any visible holdfast structures. In the original description no affinity to sponges or any other group was suggested.Sperling et al. (2011)proposed a most likely attribution to sponges, only based on the habitat beneath the photic zone (which precludes photosynthesis) and because its body plan would be consistent with the hydrodynamics of the sponge water-canal system. This is a very weak level of argumentation for the far-reaching conclusion that the recognition of sponges in the Mistaken Point biota provides some of the earliest body fossil evidence for this group, which must have ranged through the Ediacaran based on biomarkers, molecular clocks, and their position on the metazoan tree of life, in spite of their sparse macroscopic fossil record. Consequently,Antcliffe et al. (2014)correctly pointed out that such poor indirect criteria could at best exclude certain affinities, but not confirm any. They concluded that the interpetation ofThectardis avalonensisas a fossil sponge is therefore highly problematic. They even elaborated that the fossil might rather be just the misinterpreted remains of the decay process of an unknown larger organism.Muscente et al. (2015)concluded Thectardisfrom Newfoundland have been interpreted as sponges based on inferences regarding soft tissue anatomy, biomechanics, and taphonomy. However, such interpretations of aspiculate organisms are inherently subjective, and the affinities of the fossils remain disputed. Christian paleontologist RalphStearley (2013)still affirmed that the conical fossilThectardisfrom the Avalon assemblage is also probably a sponge, but this was just in a book review.Serezhnikova (2014)agreed that the general body plan ofThectardisis similar to the sponge-like archaeocyaths, but offered the qualification that the affinity of the Precambrian taxa to Porifera is limited by a lack of data on their possible filtering structures.Liu & Conliffe (2015)remarked that until more informative specimens are found, this taxon will likely remain of uncertain biological affinity.Botting & Muir (2018)remarked that although it is theoretically possible that some alleged Ediacaran Biota sponges (e.g., the featureless triangle-shaped objectThectardisClapham et al., 2004; Sperling et al., 2011) are in fact genuine, there is no evidence to that effect. Let that sink in: NO EVIDENCE! There seems to be a pattern here: desperate attempts to fulfill Darwinian expectations in the absence of any convincing evidence.

A 3-10 cm large sac-shaped organism of radial symmetry with a perforated body wall and an attachment disc, the type speciesVaveliksia velikanoviwas described by Fedonkin (1983) from the Ediacaran of Ukraine. A second species,Vaveliksia vana,was described from the Vendian of the White Sea region in Russia byIvantsov et al. (2004). They concluded: From the above observations and assumptions, one may propose thatVaveliksiahas the same level of organization as archaeocyaths or sponges.McCall (2006)suggested possible coelenterate and hydrozoa affinities instead.Serezhnikova (2014), who co-described the second species ofVaveliksia, listed it as problematic lower metazoans with a levelof organization of parazoa (?).Antcliffe et al. (2014)mentioned the possibility thatVaveliksiacould rather be an agglutinated amoebozoan, thus a colonial protist, and concluded that Vaveliksia vanalacks any definitive poriferan characteristics and fails the characters and diagnosis criteria.

Malloof et al. (2010)reported unnamed ellipsoidal fossils as sponge-grade metazoans from the Neoproterozoic of Australia. Paleontologist ChrisNedin (2010)was not convinced and commented on his respected Ediacaran blog that Proterozoic Sponges Claim Doesnt Hold Water. Well, blogs dont count in science, butAntcliffe et al. (2014)came to the same conclusion and remarked that

no characteristics that are distinctive for sponges are presented by the authors. These fossils have no morphology that is diagnostic of sponges and should in our view be more readily ascribed to the calcimicrobes that abound at these localities.

Finally,Wallace et al. (2014)described unnamed chambered structures from Cryogenian reefs, for which they pose the question of whether they could be the oldest sponge-grade organisms. However, they concluded:

The closest morphological analogues for the structures are: a) some types of reef-dwelling sponges; and b) some complex microbialites from Archean and Paleoproterozoic carbonates. The structures lack spicules and ostia found in sponges, ruling out a true Poriferan origin. However, it is plausible that they are proto-sponges, sponge-grade organisms, or complex microbial precursors to sponge-grade organisms. Whatever their affinity, we suggest these structures record a significant evolutionary event on the path towards organic complexity.

It is very clear from their conclusions that these fossils also fail all three criteria ofAntecliffe et al. (2014)for an identification as sponges and thus have to be considered as problematic fossils of uncertain affinity, but more likely of microbial origin.

That was the last candidate. But what about more indirect evidence from alleged sponge embryos, sponge needles, and sponge biomarkers? Here comes the story of their demise.

Phosphatized microfossils from the 609-million-year old Doushantuo Formation in China, which were originally interpreted as colonial green algae, were later re-interpreted as alleged animals (Xiao et al. 1998) and especially sponge embryos and sponge larvae (Li et al. 1998a,1998b, Chen et al. 1999,Chen et al. 2000,Xiao & Knoll 2000,Xiao et al. 2000, Chien et al. 2001,Chen 2012). This interpretation was immediately disputed by other Chinese researchers (Zhang et al. 1998, Xue et al. 1999), who alternatively identified these fossils as collapsed acritarch protists, thus not sponges at all but unicellular organisms. Even thoughCao & Zhu (2001)disagreed with this, they acknowledged that whether or not they are larvae of sponges, it is not determined as yet.Hagadorn et al. (2006)showed that the absence of epithelialization is consistent only with a stem-metazoan affinity for Doushantuo embryos, thus rejecting any sponge affinities.

Bailey et al. (2007)suggested that the alleged embryos are giant actually vacuolate sulphur bacteria close to the recent genusThiomargarita. However, this was convincingly rejected byDonoghue (2007),Xiao et al. (2007),Yin et al. (2007),Cunningham et al. (2012), andIgisu et al. (2014), even though these authors did not all agree on the embryo nature of the fossils.

After careful synchrotron-tomographic studies, which included a team of the most eminent paleontologists like Philip Donoghue and Stefan Bengtson,Huldtgren et al. (2011)concluded that the alleged embryos are neither metazoans nor embryos but just encysting eukaryotic protists (also seeButterfield 2011, who commented that wherever the Doushantuo fossils eventually end up, it will clearly not be within crown-group Metazoa, andKaplan 2011, whose comments are titled, Enigmatic fossils are neither animals nor bacteria).Xiao et al. (2012)readily disagreed in a response to this article, but were again refuted byHuldtgren et al. (2012). But then, in a study byChen et al. (2014), co-authored by Shuhai Xiao, the authors came to the same result that the available evidence also indicates that the Doushantuo fossils are unlikely crown-group animals.

Even the alleged and much celebrated oldest bilaterian animalVernanimalculafrom the Doushantuo Formation was debunked byBengtson et al. (2012)in an article titled A merciful death for the earliest bilaterian, in which the authors came to the scathing conclusion that there is no evidential basis for interpretingVernanimalculaas an animal.

Yin et al. (2016)presented new evidence in the form of meroblastic cleavage patterns for the identification of Doushantuo fossils as metazoan embryos, but acknowledged that their phylogenetic affinity cannot be established. Just recently,Yin et al. (2019)described gastrulation-like cell division in the fossilCaveasphaerafrom this locality, which they said foreshadows animal-like embryology. However, it was not considered as a sponge or even a metazoan by these authors. CarlZimmer (2019)commented in theNew York Timesthat these balls of cells may be the oldest animal embryos or something else entirely.

Cunningham et al. (2017b)reviewed all the published evidence from the Wenan biota of the Doushantuo Formation and concluded that although the Wengan Biota includes forms that could be animals, none can currently be assigned to this group with confidence. If there are not even definite animals, there can be no sponge embryos either.

Independent of the doubtful nature of the Doushantuo embryos, recently a multicellular organism was described as a microfossil from the Ediacaran Nyborg Formation in Norway (Agi et al. 2019). It was namedCyathinema digermulenseand the authors considered it as sharing characteristics with extant and fossil groups including red algae and their fossils, demosponge larvae and putative sponge fossils, colonial protists, and nematophytes. Even though sponge affinities are not ruled out, they have not been demonstrated either.

Even if all the body fossils discussed above fail to establish the presence of sponges prior to the Cambrian era, maybe we could at least find their most durable parts as microfossils: sclerotized needles, so-called spicules, that form the skeleton of sponges and are made of silica or calcite.

Indeed, several works described alleged sponge spicules from Precambrian deposits, mainly in China (Dunn 1964, Tang et al. 1978, Ding et al. 1985, Zhao et al. 1988,Allison & Awramik 1989,Brasier 1992,Steiner et al. 1993,Gehling & Rigby 1996,Brasier et al. 1997,Li et al. 1998a,Tiwari et al. 2000,Xiao et al. 2000,Du & Wang 2012, andDu et al. 2015). Even elaborate scenarios for the presumed evolution of sponge skeletons in the Proterozoic have been proposed based on this evidence (Mller et al. 2007).

Steiner et al. (1993)questioned the Doushantuo spicules andGehling & Rigby (1996)mentioned that of the many reported spicules from Proterozoic sediments most have proven to be volcanic shards or other inorganic crystals (Pickett, 1983).

Zhou et al. (1998) considered the spicule-like structures from the Doushantuo Formation described byLi et al. (1998)as nothing but pseudo-fossils, whileZhang et al. (1998)considered them as detached spines of collapsed acritarch protists.Cao & Zhu (2001)disagreed and remarked that based on the observation of extant specimens they tend to the interpretation of the sponges as monaxial spicules.

Yin et al. (2001)showed that the alleged sponge spicules from the Doushantuo Formation in China are indistinguishable from coexistent diagenetic crystals, thus inorganic artefacts rather than fossil remains. They found that the evidence for a sponge spicule interpretation of the Doushantuo spicular structures are at best ambiguous at present, but strangely added the inconsistent disclaimer (likely for political reasons) that despite our initial questioning the proposed interpretation of Doushantuo spicular structures as demosponge microscleres, we do not deny that sponges spicules do exist in Doushantuo cherts.

Antcliffe et al. (2014)reviewed all the published evidence for alleged sponge spicules from the Precambrian and dismissed all of them, mostly as abiogenic artifacts (e.g., the once oldest, widely accepted hexactinellid spicules from Mongolia, which were shown to be cruciform arsenopyrite crystals by EDX analysis). They found that the earliest reliable sponge fossils are hexact spicules from Iran dated to c. 535 Ma.

Muscente et al. (2015)used the most modern analytical techniques like scanning electron microscopy and synchrotron nanotomography to decisively assess the veracity of assumed Precambrian sponge needles, especially from the Doushantuo Formation. They found that their new data invalidate the oldest and only Precambrian demosponges with mineralized spicules. Thehighlightssection in their article says it all:

Finally,Botting & Muir (2018)agreed in the most recent review of early sponge evolution that there are no definite records of Precambrian sponges: isolated hexactine-like spicules may instead be derived from radiolarians. AndTang et al. (2019)likewise stated that the oldest spicules are Cambrian in age, but hypothesized based on a new Cambrian fossil that potential Ediacaran sponges might have lacked biomineralized spicules (also seeTang 2019). So, when alleged Precambrian spicules were found they were naturally considered as evidence for Darwinian evolution, and now since they are consistently lacking, Darwinian evolution is invoked to explain their absence. Whatever the evidence says, Darwinists always claim victory.

The latest claim was made recently byChang et al. (2019), who reported alleged sponge spicules from the Ediacaran-Cambrian boundary of the Yanjiahe Formation in China. However, in the actual article they only say that monaxon spicules and spicule-like structures in the lower Yanjiahe Formation might putatively be interpreted as demosponge remains, thus acknowledging a high degree of uncertainty. They also acknowledged that their interpretation of the monaxon spicules would be incongruent with the evolutionary scenario ofBotting & Muir (2018), who suggested a hexactine-based ground plan. In the Yanjiahe Formation non-monaxon spicules only appear just beneath the Lower CambrianProtohertzina anabariteszone (see their Figure 6).

The fact is this: Despite the multiple premature claims of success, genuine sponge needles from the Precambrian era thus not only have proved to be elusive like the proverbial needles in a haystack but indeed seem to be non-existent.

Based on chemical analyses of sediments it has been suggested that fossil steroids (24-isopropylcholestane and 26-methylstigmastane) are lipid biomarkers that provide indirect evidence for the existence of demosponges in the Precambrian (McCaffrey et al. 1994, Moldowan et al. 1994,Love et al. 2009,Sperling et al. 2010).Antcliffe (2013)questioned the evidence for sponge biomarkers because 24isopropylcholestane is also produced by marine algae or their diagenetic alteration, and claimed that it seems more likely that these compounds represent algal biochemical evolution at a time when algal burial occurred in great quantity with well-known coeval algal fossils but no sponge fossils. This was reasonably rejected byLove & Summons (2015), and even very recent studies byGold et al. (2016a),Gold et al. (2016b),Brocks et al. (2017),Sperling & Stockey (2018), andZumberge et al. (2018)still considered this so-called sponge biomarker hypothesis to be validated by the most up-to-date evidence. The popular science media reported Sponges on ancient ocean floors 100 million years before Cambrian period (UC Riverside 2018). However,Nettersheim et al. (2019)found these putative typical sponge biomarkers to be common among unicellular organisms (Rhizaria) and concluded that negating these hydrocarbons as sponge biomarkers, our study places the oldest evidence for animals closer to the Cambrian Explosion. Ooops!

In a thorough revision of all twenty potential Precambrian sponge fossils, including most of the taxa discussed above (exceptEocyathispongia) as well as all the other unnamed candidates for sponge-grade metazoans,Antcliffe et al. (2014)came to the conclusion that that no Precambrian fossil candidate yet satisfies all three of these criteria to be a reliable sponge fossil. The authors suggested that molecular clocks should be recalibrated accordingly to a Lower Cambrian age of sponges and metazoans (such a recalibration is just a euphemism for using a fudge factor to get the desired outcome).Muscente et al. (2015)confirmed this result that no unequivocal sponge fossils occur below the EdiacaranCambrian boundary. Another recent study about the early history of sponges (Botting & Muir 2018) also found that there are no definite records of Precambrian sponges. Just a year later,Nettersheim et al. (2019)refuted the only remaining biomarker evidence (see above), so that all the empirical evidence for Precambrian sponges had finally evaporated. Maybe new fossil finds will come up with something better, but considering the track record so far, we probably dont have to hold our breath.

We can safely conclude that, contrary to common misconception, there exists zero compelling evidence for the existence of any genuine Precambrian fossil sponges. Unambiguous sponges only appear in the Cambrian explosion together with the other animal phyla. The oldest reliable fossil record for sponges is represented by siliceous spicules from the basal Cambrian of Iran (Antcliffe et al. 2014) and China (Chang et al. 2017,Chang et al. 2019) (the latter are slightly older, just below theProtohertzina anabariteszone). With an age of about 535 million years these are even two million years younger than the oldest trace fossil evidence for crown-group arthropods like trilobites recently dated to 537 million years ago (Daley et al. 2018). The first complete body fossils of sponges only appear even somewhat later in the Lowermost Cambrian (Steiner et al. 1993,Yuan et al. 2002.Flgel & Singh 2003). Only after 525 million years ago sponges became more common (Antcliffe et al. 2014), and crown group demosponges do not appear before 515 million years (Botting et al. 2015).

Having sponges appear after arthropods is not only a very bad stratigraphic fit, but indeed rather a temporal paradox like in many other cases (e.g., the oldest tetrapods and birds). If a good stratigraphic fit is considered to be confirmation for Darwins theory, then a poor stratigraphic fit (as well as a mismatch between molecular clocks and fossil record) has to count as conflicting evidence, even if evolutionists can fudge boldad hocexplanations (like 200-million-year-long ghost lineages,Sperling et al. 2010) to accommodate and explain away such unwelcome data.

Interestingly, the most comprehensive revision of the early fossil record of sponges, byAntcliffe et al. (2014), came to a conclusion very similar to that of intelligent design proponent Stephen C. Meyer in his seminal bookDarwins Doubt. Here is what they said in their conclusion: The Cambrian explosion was an evolutionary event of great magnitude and closely connected to the origin of animals. Science deniers like Jerry Coyne, Donald Prothero, and Nick Matzke, who downplayed the Cambrian explosion in their polemical reviews of Meyers book, should read the actual specialists to learn about the significance and abruptness of the origin of animal body plans in the Cambrian explosion, including the body plan of the most primitive animals, sponges.

Photo: Living Guantanamo sponge, by Timothy W. Brown / Public domain.

More:

The Myth of Precambrian Sponges - Discovery Institute

As outlined in the bookThe Privileged Planet,by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards, the Earth is not only fine-tuned for life, but is also well-designed to allow us to make scientific discoveries. A newBIO-Complexitypaper by Guillermo Gonzalez, The Solar System: Favored for Space Travel, extends privileged planet arguments to our ability to travel in space. Gonzalez previously summarized some of his argumentshere, but its worth outlining some of his arguments.

Many of the exoplanets that are being discovered are giant super-earths, planets with a mass up to 10X Earths mass. These planets pose a problem for space travel. As the gravity of a planet increases, so does the amount of fuel that is needed for a rocket to escape the gravity of the planet and reach space. As Gonzalez puts it, mass fraction [of fuel in a rocket] is an exponentially increasing function of delta-V relative to the exhaust velocity. Thus, as the surface gravity of a planet increases, the amount of fuel needed for a rocket to be blasted into space increases at anexponential rateuntil so much fuel would be needed that it would be impossible for the rocket to escape a planets gravity.

He finds that the maximum payload mass is reduced by about 40% for a super-earth only about 20% more massive than Earth. Beyond 1.65 Earth masses the Saturn V could not launch anything beyond the planets atmosphere. In other words, a civilization on a planet larger than about 1.65 Earth masses would find it very difficult to engage in planetary exploration as we have done going to the moon.

A skeptic might ask, Couldnt a more technologically advanced civilization develop new sources of fuel that require less mass? Perhaps one can always appeal to hypothetical or unknown scientific discoveries to explain away just about any problem. However, privileged planet arguments look at what we know, not what we dont know. Based upon what we know, the technological evolution of any civilization must presumably pass through lower tech phases like were in right now before they reach higher tech phases. It seems like were pretty lucky that less than 200 years from the start of the Industrial Revolution, we were able to explore space and land on the moon.

Gonzalez also asks how difficult it would be for a rocket to escape a solar system. He finds that it is more difficult to launch interstellar missions from the circumstellar habitable zone of a low mass star. But our suns size makes the production of such rockets feasible.

When it comes to finding new ways of applying privileged planet arguments to find properties of earth that are fine-tuned, the sky is literally the limit.

Photo: Astronaut Peggy Whitson on a spacewalk, March 2017, byNASA.

See original here:

Guillermo Gonzalez Extends Privileged Planet Arguments to Space Travel - Discovery Institute

Timo Werner is the name that simply will not go away as Liverpool and the rest of Europe prepare for what will be the strangest summer transfer window since time restrictions on buying players were brought in.

According to some reports, Liverpool will no longer be in for the German striker, while others claim the Reds have asked for more time in order to conclude a deal.

With Werner having already ruled out a Bayern Munich move outright, with the indications behind the scenes too that he would prefer Anfield over Barcelona, it seems like the 24-year-old, at least, is confident a deal with Liverpool can be done.

After all, why else would one of the most sought after talents in world football be so keen to rule out two of Europes elite?

Coronavirus will change things, and Liverpool will have to take care, but even so, it would shock no one if Werner was teamed up with Jurgen Klopp from next season.

The question has been posed on many an occasion where Werner would fit into the Premier League champions in waitings side.

He would get plenty of minutes, though, and his flexibility and capability to play all across the front three positions would mean he would be called upon a lot.

But for Liverpool, the priority is not making sure Werner has a slot in the team, but more making certain that they continue to evolve.

As Josh Williams said on the Analysing Anfield podcast, teams at the peak of their powers have to strengthen while they are still at the top in order to stay ahead of the chasing pack.

He explained: "Even the most perfect tactics of the past have eventually become a bit stale, and Liverpool, as good as it looks right now, you dont want teams to find answers.

"A simple solution is to find different ways of attacking - Liverpool will not be found out defensively.

"Its more likely to be attacking and teams finding a way to nullify that.

"But if Liverpool can find ways around that, specifically by signing additional tools like Werner, or a number 10, or an alternative central midfielder, they will be fine.

"Its whether or not you rest on your laurels which is going to be the problem.

"You need to make sure you keep signing versatile players that provide you with a platform to mix it up."

At some point, Liverpool will drop off from their current level, that much is inevitable.

But they can stave off that moment with regeneration tactics such as these.

Even the great teams like Barcelona have evolved.

The brilliant tiki-taka of between 2008 and 2012 eventually gave way to a more direct approach under Luis Enrique, as Neymar, Luis Suarez and Lionel Messi were at their peak.

And now, since 2017 when the Spaniard departed, Ernesto Valverde and Quique Setien have both further changed the blueprint.

Its still Barcelona, but it is a different version, and one which is not so predictable that would be the case had the team developed along a straight line.

Liverpool, like multiple other top teams over the years, will hope to tread the same path.

Pep Guardiola was the man who instigated the refreshing at Barcelona before his exit, and he is now the man chasing Liverpool down.

And to steer away from falling into a familiar trap, Liverpool will have to take a leaf from his book.

Read more:

Barcelona hint at the next step in Liverpool's evolution and signing Timo Werner could help - Liverpool Echo