Two Cool Creatures and Their Evolution

As Michael Shermer says, "Science is the best tool ever devised for understanding how the world works." It's still done by humans so there will be problems, but it's self-correcting. And really, we have nothing better to help us make sense out of our world. In that vein, I wanted to share two creatures that scientists have found to be very interesting, especially regarding evolution. These are both examples of how amazing our world is.

First is the Cottony Cushion Scale - Icerya purchasi - which likes to eat citrus and pittosporum sap. It's now found around the world wherever citrus is grown and is quite a pest. But look how neat it is!

So here is what's so interesting. Most CCSs (Cottony Cushion Scales) are hermaphrodites. There are a few true males but they are very rare. So they are both male and female. But, the CCS fertilizes its eggs with sperm that live inside it as a separate infectious tissue!

So when the CCS fertilizes its own egg with its own sperm, which is considered an infectious tissue, it then invades the embryo with more sperm to create sperm-producing organs in the daughter. (They are called daughters because they look female. The pure male is very different looking)

There is new research into how this insect evolved this way, which is really interesting. It sort of comes down to the male is now just parasitic tissue living inside the female. The research is a mathematical model of how this evolved early on.

There is a final twist to this tale: Gardner and Ross [the authors of the new paper] think that the scale insects carry a passenger that could have quickened the demise of the males – a bacterium. Many insects carry helpful bacteria that provide them with important nutrients, and the cottony cushion scale is no different. These bacteria can often be found in tight clusters around the infectious tissue, and if they are killed with antibiotics, females are more likely to produce sons.

To Gardner and Ross, this suggests that the bacteria could help to protect the infectious tissue from being destroyed. Why? Because the bacteria are passed down from mother to daughter. Males are a dead-end to them. In this regard, their “interests” are the same as those of the infectious tissue. Sons are a dead-end; daughters provide vessels that sail into the next generation.

Evolution is amazing, isn't it!

Next is a large protozoan! Gromia Sphaerica is about the size of a grape and is a single-celled organism! They are up to 1.5" long. That's pretty huge! They were discovered in 2000 and have recently been found off the coast of the Bahamas. It gets better. This little thing appears to make trails in the mud of the sea floor about 20 inches long. How do they do it?

First, they are single-celled, a giant amoeba. The outer shell of their bodies are called a test and seem to be mostly made of waste. There are pores in the test, and filaments on the bottom of the organism that it uses to move along and make the tracks in the mud, some even going uphill. In this area of the sea, the water is very still.

Here's where it gets really interesting! The tracks made by these Gromia today appear to match mud trail fossils from 1.8 Billion years ago in the Precambrian era. Even the low ridge which runs up the middle of the track appears to be the same.  This is evidence that there might have been some early version of the Gromia that existed before the Cambrian explosion (530 million years ago), which says that a simple organism could have made those earlier tracks. And those simple organisms could have had complex body plans (relatively speaking).



So the scientists who found them in the Bahamas aren't sure how they eat or reproduce yet. They are too fragile to study in captivity. The area they were found is relatively sterile. They probably rely on resident bacteria to ferment their food for them, and they just live off the byproducts. There don't appear to be any smaller or young Gromia, but there are a lot of them.

~

Resources for the Cottony Cushion Scale:

• Not Exactly Rocket Science


• Science Daily


• Skeptic's Guide to the Universe

Resources for Gromia Sphaerica:

• Skeptic's Guide to the Universe


• Wikipedia


• Science Daily

Resisting Woo

As you know, I've been an atheist for about 10 years or so, and a skeptic for about 2 or 3 years. While I found it easy to give up religion (in fact it was a relief once I realized I wasn't going to literally be struck by lightning for calling myself an atheist), I found it took longer to realize I needed to be skeptical about other things as well.

The hardest thing for me to give up was superstition. Deep down, I was afraid something bad would happen if I didn't knock on wood when I said certain things, or that I would be jinxed if I said something positive at the wrong time. It was crazy! I finally had to just force myself to do a basic experiment. I made myself not do the superstitious action and waited to see if there were negative consequences. Rinse, Repeat, Repeat, Repeat. Look at the results. Shabam, no ill effects!

I still have the urge to knock on wood though. But I never do anymore. Thank g... Science!

It's funny how ingrained  superstitions are. I recently messed up my neck and back. Instead of going to the doctor I tried everything I could think of to fix it myself. It only got worse. I finally went today and will start physical therapy on Monday along with some mild medications.

Why was it so hard to go, though? Why did I wait 3 weeks, in which I was completely miserable? Ok, so I have an irrational fear of doctors and dentists. That's probably a big part of it. But also because I thought I could do it on my own. When I started thinking about turning to woo, I realized I was really desperate and finally went to the doctor. That's progress, isn't it? Three years ago I definitely would have been popping every supplement I could think of and going to a chiropractor, or even an acupuncturist.

Thanks to all the skeptics in my life, I now know about the lack of scientific evidence of those practices. Now, knowing that acupuncture is equivalent to a placebo isn't good enough for me. I'd rather just go straight for real medicine, based on real scientific evidence.

Tips For A Skeptical Outlook

Here are a few points on how to have a skeptical outlook. These come from The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe. They're just snippets from some of their older episodes that I thought were worth sharing.

To avoid the ego blow of admitting you were wrong, adopt this point of view:

"My opinions are dependent upon the existing evidence. I could be wrong. If new evidence comes out I'll happily change my opinion to correspond to it."
~
Later, they sum it up a bit differently:

Practice science and skepticism: Attach yourself to the process, not the conclusion. The process has to be valid, has to be scientific, has to be legitimate. Don't be emotionally invested in the conclusion. As long as the process is valid, it leads wherever it leads.

That means if new information comes up, or if someone shows that a different logic is more appropriate, then you can happily change your conclusion because you have no attachment to it.

It's just that you have to get the process right.

That's science in a nutshell. Science is a process. It's about the process, not about the conclusion.

Pseudoscience begins with the conclusion, then they pervert the process. They warp the process to continue to match their forgone conclusion. It can seem very logical and reasonable. It's still not science.
~

This applies to all areas of thought, from science and pseudoscience to religion, politics and just the world in general. If you're attached to your beliefs and ideas, that's dogma. The secret is to be attached to the truth and let it take you where it leads, and always be open to change your mind if new and compelling evidence comes to light.

In this way, learning new things is a wonderful adventure, it's fun and exciting. When you're close-minded and set on your narrow world view, you then have to lie to yourself and others to make your limiting belief make sense to you. You have to close out the real world to keep the little bubble of dogma around you intact. It's not very much fun. You're constantly threatened by new facts and information that threaten you.

Then again, a lot of us have Sacred Cows. A sacred cow is some area in your life that can't be criticized. It could be a person, an institution, a belief, an area of belief, or a custom.

What are your Sacred Cows? Why have you made them immune to criticism? What would help you to hold them up to the light of reason?

Logical Fallacy 13: Non Sequitur

Non Sequitur means "does not follow" in Latin. When the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises, you've committed this logical fallacy. A logical connection is implied where none exists.

This is Part 13 in a series about Logical Fallacies. We are going through one fallacy at a time. There are many types of fallacious arguments. I’m going to try to explain them with examples then find ways to help you refute those arguments when they occur. Please comment or email if there’s a particular fallacy you want me to tackle, or if you have success with refuting an argument using a good technique you can share.

Examples:

First, here's the formula:

1. If A is true, B is true.
2. B is stated to be true.
3. Therefore, A is true.

Even if the both premises and the conclusion are true, the argument is still logically bad since the premises don't support the conclusion.

1. If I am a human, I am a mammal.
2. I am a mammal.
3. Therefore, I'm human.

Even though both the premises and the conclusion are true, the argument is still a fallacy since the premises don't support the conclusion. Non sequitur reasoning can have a true conclusion or lead to a beneficial outcome. Being fallacious means the way of getting to the conclusion is not justified but it does not necessarily mean that the conclusion is false.

Here's a common example with intelligent design:

Evaluating Scientific Studies

One thing we all have to do as skeptics is see what other people are saying or studying and evaluate it to see if it stands up. No one person can do all the research needed in even just one subject. Lots of scientists and people need to contribute to science in many different ways. There's a system set up where studies are peer reviewed. Science involves lots of people, so it's not perfect but it is self-correcting and it's by far the best way to go about understanding and learning about the universe.

Never rely on one scientist. That would be an appeal to authority. It's not to say you can't look to a scientist and value his work, but it should be peer reviewed and replicated by others as well. Scientists really do need to stand on the shoulders of giants, and to have other scientists stand next to them.

The other day I was listening to an older episode of The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe: Episode 123 and Dr. Steven Novella was talking about this subject, regarding fringe science. It was interesting enough that I transcribed part of the episode to share with you. You can extrapolate this information when reading about studies done especially in the paranormal/fringe areas.

First he was talking about how scientists have to study scientific literature. As skeptics we also have to at least have a grasp on how things work. Also he explains where skeptics come in. Here's what he said:

39:35 You have to develop the ability and the skill to interpret the literature, even if you're not doing research in that area. What scientific skeptics are trying to do is provide the kind of peer review and critical analysis that typically happens in mainstream science, and apply that to more of these fringe areas because mainstream scientists are ignoring it, out of hand, usually.

A few minutes later, Dr. Novella was talking about science that claimed to verify the supernatural (psychic dogs and other phenomena. Listen to the whole episode for the complete story).
44:47 In order for science to be compelling enough to establish a new phenomenon in science, we need to see a few things, all at the same time:

1. Science that has good methodology, where any artifacts are weeded out.


2. Results that are statistically significant.


3. Replication, so we know it's not just one lab or one scientist.


4. An effect size that is above noise.

That doesn't even include a mechanism which would be the icing on the cake.

The Immortal Jelly

Here is an amazing creature! Turritopsis nutricula is a hydrozoan, a jelly. They aren't called jellyfish anymore, by the way. Now they are called jellies. Nom! Only I don't want to eat this one on toast, I want scientists to study it. Why? Well, it's basically immortal.

After it reaches sexual maturity, it can go through a process of transdifferentiation and transform mature cells back to young cells (polyps). Here's one way to explain it:

Cell transdifferentiation is when the jellyfish "alters the differentiated state of the cell and transforms it into a new cell. In this process the medusa of the immortal jellyfish is transformed into the polyps of a new polyp colony. First, the umbrella reverts itself and then the tentacles and mesoglea get resorbed. The reverted medusa then attaches itself to the substrate by the end that had been at the opposite end of the umbrella and starts giving rise to new polyps to form the new colony. Theoretically, this process can go on infinitely, effectively rendering the jellyfish biologically immortal. (Wikipedia)

This little creature is about 4.5 mm in diameter (.18 inches). The red in the center is its large stomach. Young jellies have about 8 tentacles while adults have 80-90 tentacles. The picture shown below is actually a Turritopsis rubra from New Zealand which is closely related. They are very similar, but it's not known if  T. rubra can transform back into polyps.

The jelly originated in the Carribbean but now it's found all over the world in temperate to tropical oceans. Because it's basically immortal (if it doesn't succumb to predation, etc), the numbers are spiking.  They think it's spreading by ships discharging ballast water in ports.

A bit more about their immortality:

People Trust Peers, Not Science

This is depressing, but not surprising, I guess. Three psychological studies have come out recently all saying about the same thing. People trust their peers and tend to distrust authority (the government) and scientific information.

I heard about this on The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe, episode 254, from May 26th. If you want to listen to Dr. Steven Novella talk about the three studies, start around the 23:30 minute mark. This segment goes to about 35:20, but the whole episode is good, of course.

The attitudes of parents toward the MMR vaccine and autism: The study concluded that parents had a significant bias toward believing information that they heard from other parents. The parents were mostly affected by their peers, and did not seem to be affected at all by what the scientific evidence said, and they seemed to inherently distrust information that came from the government. Not a surprising result.

Raising a general level of scientific literacy would be the best thing we could do to help this mess we're in. My fear is that people are so anti-science and anti-intelligence these days that I don't know how we could go about it, that people aren't interested in learning anything that goes against their narrow world views. Another thing we could do (as recommended by Steven) is to change regulation so that it's rational and evidence-based, not based on public opinion.