Dickinsonia is arguably the Ediacaran organism on which the most attention and controversy has been lavished. Despite the large size and the exquisite preservation of many specimens, all kinds of things about it are in dispute, especially its placement in the Domain Eukarya. An impressive number of diverse placements have been advanced over the years in peer-reviewed papers, as can be seen from the long second paragraph of the following lengthy article:

https://evolutionnews.org/2018/09/why-dickinsonia-was-most-probably-not-an-ediacaran-animal/

An irritating (temporary, I hope) feature of this webpage and others in Evolution News is that one is confronted with what looks like a full page ad with no place to click to make it go away. However, if you look to the right, you see a small rectangle at the top of the scroll bar, that you can use in the usual way to read the article.

The title of the article (reflected in the url) may also be irritating to some, but the actual article downplays the message in the title, just as Erik Simpson, who started a thread, "Dickinsonia is very likely an animal" back in April, later downplayed his attachment to the title.

I'll have much to say about the linked article and others later today and the rest of the week. Just one comment about one feature for now: the researchers who claim to have found evidence of internal organs are depicted as being very much in the minority. My immediate reaction is that this may be the same kind of phenomenon as the canals on Mars that Percival Lowell thought he saw night after night. There were others who claimed to have seen them, but the majority of astronomers saw no sign of canals. We now know that Lowell was mistaken.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

On 7/14/21 9:42 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> Dickinsonia is arguably the Ediacaran organism on which the most attention and controversy has been lavished. Despite the large size and the exquisite preservation of many specimens, all kinds of things about it are in dispute, especially its placement in the Domain Eukarya. An impressive number of diverse placements have been advanced over the years in peer-reviewed papers, as can be seen from the long second paragraph of the following lengthy article:

I take issue with "exquisite preservation". Most of them are preserved
in sandstone that doesn't show really fine details. Thus it's possible
to argue about whether a specimen shows bilateral or glide symmetry.

And who is claiming it isn't a eukaryote?

> https://evolutionnews.org/2018/09/why-dickinsonia-was-most-probably-not-an-ediacaran-animal/

Can we at least acknowledge that this is a creationist, or at least an
ID with creationist leanings, web site? One should therefore be very
careful about believing anything it says without checking the primary
literature.

> An irritating (temporary, I hope) feature of this webpage and others in Evolution News is that one is confronted with what looks like a full page ad with no place to click to make it go away. However, if you look to the right, you see a small rectangle at the top of the scroll bar, that you can use in the usual way to read the article.
>
> The title of the article (reflected in the url) may also be irritating to some, but the actual article downplays the message in the title, just as Erik Simpson, who started a thread, "Dickinsonia is very likely an animal" back in April, later downplayed his attachment to the title.
>
>
> I'll have much to say about the linked article and others later today and the rest of the week. Just one comment about one feature for now: the researchers who claim to have found evidence of internal organs are depicted as being very much in the minority. My immediate reaction is that this may be the same kind of phenomenon as the canals on Mars that Percival Lowell thought he saw night after night. There were others who claimed to have seen them, but the majority of astronomers saw no sign of canals. We now know that Lowell was mistaken.

Again, you should check this claim against the primary literature,
assuming there was even a citation for it.

On Wednesday, July 14, 2021 at 4:56:37 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> On 7/14/21 9:42 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > Dickinsonia is arguably the Ediacaran organism on which the most attention and controversy has been lavished. Despite the large size and the exquisite preservation of many specimens, all kinds of things about it are in dispute, especially its placement in the Domain Eukarya. An impressive number of diverse placements have been advanced over the years in peer-reviewed papers, as can be seen from the long second paragraph of the following lengthy article:
> I take issue with "exquisite preservation". Most of them are preserved
> in sandstone that doesn't show really fine details. Thus it's possible
> to argue about whether a specimen shows bilateral or glide symmetry.
>
> And who is claiming it isn't a eukaryote?
>
> > https://evolutionnews.org/2018/09/why-dickinsonia-was-most-probably-not-an-ediacaran-animal/
>
> Can we at least acknowledge that this is a creationist, or at least an
> ID with creationist leanings, web site? One should therefore be very
> careful about believing anything it says without checking the primary
> literature.
> > An irritating (temporary, I hope) feature of this webpage and others in Evolution News is that one is confronted with what looks like a full page ad with no place to click to make it go away. However, if you look to the right, you see a small rectangle at the top of the scroll bar, that you can use in the usual way to read the article.
> >
> > The title of the article (reflected in the url) may also be irritating to some, but the actual article downplays the message in the title, just as Erik Simpson, who started a thread, "Dickinsonia is very likely an animal" back in April, later downplayed his attachment to the title.
> >
> >
> > I'll have much to say about the linked article and others later today and the rest of the week. Just one comment about one feature for now: the researchers who claim to have found evidence of internal organs are depicted as being very much in the minority. My immediate reaction is that this may be the same kind of phenomenon as the canals on Mars that Percival Lowell thought he saw night after night. There were others who claimed to have seen them, but the majority of astronomers saw no sign of canals. We now know that Lowell was mistaken.
> Again, you should check this claim against the primary literature,
> assuming there was even a citation for it.

You're right to question "exquisite preservation", at least in the context of fossils from the Ediacara hills. The quartzite/sandstone there is
frustratingly grainy, and examining them closely makes you want to rub your eyes and try again. Probably the study making a close examination
of >900 specimens is

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317075559_Highly_regulated_growth_and_development_of_the_Ediacara_macrofossil_Dickinsonia_costata

The authors conclude that the organisms are bilaterally symmetric, with the apparent "glide" symmetry a result of distortion and relatively poor
preservation. From their abstract:

"Here we show that development in Dickinsonia costata was surprisingly highly regulated to maintain an ovoid shape via terminal addition and the
predictable expansion of modules. This result, along with other characters found in Dickinsonia suggests that it does not belong within known
animal groups, but that it utilized some of the developmental gene networks of bilaterians, a result predicted by gene sequencing of basal
metazoans but previously unidentified in the fossil record. Dickinsonia thus represents an extinct clade located between sponges and the
last common ancestor of Protostomes and Deuterostomes, and likely belongs within the Eumetazoa"

As for identification of internal stractures, the consensus view is that what has been so identified is probably at best a taphonomic artifact.

On Wednesday, July 14, 2021 at 7:56:37 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 7/14/21 9:42 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > Dickinsonia is arguably the Ediacaran organism on which the most attention and controversy has been lavished. Despite the large size and the exquisite preservation of many specimens, all kinds of things about it are in dispute, especially its placement in the Domain Eukarya. An impressive number of diverse placements have been advanced over the years in peer-reviewed papers, as can be seen from the long second paragraph of the following lengthy article:

> I take issue with "exquisite preservation". Most of them are preserved
> in sandstone that doesn't show really fine details.

Take a look at the mature specimen referred to in the excerpt below, and tell me just how
un-exquisite you think its preservation was. Erik's comment in his own post read like an
"on steroids" version of yours, and I invite him to do the same.

>Thus it's possible
> to argue about whether a specimen shows bilateral or glide symmetry.

That is one of the things the article studies in depth, with several citations to the
primary literature.

>
> > https://evolutionnews.org/2018/09/why-dickinsonia-was-most-probably-not-an-ediacaran-animal/

Excerpt:
Even the authors acknowledge in their figure legend that the symmetry “becomes ambiguous as the size of the units approaches the grain size of the casting medium.” This is exactly the problem in all juvenile specimens, which are the only specimens claimed to show bilateral symmetry.. The argument of Gehling et al. (2005) that larger specimens are all (!) deformed by torsion is clearly refuted by the perfectly preserved large specimen photographically documented by Ilya Bobrovskiy (see SBS News and below). By the way: if not due to a folding artifact, this photo also may show a unique mode of reproduction by terminal budding that has never been described for dickinsoniids in the literature and that would clearly contradict a bilaterian relationship.
[end of excerpt]

Did you look at Ilya Bobrovskiy's photo? The possible terminal budding doesn't look like a folding artifact to me;
what do you think?

"the authors" refers to Gold DA, Runnegar B, Gehling JG, Jacobs DK (2015). Ancestral state reconstruction of ontogeny supports a bilaterian affinity for Dickinsonia. Evolution & Development 17, 315–324, doi: 10.1111/ede.12168.

> > The title of the article (reflected in the url) may also be irritating to some, but the actual article downplays the message in the title, just as Erik Simpson, who started a thread, "Dickinsonia is very likely an animal" back in April, later downplayed his attachment to the title.

To be precise, Erik's OP appeared on March 31.

Peter Nyikos

On Wednesday, July 14, 2021 at 7:56:37 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 7/14/21 9:42 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > Dickinsonia is arguably the Ediacaran organism on which the most attention and controversy has been lavished. Despite the large size and the exquisite preservation of many specimens, all kinds of things about it are in dispute, especially its placement in the Domain Eukarya. An impressive number of diverse placements have been advanced over the years in peer-reviewed papers, as can be seen from the long second paragraph of the following lengthy article:

> And who is claiming it isn't a eukaryote?

What I meant was that the many different placements range pretty widely within Eukarya. None listed
went outside the domain.

> > https://evolutionnews.org/2018/09/why-dickinsonia-was-most-probably-not-an-ediacaran-animal/

On 7/14/21 6:22 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 14, 2021 at 7:56:37 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 7/14/21 9:42 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> Dickinsonia is arguably the Ediacaran organism on which the most attention and controversy has been lavished. Despite the large size and the exquisite preservation of many specimens, all kinds of things about it are in dispute, especially its placement in the Domain Eukarya. An impressive number of diverse placements have been advanced over the years in peer-reviewed papers, as can be seen from the long second paragraph of the following lengthy article:
>
>> I take issue with "exquisite preservation". Most of them are preserved
>> in sandstone that doesn't show really fine details.
>
> Take a look at the mature specimen referred to in the excerpt below, and tell me just how
> un-exquisite you think its preservation was. Erik's comment in his own post read like an
> "on steroids" version of yours, and I invite him to do the same.
>
>
> >Thus it's possible
>> to argue about whether a specimen shows bilateral or glide symmetry.
>
> That is one of the things the article studies in depth, with several citations to the
> primary literature.

Have you consulted the primary literature that was cited?

>>> https://evolutionnews.org/2018/09/why-dickinsonia-was-most-probably-not-an-ediacaran-animal/
>
> Excerpt:
> Even the authors acknowledge in their figure legend that the symmetry “becomes ambiguous as the size of the units approaches the grain size of the casting medium.” This is exactly the problem in all juvenile specimens, which are the only specimens claimed to show bilateral symmetry. The argument of Gehling et al. (2005) that larger specimens are all (!) deformed by torsion is clearly refuted by the perfectly preserved large specimen photographically documented by Ilya Bobrovskiy (see SBS News and below). By the way: if not due to a folding artifact, this photo also may show a unique mode of reproduction by terminal budding that has never been described for dickinsoniids in the literature and that would clearly contradict a bilaterian relationship.
> [end of excerpt]

I'd say that the photo is sufficiently ambiguous and the preservation
sufficiently coarse to leave the question open.

> Did you look at Ilya Bobrovskiy's photo? The possible terminal budding doesn't look like a folding artifact to me;
> what do you think?

I think it's unclear, given the state of preservation. It would be nice
if there were other similar specimens.

> "the authors" refers to Gold DA, Runnegar B, Gehling JG, Jacobs DK (2015). Ancestral state reconstruction of ontogeny supports a bilaterian affinity for Dickinsonia. Evolution & Development 17, 315–324, doi: 10.1111/ede.12168.
>
>
>>> The title of the article (reflected in the url) may also be irritating to some, but the actual article downplays the message in the title, just as Erik Simpson, who started a thread, "Dickinsonia is very likely an animal" back in April, later downplayed his attachment to the title.
>
> To be precise, Erik's OP appeared on March 31.
>
>
> Peter Nyikos
>

On Wednesday, July 14, 2021 at 9:54:11 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 7/14/21 6:22 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 14, 2021 at 7:56:37 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 7/14/21 9:42 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> Dickinsonia is arguably the Ediacaran organism on which the most attention and controversy has been lavished. Despite the large size and the exquisite preservation of many specimens, all kinds of things about it are in dispute, especially its placement in the Domain Eukarya. An impressive number of diverse placements have been advanced over the years in peer-reviewed papers, as can be seen from the long second paragraph of the following lengthy article:
> >
> >> I take issue with "exquisite preservation". Most of them are preserved
> >> in sandstone that doesn't show really fine details.
> >
> > Take a look at the mature specimen referred to in the excerpt below, and tell me just how
> > un-exquisite you think its preservation was. Erik's comment in his own post read like an
> > "on steroids" version of yours, and I invite him to do the same.
> >
> >
> > >Thus it's possible
> >> to argue about whether a specimen shows bilateral or glide symmetry.
> >
> > That is one of the things the article studies in depth, with several citations to the
> > primary literature.
> Have you consulted the primary literature that was cited?

There are dozens of citations, haven't you noticed?

I did look at the Gold et al one cited below, and I do agree with Bechly and not with the authors where the
authors wrote:

"We personally favor the later arguments, and believe that the images presented in this article (Fig. 1) provide an unambiguous demonstration of metamere continuity across the midline, at least in smaller-sized individuals."

and Bechly wrote:
"However, if you look at their Figure 1 it is hardly unambiguous,"

Both the above statements can be found here:
> >>> https://evolutionnews.org/2018/09/why-dickinsonia-was-most-probably-not-an-ediacaran-animal/

Figure 1 can be found here:

> > Gold DA, Runnegar B, Gehling JG, Jacobs DK (2015). Ancestral state reconstruction of ontogeny supports a bilaterian affinity for Dickinsonia. Evolution & Development 17, 315–324, doi: 10.1111/ede.12168.
After running into some paywalls, I found it for free on ResearchGate:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283688707_Ancestral_state_reconstruction_of_ontogeny_supports_a_bilaterian_affinity_for_Dickinsonia

Gold et al are "the authors" in the following excerpt:
> > Excerpt:
> > Even the authors acknowledge in their figure legend that the symmetry “becomes ambiguous as the size of the units approaches the grain size of the casting medium.” This is exactly the problem in all juvenile specimens, which are the only specimens claimed to show bilateral symmetry. The argument of Gehling et al. (2005)

Gold et al had written, in the part quoted by Bechly,

"Proponents of bilateral symmetry argue that torsion during burial and decomposition causes deformation, which produces apparent offsets of metameric units across the midline, particularly in larger individuals (Gehling et al.. 2005)."

> that larger specimens are all (!) deformed by torsion is clearly refuted by the perfectly preserved large specimen photographically documented by Ilya Bobrovskiy (see SBS News and below). By the way: if not due to a folding artifact, this photo also may show a unique mode of reproduction by terminal budding that has never been described for dickinsoniids in the literature and that would clearly contradict a bilaterian relationship.
> > [end of excerpt]

> I'd say that the photo is sufficiently ambiguous and the preservation
> sufficiently coarse to leave the question open.

The question of bilateral vs glide symmetry?

> > Did you look at Ilya Bobrovskiy's photo? The possible terminal budding doesn't look like a folding artifact to me;
> > what do you think?
> I think it's unclear, given the state of preservation.

You seem to be still thinking about glide symmetry vs bilateral. The budding, which is what it looks like to me,
is a highly macroscopic feature. What's unclear about it?

There is a dimple on the top in the fossil which is suggestive of an earlier budding of the same sort, but smaller.
The fringe around it is narrower than the main part of the fringe that goes around the specimen. The same is true
of the outside of the "bud" or whatever it is, and its immediate vicinity.

How would you account for these features? Can you think of any ways to construe them as folding artifacts?
..

> It would be nice
> if there were other similar specimens.

Perhaps there are. Have you consulted the primary literature?

Anyway, there is plenty of food for thought in the questions I've asked about this one. Others reading this
might try taking a stab at them.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

> >
> >
> >>> The title of the article (reflected in the url) may also be irritating to some, but the actual article downplays the message in the title, just as Erik Simpson, who started a thread, "Dickinsonia is very likely an animal" back in April, later downplayed his attachment to the title.
> >
> > To be precise, Erik's OP appeared on March 31.
> >
> >
> > Peter Nyikos
> >

On 7/15/21 7:24 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 14, 2021 at 9:54:11 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 7/14/21 6:22 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, July 14, 2021 at 7:56:37 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 7/14/21 9:42 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> Dickinsonia is arguably the Ediacaran organism on which the most attention and controversy has been lavished. Despite the large size and the exquisite preservation of many specimens, all kinds of things about it are in dispute, especially its placement in the Domain Eukarya. An impressive number of diverse placements have been advanced over the years in peer-reviewed papers, as can be seen from the long second paragraph of the following lengthy article:
>>>
>>>> I take issue with "exquisite preservation". Most of them are preserved
>>>> in sandstone that doesn't show really fine details.
>>>
>>> Take a look at the mature specimen referred to in the excerpt below, and tell me just how
>>> un-exquisite you think its preservation was. Erik's comment in his own post read like an
>>> "on steroids" version of yours, and I invite him to do the same.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Thus it's possible
>>>> to argue about whether a specimen shows bilateral or glide symmetry.
>>>
>>> That is one of the things the article studies in depth, with several citations to the
>>> primary literature.
>> Have you consulted the primary literature that was cited?
>
> There are dozens of citations, haven't you noticed?

I refer to the citations that are relevant to a particular claim, made
in Bechly's article, that we're discussing.

> I did look at the Gold et al one cited below, and I do agree with Bechly and not with the authors where the
> authors wrote:
>
> "We personally favor the later arguments, and believe that the images presented in this article (Fig. 1) provide an unambiguous demonstration of metamere continuity across the midline, at least in smaller-sized individuals."
>
> and Bechly wrote:
> "However, if you look at their Figure 1 it is hardly unambiguous,"
>
> Both the above statements can be found here:
>>>>> https://evolutionnews.org/2018/09/why-dickinsonia-was-most-probably-not-an-ediacaran-animal/
>
> Figure 1 can be found here:
>
>>> Gold DA, Runnegar B, Gehling JG, Jacobs DK (2015). Ancestral state reconstruction of ontogeny supports a bilaterian affinity for Dickinsonia. Evolution & Development 17, 315–324, doi: 10.1111/ede.12168.
>
> After running into some paywalls, I found it for free on ResearchGate:
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283688707_Ancestral_state_reconstruction_of_ontogeny_supports_a_bilaterian_affinity_for_Dickinsonia

Isn't ResearchGate great? I tend to look there first.

> Gold et al are "the authors" in the following excerpt:
>>> Excerpt:
>>> Even the authors acknowledge in their figure legend that the symmetry “becomes ambiguous as the size of the units approaches the grain size of the casting medium.” This is exactly the problem in all juvenile specimens, which are the only specimens claimed to show bilateral symmetry. The argument of Gehling et al. (2005)
>
> Gold et al had written, in the part quoted by Bechly,
>
> "Proponents of bilateral symmetry argue that torsion during burial and decomposition causes deformation, which produces apparent offsets of metameric units across the midline, particularly in larger individuals (Gehling et al. 2005)."
>
> > that larger specimens are all (!) deformed by torsion is clearly refuted by the perfectly preserved large specimen photographically documented by Ilya Bobrovskiy (see SBS News and below). By the way: if not due to a folding artifact, this photo also may show a unique mode of reproduction by terminal budding that has never been described for dickinsoniids in the literature and that would clearly contradict a bilaterian relationship.
>>> [end of excerpt]
>
>> I'd say that the photo is sufficiently ambiguous and the preservation
>> sufficiently coarse to leave the question open.
>
> The question of bilateral vs glide symmetry?

Yes.

>>> Did you look at Ilya Bobrovskiy's photo? The possible terminal budding doesn't look like a folding artifact to me;
>>> what do you think?
>> I think it's unclear, given the state of preservation.
>
> You seem to be still thinking about glide symmetry vs bilateral. The budding, which is what it looks like to me,
> is a highly macroscopic feature. What's unclear about it?

It's unclear just what is happening. I would feel better about it if
there were other specimens showing something similar, ideally different
stages.

> There is a dimple on the top in the fossil which is suggestive of an earlier budding of the same sort, but smaller.
> The fringe around it is narrower than the main part of the fringe that goes around the specimen. The same is true
> of the outside of the "bud" or whatever it is, and its immediate vicinity.
>
> How would you account for these features? Can you think of any ways to construe them as folding artifacts?

I think the dimple is a preservational artifact, possibly even a
preparation artifact. If there's going to be budding it would have to be
on the axis. The "fringe" may also be an artifact of preservation; at
least I don't know what it is. I'm not even sure what you're calling
"fringe".

>> It would be nice
>> if there were other similar specimens.
>
> Perhaps there are. Have you consulted the primary literature?

No. Wouldn't know how to look. Is Bobrovskiy's photo even in the primary
literature? Is there anything about budding in the primary literature?

> Anyway, there is plenty of food for thought in the questions I've asked about this one. Others reading this
> might try taking a stab at them.
>
>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> The title of the article (reflected in the url) may also be irritating to some, but the actual article downplays the message in the title, just as Erik Simpson, who started a thread, "Dickinsonia is very likely an animal" back in April, later downplayed his attachment to the title.
>>>
>>> To be precise, Erik's OP appeared on March 31.
>>>
>>>
>>> Peter Nyikos
>>>

On 7/15/21 7:24 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 14, 2021 at 9:54:11 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 7/14/21 6:22 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, July 14, 2021 at 7:56:37 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 7/14/21 9:42 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> Dickinsonia is arguably the Ediacaran organism on which the most attention and controversy has been lavished. Despite the large size and the exquisite preservation of many specimens, all kinds of things about it are in dispute, especially its placement in the Domain Eukarya. An impressive number of diverse placements have been advanced over the years in peer-reviewed papers, as can be seen from the long second paragraph of the following lengthy article:
>>>
>>>> I take issue with "exquisite preservation". Most of them are preserved
>>>> in sandstone that doesn't show really fine details.
>>>
>>> Take a look at the mature specimen referred to in the excerpt below, and tell me just how
>>> un-exquisite you think its preservation was. Erik's comment in his own post read like an
>>> "on steroids" version of yours, and I invite him to do the same.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Thus it's possible
>>>> to argue about whether a specimen shows bilateral or glide symmetry.
>>>
>>> That is one of the things the article studies in depth, with several citations to the
>>> primary literature.
>> Have you consulted the primary literature that was cited?
>
> There are dozens of citations, haven't you noticed?
>
> I did look at the Gold et al one cited below, and I do agree with Bechly and not with the authors where the
> authors wrote:
>
> "We personally favor the later arguments, and believe that the images presented in this article (Fig. 1) provide an unambiguous demonstration of metamere continuity across the midline, at least in smaller-sized individuals."
>
> and Bechly wrote:
> "However, if you look at their Figure 1 it is hardly unambiguous,"
>
> Both the above statements can be found here:
>>>>> https://evolutionnews.org/2018/09/why-dickinsonia-was-most-probably-not-an-ediacaran-animal/
>
> Figure 1 can be found here:
>
>>> Gold DA, Runnegar B, Gehling JG, Jacobs DK (2015). Ancestral state reconstruction of ontogeny supports a bilaterian affinity for Dickinsonia. Evolution & Development 17, 315–324, doi: 10.1111/ede.12168.
>
> After running into some paywalls, I found it for free on ResearchGate:
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283688707_Ancestral_state_reconstruction_of_ontogeny_supports_a_bilaterian_affinity_for_Dickinsonia
>
> Gold et al are "the authors" in the following excerpt:
>>> Excerpt:
>>> Even the authors acknowledge in their figure legend that the symmetry “becomes ambiguous as the size of the units approaches the grain size of the casting medium.” This is exactly the problem in all juvenile specimens, which are the only specimens claimed to show bilateral symmetry. The argument of Gehling et al. (2005)
>
> Gold et al had written, in the part quoted by Bechly,
>
> "Proponents of bilateral symmetry argue that torsion during burial and decomposition causes deformation, which produces apparent offsets of metameric units across the midline, particularly in larger individuals (Gehling et al. 2005)."
>
> > that larger specimens are all (!) deformed by torsion is clearly refuted by the perfectly preserved large specimen photographically documented by Ilya Bobrovskiy (see SBS News and below). By the way: if not due to a folding artifact, this photo also may show a unique mode of reproduction by terminal budding that has never been described for dickinsoniids in the literature and that would clearly contradict a bilaterian relationship.
>>> [end of excerpt]
>
>> I'd say that the photo is sufficiently ambiguous and the preservation
>> sufficiently coarse to leave the question open.
>
> The question of bilateral vs glide symmetry?
>
>
>>> Did you look at Ilya Bobrovskiy's photo? The possible terminal budding doesn't look like a folding artifact to me;
>>> what do you think?
>> I think it's unclear, given the state of preservation.
>
> You seem to be still thinking about glide symmetry vs bilateral. The budding, which is what it looks like to me,
> is a highly macroscopic feature. What's unclear about it?
>
> There is a dimple on the top in the fossil which is suggestive of an earlier budding of the same sort, but smaller.
> The fringe around it is narrower than the main part of the fringe that goes around the specimen. The same is true
> of the outside of the "bud" or whatever it is, and its immediate vicinity.
>
> How would you account for these features? Can you think of any ways to construe them as folding artifacts?
> .
>
>> It would be nice
>> if there were other similar specimens.
>
> Perhaps there are. Have you consulted the primary literature?

Here in fact is the primary literature in question:

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6408/1246

The photo you're concerned about doesn't appear there; it's just by the
first author of that paper, and there's no indication that it was ever
published or thought about by him. The paper is all about cholesterol
and nothing else.

> Anyway, there is plenty of food for thought in the questions I've asked about this one. Others reading this
> might try taking a stab at them.
>
>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> The title of the article (reflected in the url) may also be irritating to some, but the actual article downplays the message in the title, just as Erik Simpson, who started a thread, "Dickinsonia is very likely an animal" back in April, later downplayed his attachment to the title.
>>>
>>> To be precise, Erik's OP appeared on March 31.
>>>
>>>
>>> Peter Nyikos
>>>

On Thursday, July 15, 2021 at 11:31:13 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 7/15/21 7:24 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 14, 2021 at 9:54:11 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 7/14/21 6:22 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, July 14, 2021 at 7:56:37 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 7/14/21 9:42 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>> Dickinsonia is arguably the Ediacaran organism on which the most attention and controversy has been lavished. Despite the large size and the exquisite preservation of many specimens, all kinds of things about it are in dispute, especially its placement in the Domain Eukarya. An impressive number of diverse placements have been advanced over the years in peer-reviewed papers, as can be seen from the long second paragraph of the following lengthy article:
> >>>
> >>>> I take issue with "exquisite preservation". Most of them are preserved
> >>>> in sandstone that doesn't show really fine details.
> >>>
> >>> Take a look at the mature specimen referred to in the excerpt below, and tell me just how
> >>> un-exquisite you think its preservation was. Erik's comment in his own post read like an
> >>> "on steroids" version of yours, and I invite him to do the same.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Thus it's possible
> >>>> to argue about whether a specimen shows bilateral or glide symmetry.
> >>>
> >>> That is one of the things the article studies in depth, with several citations to the
> >>> primary literature.
> >> Have you consulted the primary literature that was cited?
> >
> > There are dozens of citations, haven't you noticed?
> >
> > I did look at the Gold et al one cited below, and I do agree with Bechly and not with the authors where the
> > authors wrote:
> >
> > "We personally favor the later arguments, and believe that the images presented in this article (Fig. 1) provide an unambiguous demonstration of metamere continuity across the midline, at least in smaller-sized individuals."
> >
> > and Bechly wrote:
> > "However, if you look at their Figure 1 it is hardly unambiguous,"
> >
> > Both the above statements can be found here:
> >>>>> https://evolutionnews.org/2018/09/why-dickinsonia-was-most-probably-not-an-ediacaran-animal/
> >
> > Figure 1 can be found here:
> >
> >>> Gold DA, Runnegar B, Gehling JG, Jacobs DK (2015). Ancestral state reconstruction of ontogeny supports a bilaterian affinity for Dickinsonia. Evolution & Development 17, 315–324, doi: 10.1111/ede.12168.
> >
> > After running into some paywalls, I found it for free on ResearchGate:
> > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283688707_Ancestral_state_reconstruction_of_ontogeny_supports_a_bilaterian_affinity_for_Dickinsonia
> >
> > Gold et al are "the authors" in the following excerpt:
> >>> Excerpt:
> >>> Even the authors acknowledge in their figure legend that the symmetry “becomes ambiguous as the size of the units approaches the grain size of the casting medium.” This is exactly the problem in all juvenile specimens, which are the only specimens claimed to show bilateral symmetry. The argument of Gehling et al. (2005)
> >
> > Gold et al had written, in the part quoted by Bechly,
> >
> > "Proponents of bilateral symmetry argue that torsion during burial and decomposition causes deformation, which produces apparent offsets of metameric units across the midline, particularly in larger individuals (Gehling et al. 2005)."
> >
> > > that larger specimens are all (!) deformed by torsion is clearly refuted by the perfectly preserved large specimen photographically documented by Ilya Bobrovskiy (see SBS News and below). By the way: if not due to a folding artifact, this photo also may show a unique mode of reproduction by terminal budding that has never been described for dickinsoniids in the literature and that would clearly contradict a bilaterian relationship.
> >>> [end of excerpt]
> >
> >> I'd say that the photo is sufficiently ambiguous and the preservation
> >> sufficiently coarse to leave the question open.
> >
> > The question of bilateral vs glide symmetry?
> >
> >
> >>> Did you look at Ilya Bobrovskiy's photo? The possible terminal budding doesn't look like a folding artifact to me;
> >>> what do you think?
> >> I think it's unclear, given the state of preservation.
> >
> > You seem to be still thinking about glide symmetry vs bilateral. The budding, which is what it looks like to me,
> > is a highly macroscopic feature. What's unclear about it?
> >
> > There is a dimple on the top in the fossil which is suggestive of an earlier budding of the same sort, but smaller.
> > The fringe around it is narrower than the main part of the fringe that goes around the specimen. The same is true
> > of the outside of the "bud" or whatever it is, and its immediate vicinity.
> >
> > How would you account for these features? Can you think of any ways to construe them as folding artifacts?
..
> >
> >> It would be nice
> >> if there were other similar specimens.
> >
> > Perhaps there are. Have you consulted the primary literature?

You didn't consult it to find "other similar specimens," apparently.
And yet, in your other reply to this post, you wrote:

"I would feel better about it if
there were other specimens showing something similar, ideally different
stages."

Do you think you'd feel better if you DID search the primary literature for such things?

> Here in fact is the primary literature in question:

You decided it was "in question." I, on the other hand, haven't gotten around to the topic
of the paper you are linking:

> https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6408/1246
>
> The photo you're concerned about doesn't appear there; it's just by the
> first author of that paper, and there's no indication that it was ever
> published or thought about by him.

It was published here:

https://www.grenzwissenschaft-aktuell.de/558-millionen-jahre-alt-lipide-identifizieren-mit-dickinsonia-aelteste-tierart20180921/

The caption, translated into English, goes:

Dickinsonia fossil from the coast of the White Sea.
Copyright: Ilya Bobrovskiy, ANU

He had to think about it enough to copyright it. Perhaps he even gave permission personally to have
it published in the article I've linked.

Do you imagine that he never gave that picture any additional thought?If so, perhaps he's seen a bunch of other pictures of specimens with similar features to the one we started discussing.

Why aren't you looking for them?

> The paper is all about cholesterol
> and nothing else.

There are probably umpteen articles on nutrition which fit that description..

This article on paleontology doesn't. In fact, it has been hyped up all around the world, as though it had
established that [to paraphrase a notorious comment by then-editor of _Nature_, Henry Gee],
"Dickinsonia is an animal. The debate is over."

> > Anyway, there is plenty of food for thought in the questions I've asked about this one. Others reading this
> > might try taking a stab at them.

If they aren't, it might be because they are influenced by your attitude.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina in Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

On 7/20/21 5:40 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Thursday, July 15, 2021 at 11:31:13 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 7/15/21 7:24 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, July 14, 2021 at 9:54:11 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 7/14/21 6:22 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, July 14, 2021 at 7:56:37 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/14/21 9:42 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>>> Dickinsonia is arguably the Ediacaran organism on which the most attention and controversy has been lavished. Despite the large size and the exquisite preservation of many specimens, all kinds of things about it are in dispute, especially its placement in the Domain Eukarya. An impressive number of diverse placements have been advanced over the years in peer-reviewed papers, as can be seen from the long second paragraph of the following lengthy article:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I take issue with "exquisite preservation". Most of them are preserved
>>>>>> in sandstone that doesn't show really fine details.
>>>>>
>>>>> Take a look at the mature specimen referred to in the excerpt below, and tell me just how
>>>>> un-exquisite you think its preservation was. Erik's comment in his own post read like an
>>>>> "on steroids" version of yours, and I invite him to do the same.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thus it's possible
>>>>>> to argue about whether a specimen shows bilateral or glide symmetry.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is one of the things the article studies in depth, with several citations to the
>>>>> primary literature.
>>>> Have you consulted the primary literature that was cited?
>>>
>>> There are dozens of citations, haven't you noticed?
>>>
>>> I did look at the Gold et al one cited below, and I do agree with Bechly and not with the authors where the
>>> authors wrote:
>>>
>>> "We personally favor the later arguments, and believe that the images presented in this article (Fig. 1) provide an unambiguous demonstration of metamere continuity across the midline, at least in smaller-sized individuals."
>>>
>>> and Bechly wrote:
>>> "However, if you look at their Figure 1 it is hardly unambiguous,"
>>>
>>> Both the above statements can be found here:
>>>>>>> https://evolutionnews.org/2018/09/why-dickinsonia-was-most-probably-not-an-ediacaran-animal/
>>>
>>> Figure 1 can be found here:
>>>
>>>>> Gold DA, Runnegar B, Gehling JG, Jacobs DK (2015). Ancestral state reconstruction of ontogeny supports a bilaterian affinity for Dickinsonia. Evolution & Development 17, 315–324, doi: 10.1111/ede.12168.
>>>
>>> After running into some paywalls, I found it for free on ResearchGate:
>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283688707_Ancestral_state_reconstruction_of_ontogeny_supports_a_bilaterian_affinity_for_Dickinsonia
>>>
>>> Gold et al are "the authors" in the following excerpt:
>>>>> Excerpt:
>>>>> Even the authors acknowledge in their figure legend that the symmetry “becomes ambiguous as the size of the units approaches the grain size of the casting medium.” This is exactly the problem in all juvenile specimens, which are the only specimens claimed to show bilateral symmetry. The argument of Gehling et al. (2005)
>>>
>>> Gold et al had written, in the part quoted by Bechly,
>>>
>>> "Proponents of bilateral symmetry argue that torsion during burial and decomposition causes deformation, which produces apparent offsets of metameric units across the midline, particularly in larger individuals (Gehling et al. 2005)."
>>>
>>>> that larger specimens are all (!) deformed by torsion is clearly refuted by the perfectly preserved large specimen photographically documented by Ilya Bobrovskiy (see SBS News and below). By the way: if not due to a folding artifact, this photo also may show a unique mode of reproduction by terminal budding that has never been described for dickinsoniids in the literature and that would clearly contradict a bilaterian relationship.
>>>>> [end of excerpt]
>>>
>>>> I'd say that the photo is sufficiently ambiguous and the preservation
>>>> sufficiently coarse to leave the question open.
>>>
>>> The question of bilateral vs glide symmetry?
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Did you look at Ilya Bobrovskiy's photo? The possible terminal budding doesn't look like a folding artifact to me;
>>>>> what do you think?
>>>> I think it's unclear, given the state of preservation.
>>>
>>> You seem to be still thinking about glide symmetry vs bilateral. The budding, which is what it looks like to me,
>>> is a highly macroscopic feature. What's unclear about it?
>>>
>>> There is a dimple on the top in the fossil which is suggestive of an earlier budding of the same sort, but smaller.
>>> The fringe around it is narrower than the main part of the fringe that goes around the specimen. The same is true
>>> of the outside of the "bud" or whatever it is, and its immediate vicinity.
>>>
>>> How would you account for these features? Can you think of any ways to construe them as folding artifacts?
> .
>>>
>>>> It would be nice
>>>> if there were other similar specimens.
>>>
>>> Perhaps there are. Have you consulted the primary literature?
>
> You didn't consult it to find "other similar specimens," apparently.
> And yet, in your other reply to this post, you wrote:
>
> "I would feel better about it if
> there were other specimens showing something similar, ideally different
> stages."
>
> Do you think you'd feel better if you DID search the primary literature for such things?

I don't know how to search for that. The guy who took the photo seems
not to have mentioned that feature anywhere, and nothing is cited in the
paper. Where do you go from there?

>> Here in fact is the primary literature in question:
>
> You decided it was "in question." I, on the other hand, haven't gotten around to the topic
> of the paper you are linking:
>
>> https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6408/1246
>>
>> The photo you're concerned about doesn't appear there; it's just by the
>> first author of that paper, and there's no indication that it was ever
>> published or thought about by him.
>
> It was published here:
>
> https://www.grenzwissenschaft-aktuell.de/558-millionen-jahre-alt-lipide-identifizieren-mit-dickinsonia-aelteste-tierart20180921/
>
> The caption, translated into English, goes:
>
> Dickinsonia fossil from the coast of the White Sea.
> Copyright: Ilya Bobrovskiy, ANU
>
> He had to think about it enough to copyright it. Perhaps he even gave permission personally to have
> it published in the article I've linked.
>
> Do you imagine that he never gave that picture any additional thought?If so, perhaps he's seen a bunch of other pictures of specimens with similar features to the one we started discussing.
>
> Why aren't you looking for them?

How would you look except to search for more papers with Bobrovskiy as
author?

>> The paper is all about cholesterol
>> and nothing else.
>
> There are probably umpteen articles on nutrition which fit that description.
>
> This article on paleontology doesn't. In fact, it has been hyped up all around the world, as though it had
> established that [to paraphrase a notorious comment by then-editor of _Nature_, Henry Gee],
> "Dickinsonia is an animal. The debate is over."

Now you're just getting needlessly testy. It's about finding cholesterol
in Dickinsonia fossils as evidence that they're metazoans. The point is
that it isn't about Dickinsonia anatomy and doesn't talk about it at
all, much less about the photo you reference.

>>> Anyway, there is plenty of food for thought in the questions I've asked about this one. Others reading this
>>> might try taking a stab at them.
>
> If they aren't, it might be because they are influenced by your attitude.

There's really no need to get testy. Try to maintain.

On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 12:05:59 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 7/20/21 5:40 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 15, 2021 at 11:31:13 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 7/15/21 7:24 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, July 14, 2021 at 9:54:11 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 7/14/21 6:22 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

[quoting Bechly:]
> >>>> that larger specimens are all (!) deformed by torsion is clearly refuted by the perfectly preserved large specimen photographically documented by Ilya Bobrovskiy (see SBS News and below). By the way: if not due to a folding artifact, this photo also may show a unique mode of reproduction by terminal budding that has never been described for dickinsoniids in the literature and that would clearly contradict a bilaterian relationship.
> >>>>> [end of excerpt]
> >>>
> >>>> I'd say that the photo is sufficiently ambiguous and the preservation
> >>>> sufficiently coarse to leave the question open.
> >>>
> >>> The question of bilateral vs glide symmetry?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>> Did you look at Ilya Bobrovskiy's photo? The possible terminal budding doesn't look like a folding artifact to me;
> >>>>> what do you think?

> >>>> I think it's unclear, given the state of preservation.
> >>>
> >>> You seem to be still thinking about glide symmetry vs bilateral. The budding, which is what it looks like to me,
> >>> is a highly macroscopic feature. What's unclear about it?
> >>>
> >>> There is a dimple on the top in the fossil which is suggestive of an earlier budding of the same sort, but smaller.
> >>> The fringe around it is narrower than the main part of the fringe that goes around the specimen. The same is true
> >>> of the outside of the "bud" or whatever it is, and its immediate vicinity.
> >>>
> >>> How would you account for these features? Can you think of any ways to construe them as folding artifacts?
> > .
> >>>
> >>>> It would be nice
> >>>> if there were other similar specimens.
> >>>
> >>> Perhaps there are. Have you consulted the primary literature?
> >
> > You didn't consult it to find "other similar specimens," apparently.
> > And yet, in your other reply to this post, you wrote:
> >
> > "I would feel better about it if
> > there were other specimens showing something similar, ideally different
> > stages."
> >
> > Do you think you'd feel better if you DID search the primary literature for such things?

> I don't know how to search for that. The guy who took the photo seems
> not to have mentioned that feature anywhere, and nothing is cited in the
> paper. Where do you go from there?

Isn't it obvious? Let go of your obsession with "primary literature" long enough to search
the web for other photos of Dickinsonia specimens. With any luck, they will lead you to
the primary literature, and that might take you to more of them.

> >> Here in fact is the primary literature in question:
> >
> > You decided it was "in question." I, on the other hand, haven't gotten around to the topic
> > of the paper you are linking:
> >
> >> https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6408/1246
> >>
> >> The photo you're concerned about doesn't appear there;

But a photo of a different specimen does appear there.

> >> it's just by the
> >> first author of that paper, and there's no indication that it was ever
> >> published or thought about by him.

Are you implying that Ilya never tested the lipids around it, if any, for percentages of sterols?
Why wouldn't he do it, do you suppose?

> >
> > It was published here:
> >
> > https://www.grenzwissenschaft-aktuell.de/558-millionen-jahre-alt-lipide-identifizieren-mit-dickinsonia-aelteste-tierart20180921/
> >
> > The caption, translated into English, goes:
> >
> > Dickinsonia fossil from the coast of the White Sea.
> > Copyright: Ilya Bobrovskiy, ANU
> >
> > He had to think about it enough to copyright it. Perhaps he even gave permission personally to have
> > it published in the article I've linked.
> >
> > Do you imagine that he never gave that picture any additional thought?If so, perhaps he's seen a bunch of other pictures of specimens with similar features to the one we started discussing.

<crickets>

> > Why aren't you looking for them?

> How would you look except to search for more papers with Bobrovskiy as
> author?

Stupid question. Do you imagine that you've seen photos of every Dickinsonia fossil besides those
photographed by Bobrovskiy?

> >> The paper is all about cholesterol
> >> and nothing else.
> >
> > There are probably umpteen articles on nutrition which fit that description.
> >
> > This article on paleontology doesn't. In fact, it has been hyped up all around the world, as though it had
> > established that [to paraphrase a notorious comment by then-editor of _Nature_, Henry Gee],
> > "Dickinsonia is an animal. The debate is over."

> Now you're just getting needlessly testy.

It's hard not to get testy with people who post such idiotic descriptions as
"The paper is all about cholesterol and nothing else." But if "testy" refers to the articles that hype Ilya's discovery,
I think I pretty accurately summed several of them up, including the German one.

> It's about finding cholesterol
> in Dickinsonia fossils as evidence that they're metazoans.

Your current penchant for understatement amazes me. I can't recall you behaving like this before.

> The point is
> that it isn't about Dickinsonia anatomy and doesn't talk about it at
> all, much less about the photo you reference.

Why bother even pointing this out?

> >>> Anyway, there is plenty of food for thought in the questions I've asked about this one. Others reading this
> >>> might try taking a stab at them.
> >
> > If they aren't, it might be because they are influenced by your attitude.

> There's really no need to get testy.

It's hard not to get testy with someone who ignores evidence that he is seriously biased against Bechly.

I provided it here, in a post that you've ignored all this time:

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/y_NKDdJixf8/m/Edmq1g26AQAJ
Re: Dickinsonia is very likely an animal
Jul 9, 2021, 6:12:59 PM

It's a long post, so scroll to near the bottom where you write,
"Bechly is a puzzling case. His manifesto says he's a saltationist, ..."
and you'll see the evidence.

Peter Nyikos

On 7/22/21 6:46 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 12:05:59 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 7/20/21 5:40 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Thursday, July 15, 2021 at 11:31:13 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 7/15/21 7:24 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, July 14, 2021 at 9:54:11 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/14/21 6:22 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> [quoting Bechly:]
>>>>>> that larger specimens are all (!) deformed by torsion is clearly refuted by the perfectly preserved large specimen photographically documented by Ilya Bobrovskiy (see SBS News and below). By the way: if not due to a folding artifact, this photo also may show a unique mode of reproduction by terminal budding that has never been described for dickinsoniids in the literature and that would clearly contradict a bilaterian relationship.
>>>>>>> [end of excerpt]
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd say that the photo is sufficiently ambiguous and the preservation
>>>>>> sufficiently coarse to leave the question open.
>>>>>
>>>>> The question of bilateral vs glide symmetry?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Did you look at Ilya Bobrovskiy's photo? The possible terminal budding doesn't look like a folding artifact to me;
>>>>>>> what do you think?
>
>>>>>> I think it's unclear, given the state of preservation.
>>>>>
>>>>> You seem to be still thinking about glide symmetry vs bilateral. The budding, which is what it looks like to me,
>>>>> is a highly macroscopic feature. What's unclear about it?
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a dimple on the top in the fossil which is suggestive of an earlier budding of the same sort, but smaller.
>>>>> The fringe around it is narrower than the main part of the fringe that goes around the specimen. The same is true
>>>>> of the outside of the "bud" or whatever it is, and its immediate vicinity.
>>>>>
>>>>> How would you account for these features? Can you think of any ways to construe them as folding artifacts?
>>> .
>>>>>
>>>>>> It would be nice
>>>>>> if there were other similar specimens.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps there are. Have you consulted the primary literature?
>>>
>>> You didn't consult it to find "other similar specimens," apparently.
>>> And yet, in your other reply to this post, you wrote:
>>>
>>> "I would feel better about it if
>>> there were other specimens showing something similar, ideally different
>>> stages."
>>>
>>> Do you think you'd feel better if you DID search the primary literature for such things?
>
>> I don't know how to search for that. The guy who took the photo seems
>> not to have mentioned that feature anywhere, and nothing is cited in the
>> paper. Where do you go from there?
>
> Isn't it obvious? Let go of your obsession with "primary literature" long enough to search
> the web for other photos of Dickinsonia specimens. With any luck, they will lead you to
> the primary literature, and that might take you to more of them.

Tell, you what: why don't you try that and report back?

>>>> Here in fact is the primary literature in question:
>>>
>>> You decided it was "in question." I, on the other hand, haven't gotten around to the topic
>>> of the paper you are linking:
>>>
>>>> https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6408/1246
>>>>
>>>> The photo you're concerned about doesn't appear there;
>
> But a photo of a different specimen does appear there.

Yes, but that photo provides no evidence for your hypothesis.

>>>> it's just by the
>>>> first author of that paper, and there's no indication that it was ever
>>>> published or thought about by him.
>
> Are you implying that Ilya never tested the lipids around it, if any, for percentages of sterols?
> Why wouldn't he do it, do you suppose?

No, I am implying no such thing. I'm telling you that the paper isn't
about anatomy or reproduction or budding and has nothing to say on the
subject you brought up, the one we've just been talking about, which you
may perhaps remember.

>>>
>>> It was published here:
>>>
>>> https://www.grenzwissenschaft-aktuell.de/558-millionen-jahre-alt-lipide-identifizieren-mit-dickinsonia-aelteste-tierart20180921/
>>>
>>> The caption, translated into English, goes:
>>>
>>> Dickinsonia fossil from the coast of the White Sea.
>>> Copyright: Ilya Bobrovskiy, ANU
>>>
>>> He had to think about it enough to copyright it. Perhaps he even gave permission personally to have
>>> it published in the article I've linked.
>>>
>>> Do you imagine that he never gave that picture any additional thought?If so, perhaps he's seen a bunch of other pictures of specimens with similar features to the one we started discussing.
>
> <crickets>

This seems empty speculation in the absence of any evidence. I refuse to
"imagine" or deal with "perhaps". Hence the crickets.

>>> Why aren't you looking for them?
>
>> How would you look except to search for more papers with Bobrovskiy as
>> author?
>
> Stupid question. Do you imagine that you've seen photos of every Dickinsonia fossil besides those
> photographed by Bobrovskiy?

Certainly not. But it does appear that if any of those photos show
something similar to Bobrovskiy's photo under discussion, nobody has
noticed or made an issue of it. Here, I'll do a google search for
images of Dickinsonia. Wait for me.

OK, I looked through hundreds of Dickinsonia images. The only one
anything like the one that inspired you is the one that inspired you.
Now what?

>>>> The paper is all about cholesterol
>>>> and nothing else.
>>>
>>> There are probably umpteen articles on nutrition which fit that description.
>>>
>>> This article on paleontology doesn't. In fact, it has been hyped up all around the world, as though it had
>>> established that [to paraphrase a notorious comment by then-editor of _Nature_, Henry Gee],
>>> "Dickinsonia is an animal. The debate is over."
>
>> Now you're just getting needlessly testy.
>
> It's hard not to get testy with people who post such idiotic descriptions as
> "The paper is all about cholesterol and nothing else." But if "testy" refers to the articles that hype Ilya's discovery,
> I think I pretty accurately summed several of them up, including the German one.

Now you're getting extra testy. Just try to calm down and perhaps be
minimally civil.

>> It's about finding cholesterol
>> in Dickinsonia fossils as evidence that they're metazoans.
>
> Your current penchant for understatement amazes me. I can't recall you behaving like this before.

?

>> The point is
>> that it isn't about Dickinsonia anatomy and doesn't talk about it at
>> all, much less about the photo you reference.
>
> Why bother even pointing this out?

Because you seemed to have missed the point and launched into an
irrelevant harangue about nutrition.

>>>>> Anyway, there is plenty of food for thought in the questions I've asked about this one. Others reading this
>>>>> might try taking a stab at them.
>>>
>>> If they aren't, it might be because they are influenced by your attitude.
>
>> There's really no need to get testy.
>
> It's hard not to get testy with someone who ignores evidence that he is seriously biased against Bechly.

I'm sorry, but you are misunderstanding so much of what you read, and I
get tired of explaining.

> I provided it here, in a post that you've ignored all this time:
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/y_NKDdJixf8/m/Edmq1g26AQAJ
> Re: Dickinsonia is very likely an animal
> Jul 9, 2021, 6:12:59 PM
>
> It's a long post, so scroll to near the bottom where you write,
> "Bechly is a puzzling case. His manifesto says he's a saltationist, ..."
> and you'll see the evidence.

Seriously, I have no interest in trying to explain this to you.

On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 10:41:42 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 7/22/21 6:46 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 12:05:59 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 7/20/21 5:40 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, July 15, 2021 at 11:31:13 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 7/15/21 7:24 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, July 14, 2021 at 9:54:11 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>> On 7/14/21 6:22 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >
> > [quoting Bechly:]
> >>>>>> that larger specimens are all (!) deformed by torsion is clearly refuted by the perfectly preserved large specimen photographically documented by Ilya Bobrovskiy (see SBS News and below). By the way: if not due to a folding artifact, this photo also may show a unique mode of reproduction by terminal budding that has never been described for dickinsoniids in the literature and that would clearly contradict a bilaterian relationship.
> >>>>>>> [end of excerpt]
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I'd say that the photo is sufficiently ambiguous and the preservation
> >>>>>> sufficiently coarse to leave the question open.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The question of bilateral vs glide symmetry?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> Did you look at Ilya Bobrovskiy's photo? The possible terminal budding doesn't look like a folding artifact to me;
> >>>>>>> what do you think?
> >
> >>>>>> I think it's unclear, given the state of preservation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You seem to be still thinking about glide symmetry vs bilateral. The budding, which is what it looks like to me,
> >>>>> is a highly macroscopic feature. What's unclear about it?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There is a dimple on the top in the fossil which is suggestive of an earlier budding of the same sort, but smaller.
> >>>>> The fringe around it is narrower than the main part of the fringe that goes around the specimen. The same is true
> >>>>> of the outside of the "bud" or whatever it is, and its immediate vicinity.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> How would you account for these features? Can you think of any ways to construe them as folding artifacts?
> >>> .
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> It would be nice
> >>>>>> if there were other similar specimens.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Perhaps there are. Have you consulted the primary literature?
> >>>
> >>> You didn't consult it to find "other similar specimens," apparently.
> >>> And yet, in your other reply to this post, you wrote:
> >>>
> >>> "I would feel better about it if
> >>> there were other specimens showing something similar, ideally different
> >>> stages."
> >>>
> >>> Do you think you'd feel better if you DID search the primary literature for such things?
> >
> >> I don't know how to search for that. The guy who took the photo seems
> >> not to have mentioned that feature anywhere, and nothing is cited in the
> >> paper. Where do you go from there?
> >
> > Isn't it obvious? Let go of your obsession with "primary literature" long enough to search
> > the web for other photos of Dickinsonia specimens. With any luck, they will lead you to
> > the primary literature, and that might take you to more of them.
> Tell, you what: why don't you try that and report back?
> >>>> Here in fact is the primary literature in question:
> >>>
> >>> You decided it was "in question." I, on the other hand, haven't gotten around to the topic
> >>> of the paper you are linking:
> >>>
> >>>> https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6408/1246
> >>>>
> >>>> The photo you're concerned about doesn't appear there;
> >
> > But a photo of a different specimen does appear there.
> Yes, but that photo provides no evidence for your hypothesis.
> >>>> it's just by the
> >>>> first author of that paper, and there's no indication that it was ever
> >>>> published or thought about by him.
> >
> > Are you implying that Ilya never tested the lipids around it, if any, for percentages of sterols?
> > Why wouldn't he do it, do you suppose?
> No, I am implying no such thing. I'm telling you that the paper isn't
> about anatomy or reproduction or budding and has nothing to say on the
> subject you brought up, the one we've just been talking about, which you
> may perhaps remember.
> >>>
> >>> It was published here:
> >>>
> >>> https://www.grenzwissenschaft-aktuell.de/558-millionen-jahre-alt-lipide-identifizieren-mit-dickinsonia-aelteste-tierart20180921/
> >>>
> >>> The caption, translated into English, goes:
> >>>
> >>> Dickinsonia fossil from the coast of the White Sea.
> >>> Copyright: Ilya Bobrovskiy, ANU
> >>>
> >>> He had to think about it enough to copyright it. Perhaps he even gave permission personally to have
> >>> it published in the article I've linked.
> >>>
> >>> Do you imagine that he never gave that picture any additional thought?If so, perhaps he's seen a bunch of other pictures of specimens with similar features to the one we started discussing.
> >
> > <crickets>
> This seems empty speculation in the absence of any evidence. I refuse to
> "imagine" or deal with "perhaps". Hence the crickets.
> >>> Why aren't you looking for them?
> >
> >> How would you look except to search for more papers with Bobrovskiy as
> >> author?
> >
> > Stupid question. Do you imagine that you've seen photos of every Dickinsonia fossil besides those
> > photographed by Bobrovskiy?
> Certainly not. But it does appear that if any of those photos show
> something similar to Bobrovskiy's photo under discussion, nobody has
> noticed or made an issue of it. Here, I'll do a google search for
> images of Dickinsonia. Wait for me.
>
> OK, I looked through hundreds of Dickinsonia images. The only one
> anything like the one that inspired you is the one that inspired you.
> Now what?
> >>>> The paper is all about cholesterol
> >>>> and nothing else.
> >>>
> >>> There are probably umpteen articles on nutrition which fit that description.
> >>>
> >>> This article on paleontology doesn't. In fact, it has been hyped up all around the world, as though it had
> >>> established that [to paraphrase a notorious comment by then-editor of _Nature_, Henry Gee],
> >>> "Dickinsonia is an animal. The debate is over."
> >
> >> Now you're just getting needlessly testy.
> >
> > It's hard not to get testy with people who post such idiotic descriptions as
> > "The paper is all about cholesterol and nothing else." But if "testy" refers to the articles that hype Ilya's discovery,
> > I think I pretty accurately summed several of them up, including the German one.
> Now you're getting extra testy. Just try to calm down and perhaps be
> minimally civil.
> >> It's about finding cholesterol
> >> in Dickinsonia fossils as evidence that they're metazoans.
> >
> > Your current penchant for understatement amazes me. I can't recall you behaving like this before.
> ?
> >> The point is
> >> that it isn't about Dickinsonia anatomy and doesn't talk about it at
> >> all, much less about the photo you reference.
> >
> > Why bother even pointing this out?
> Because you seemed to have missed the point and launched into an
> irrelevant harangue about nutrition.
> >>>>> Anyway, there is plenty of food for thought in the questions I've asked about this one. Others reading this
> >>>>> might try taking a stab at them.
> >>>
> >>> If they aren't, it might be because they are influenced by your attitude.
> >
> >> There's really no need to get testy.
> >
> > It's hard not to get testy with someone who ignores evidence that he is seriously biased against Bechly.
> I'm sorry, but you are misunderstanding so much of what you read, and I
> get tired of explaining.
> > I provided it here, in a post that you've ignored all this time:
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/y_NKDdJixf8/m/Edmq1g26AQAJ
> > Re: Dickinsonia is very likely an animal
> > Jul 9, 2021, 6:12:59 PM
> >
> > It's a long post, so scroll to near the bottom where you write,
> > "Bechly is a puzzling case. His manifesto says he's a saltationist, ..."
> > and you'll see the evidence.
> Seriously, I have no interest in trying to explain this to you.

On Tuesday, July 27, 2021 at 7:49:26 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 10:41:42 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> > On 7/22/21 6:46 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 12:05:59 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> > >> On 7/20/21 5:40 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > >>> On Thursday, July 15, 2021 at 11:31:13 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> > >>>> On 7/15/21 7:24 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > >>>>> On Wednesday, July 14, 2021 at 9:54:11 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> > >>>>>> On 7/14/21 6:22 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > >
> > > [quoting Bechly:]
> > >>>>>> that larger specimens are all (!) deformed by torsion is clearly refuted by the perfectly preserved large specimen photographically documented by Ilya Bobrovskiy (see SBS News and below). By the way: if not due to a folding artifact, this photo also may show a unique mode of reproduction by terminal budding that has never been described for dickinsoniids in the literature and that would clearly contradict a bilaterian relationship.
> > >>>>>>> [end of excerpt]
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> I'd say that the photo is sufficiently ambiguous and the preservation
> > >>>>>> sufficiently coarse to leave the question open.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> The question of bilateral vs glide symmetry?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Did you look at Ilya Bobrovskiy's photo? The possible terminal budding doesn't look like a folding artifact to me;
> > >>>>>>> what do you think?
> > >
> > >>>>>> I think it's unclear, given the state of preservation.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> You seem to be still thinking about glide symmetry vs bilateral. The budding, which is what it looks like to me,
> > >>>>> is a highly macroscopic feature. What's unclear about it?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> There is a dimple on the top in the fossil which is suggestive of an earlier budding of the same sort, but smaller.
> > >>>>> The fringe around it is narrower than the main part of the fringe that goes around the specimen. The same is true
> > >>>>> of the outside of the "bud" or whatever it is, and its immediate vicinity.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> How would you account for these features? Can you think of any ways to construe them as folding artifacts?
> > >>> .
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> It would be nice
> > >>>>>> if there were other similar specimens.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Perhaps there are. Have you consulted the primary literature?
> > >>>
> > >>> You didn't consult it to find "other similar specimens," apparently..
> > >>> And yet, in your other reply to this post, you wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> "I would feel better about it if
> > >>> there were other specimens showing something similar, ideally different
> > >>> stages."
> > >>>
> > >>> Do you think you'd feel better if you DID search the primary literature for such things?
> > >
> > >> I don't know how to search for that. The guy who took the photo seems
> > >> not to have mentioned that feature anywhere, and nothing is cited in the
> > >> paper. Where do you go from there?
> > >
> > > Isn't it obvious? Let go of your obsession with "primary literature" long enough to search
> > > the web for other photos of Dickinsonia specimens. With any luck, they will lead you to
> > > the primary literature, and that might take you to more of them.
> > Tell, you what: why don't you try that and report back?
> > >>>> Here in fact is the primary literature in question:
> > >>>
> > >>> You decided it was "in question." I, on the other hand, haven't gotten around to the topic
> > >>> of the paper you are linking:
> > >>>
> > >>>> https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6408/1246
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The photo you're concerned about doesn't appear there;
> > >
> > > But a photo of a different specimen does appear there.
> > Yes, but that photo provides no evidence for your hypothesis.
> > >>>> it's just by the
> > >>>> first author of that paper, and there's no indication that it was ever
> > >>>> published or thought about by him.
> > >
> > > Are you implying that Ilya never tested the lipids around it, if any, for percentages of sterols?
> > > Why wouldn't he do it, do you suppose?
> > No, I am implying no such thing. I'm telling you that the paper isn't
> > about anatomy or reproduction or budding and has nothing to say on the
> > subject you brought up, the one we've just been talking about, which you
> > may perhaps remember.
> > >>>
> > >>> It was published here:
> > >>>
> > >>> https://www.grenzwissenschaft-aktuell.de/558-millionen-jahre-alt-lipide-identifizieren-mit-dickinsonia-aelteste-tierart20180921/
> > >>>
> > >>> The caption, translated into English, goes:
> > >>>
> > >>> Dickinsonia fossil from the coast of the White Sea.
> > >>> Copyright: Ilya Bobrovskiy, ANU
> > >>>
> > >>> He had to think about it enough to copyright it. Perhaps he even gave permission personally to have
> > >>> it published in the article I've linked.
> > >>>
> > >>> Do you imagine that he never gave that picture any additional thought?If so, perhaps he's seen a bunch of other pictures of specimens with similar features to the one we started discussing.
> > >
> > > <crickets>
> > This seems empty speculation in the absence of any evidence. I refuse to
> > "imagine" or deal with "perhaps". Hence the crickets.
> > >>> Why aren't you looking for them?
> > >
> > >> How would you look except to search for more papers with Bobrovskiy as
> > >> author?
> > >
> > > Stupid question. Do you imagine that you've seen photos of every Dickinsonia fossil besides those
> > > photographed by Bobrovskiy?
> > Certainly not. But it does appear that if any of those photos show
> > something similar to Bobrovskiy's photo under discussion, nobody has
> > noticed or made an issue of it. Here, I'll do a google search for
> > images of Dickinsonia. Wait for me.
> >
> > OK, I looked through hundreds of Dickinsonia images. The only one
> > anything like the one that inspired you is the one that inspired you.
> > Now what?
> > >>>> The paper is all about cholesterol
> > >>>> and nothing else.
> > >>>
> > >>> There are probably umpteen articles on nutrition which fit that description.
> > >>>
> > >>> This article on paleontology doesn't. In fact, it has been hyped up all around the world, as though it had
> > >>> established that [to paraphrase a notorious comment by then-editor of _Nature_, Henry Gee],
> > >>> "Dickinsonia is an animal. The debate is over."
> > >
> > >> Now you're just getting needlessly testy.
> > >
> > > It's hard not to get testy with people who post such idiotic descriptions as
> > > "The paper is all about cholesterol and nothing else." But if "testy" refers to the articles that hype Ilya's discovery,
> > > I think I pretty accurately summed several of them up, including the German one.
> > Now you're getting extra testy. Just try to calm down and perhaps be
> > minimally civil.
> > >> It's about finding cholesterol
> > >> in Dickinsonia fossils as evidence that they're metazoans.
> > >
> > > Your current penchant for understatement amazes me. I can't recall you behaving like this before.
> > ?
> > >> The point is
> > >> that it isn't about Dickinsonia anatomy and doesn't talk about it at
> > >> all, much less about the photo you reference.
> > >
> > > Why bother even pointing this out?
> > Because you seemed to have missed the point and launched into an
> > irrelevant harangue about nutrition.
> > >>>>> Anyway, there is plenty of food for thought in the questions I've asked about this one. Others reading this
> > >>>>> might try taking a stab at them.
> > >>>
> > >>> If they aren't, it might be because they are influenced by your attitude.
> > >
> > >> There's really no need to get testy.
> > >
> > > It's hard not to get testy with someone who ignores evidence that he is seriously biased against Bechly.
> > I'm sorry, but you are misunderstanding so much of what you read, and I
> > get tired of explaining.
> > > I provided it here, in a post that you've ignored all this time:
> > >
> > > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/y_NKDdJixf8/m/Edmq1g26AQAJ
> > > Re: Dickinsonia is very likely an animal
> > > Jul 9, 2021, 6:12:59 PM
> > >
> > > It's a long post, so scroll to near the bottom where you write,
> > > "Bechly is a puzzling case. His manifesto says he's a saltationist, ...."
> > > and you'll see the evidence.
> > Seriously, I have no interest in trying to explain this to you.
> Indeed, if you did try to explain the inexplicable, you'd just be making a fool out of yourself.
>
> Your time would be better spent in trying to give credible evidence that Bechly
> is skeptical of evolution.
>
> But then, you have no interest in doing this either, do you?
>
>
> Peter Nyikos

On 7/27/21 7:49 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 10:41:42 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 7/22/21 6:46 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 12:05:59 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 7/20/21 5:40 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, July 15, 2021 at 11:31:13 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/15/21 7:24 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, July 14, 2021 at 9:54:11 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/14/21 6:22 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>
>>> [quoting Bechly:]
>>>>>>>> that larger specimens are all (!) deformed by torsion is clearly refuted by the perfectly preserved large specimen photographically documented by Ilya Bobrovskiy (see SBS News and below). By the way: if not due to a folding artifact, this photo also may show a unique mode of reproduction by terminal budding that has never been described for dickinsoniids in the literature and that would clearly contradict a bilaterian relationship.
>>>>>>>>> [end of excerpt]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'd say that the photo is sufficiently ambiguous and the preservation
>>>>>>>> sufficiently coarse to leave the question open.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The question of bilateral vs glide symmetry?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Did you look at Ilya Bobrovskiy's photo? The possible terminal budding doesn't look like a folding artifact to me;
>>>>>>>>> what do you think?
>>>
>>>>>>>> I think it's unclear, given the state of preservation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You seem to be still thinking about glide symmetry vs bilateral. The budding, which is what it looks like to me,
>>>>>>> is a highly macroscopic feature. What's unclear about it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is a dimple on the top in the fossil which is suggestive of an earlier budding of the same sort, but smaller.
>>>>>>> The fringe around it is narrower than the main part of the fringe that goes around the specimen. The same is true
>>>>>>> of the outside of the "bud" or whatever it is, and its immediate vicinity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How would you account for these features? Can you think of any ways to construe them as folding artifacts?
>>>>> .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It would be nice
>>>>>>>> if there were other similar specimens.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Perhaps there are. Have you consulted the primary literature?
>>>>>
>>>>> You didn't consult it to find "other similar specimens," apparently.
>>>>> And yet, in your other reply to this post, you wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "I would feel better about it if
>>>>> there were other specimens showing something similar, ideally different
>>>>> stages."
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you think you'd feel better if you DID search the primary literature for such things?
>>>
>>>> I don't know how to search for that. The guy who took the photo seems
>>>> not to have mentioned that feature anywhere, and nothing is cited in the
>>>> paper. Where do you go from there?
>>>
>>> Isn't it obvious? Let go of your obsession with "primary literature" long enough to search
>>> the web for other photos of Dickinsonia specimens. With any luck, they will lead you to
>>> the primary literature, and that might take you to more of them.
>> Tell, you what: why don't you try that and report back?
>>>>>> Here in fact is the primary literature in question:
>>>>>
>>>>> You decided it was "in question." I, on the other hand, haven't gotten around to the topic
>>>>> of the paper you are linking:
>>>>>
>>>>>> https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6408/1246
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The photo you're concerned about doesn't appear there;
>>>
>>> But a photo of a different specimen does appear there.
>> Yes, but that photo provides no evidence for your hypothesis.
>>>>>> it's just by the
>>>>>> first author of that paper, and there's no indication that it was ever
>>>>>> published or thought about by him.
>>>
>>> Are you implying that Ilya never tested the lipids around it, if any, for percentages of sterols?
>>> Why wouldn't he do it, do you suppose?
>> No, I am implying no such thing. I'm telling you that the paper isn't
>> about anatomy or reproduction or budding and has nothing to say on the
>> subject you brought up, the one we've just been talking about, which you
>> may perhaps remember.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was published here:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.grenzwissenschaft-aktuell.de/558-millionen-jahre-alt-lipide-identifizieren-mit-dickinsonia-aelteste-tierart20180921/
>>>>>
>>>>> The caption, translated into English, goes:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dickinsonia fossil from the coast of the White Sea.
>>>>> Copyright: Ilya Bobrovskiy, ANU
>>>>>
>>>>> He had to think about it enough to copyright it. Perhaps he even gave permission personally to have
>>>>> it published in the article I've linked.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you imagine that he never gave that picture any additional thought?If so, perhaps he's seen a bunch of other pictures of specimens with similar features to the one we started discussing.
>>>
>>> <crickets>
>> This seems empty speculation in the absence of any evidence. I refuse to
>> "imagine" or deal with "perhaps". Hence the crickets.
>>>>> Why aren't you looking for them?
>>>
>>>> How would you look except to search for more papers with Bobrovskiy as
>>>> author?
>>>
>>> Stupid question. Do you imagine that you've seen photos of every Dickinsonia fossil besides those
>>> photographed by Bobrovskiy?
>> Certainly not. But it does appear that if any of those photos show
>> something similar to Bobrovskiy's photo under discussion, nobody has
>> noticed or made an issue of it. Here, I'll do a google search for
>> images of Dickinsonia. Wait for me.
>>
>> OK, I looked through hundreds of Dickinsonia images. The only one
>> anything like the one that inspired you is the one that inspired you.
>> Now what?
>>>>>> The paper is all about cholesterol
>>>>>> and nothing else.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are probably umpteen articles on nutrition which fit that description.
>>>>>
>>>>> This article on paleontology doesn't. In fact, it has been hyped up all around the world, as though it had
>>>>> established that [to paraphrase a notorious comment by then-editor of _Nature_, Henry Gee],
>>>>> "Dickinsonia is an animal. The debate is over."
>>>
>>>> Now you're just getting needlessly testy.
>>>
>>> It's hard not to get testy with people who post such idiotic descriptions as
>>> "The paper is all about cholesterol and nothing else." But if "testy" refers to the articles that hype Ilya's discovery,
>>> I think I pretty accurately summed several of them up, including the German one.
>> Now you're getting extra testy. Just try to calm down and perhaps be
>> minimally civil.
>>>> It's about finding cholesterol
>>>> in Dickinsonia fossils as evidence that they're metazoans.
>>>
>>> Your current penchant for understatement amazes me. I can't recall you behaving like this before.
>> ?
>>>> The point is
>>>> that it isn't about Dickinsonia anatomy and doesn't talk about it at
>>>> all, much less about the photo you reference.
>>>
>>> Why bother even pointing this out?
>> Because you seemed to have missed the point and launched into an
>> irrelevant harangue about nutrition.
>>>>>>> Anyway, there is plenty of food for thought in the questions I've asked about this one. Others reading this
>>>>>>> might try taking a stab at them.
>>>>>
>>>>> If they aren't, it might be because they are influenced by your attitude.
>>>
>>>> There's really no need to get testy.
>>>
>>> It's hard not to get testy with someone who ignores evidence that he is seriously biased against Bechly.
>> I'm sorry, but you are misunderstanding so much of what you read, and I
>> get tired of explaining.
>>> I provided it here, in a post that you've ignored all this time:
>>>
>>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/y_NKDdJixf8/m/Edmq1g26AQAJ
>>> Re: Dickinsonia is very likely an animal
>>> Jul 9, 2021, 6:12:59 PM
>>>
>>> It's a long post, so scroll to near the bottom where you write,
>>> "Bechly is a puzzling case. His manifesto says he's a saltationist, ..."
>>> and you'll see the evidence.
>> Seriously, I have no interest in trying to explain this to you.
>
> Indeed, if you did try to explain the inexplicable, you'd just be making a fool out of yourself.
>
> Your time would be better spent in trying to give credible evidence that Bechly
> is skeptical of evolution.
>
> But then, you have no interest in doing this either, do you?

On Tuesday, July 27, 2021 at 4:54:52 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 7/27/21 7:49 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 10:41:42 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 7/22/21 6:46 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 12:05:59 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 7/20/21 5:40 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, July 15, 2021 at 11:31:13 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>> On 7/15/21 7:24 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, July 14, 2021 at 9:54:11 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 7/14/21 6:22 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>
> >>> [quoting Bechly:]
> >>>>>>>> that larger specimens are all (!) deformed by torsion is clearly refuted by the perfectly preserved large specimen photographically documented by Ilya Bobrovskiy (see SBS News and below). By the way: if not due to a folding artifact, this photo also may show a unique mode of reproduction by terminal budding that has never been described for dickinsoniids in the literature and that would clearly contradict a bilaterian relationship.
> >>>>>>>>> [end of excerpt]
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I'd say that the photo is sufficiently ambiguous and the preservation
> >>>>>>>> sufficiently coarse to leave the question open.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The question of bilateral vs glide symmetry?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Did you look at Ilya Bobrovskiy's photo? The possible terminal budding doesn't look like a folding artifact to me;
> >>>>>>>>> what do you think?
> >>>
> >>>>>>>> I think it's unclear, given the state of preservation.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You seem to be still thinking about glide symmetry vs bilateral. The budding, which is what it looks like to me,
> >>>>>>> is a highly macroscopic feature. What's unclear about it?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> There is a dimple on the top in the fossil which is suggestive of an earlier budding of the same sort, but smaller.
> >>>>>>> The fringe around it is narrower than the main part of the fringe that goes around the specimen. The same is true
> >>>>>>> of the outside of the "bud" or whatever it is, and its immediate vicinity.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> How would you account for these features? Can you think of any ways to construe them as folding artifacts?
> >>>>> .
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It would be nice
> >>>>>>>> if there were other similar specimens.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Perhaps there are. Have you consulted the primary literature?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You didn't consult it to find "other similar specimens," apparently..
> >>>>> And yet, in your other reply to this post, you wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "I would feel better about it if
> >>>>> there were other specimens showing something similar, ideally different
> >>>>> stages."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Do you think you'd feel better if you DID search the primary literature for such things?
> >>>
> >>>> I don't know how to search for that. The guy who took the photo seems
> >>>> not to have mentioned that feature anywhere, and nothing is cited in the
> >>>> paper. Where do you go from there?
> >>>
> >>> Isn't it obvious? Let go of your obsession with "primary literature" long enough to search
> >>> the web for other photos of Dickinsonia specimens. With any luck, they will lead you to
> >>> the primary literature, and that might take you to more of them.
> >> Tell, you what: why don't you try that and report back?
> >>>>>> Here in fact is the primary literature in question:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You decided it was "in question." I, on the other hand, haven't gotten around to the topic
> >>>>> of the paper you are linking:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6408/1246
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The photo you're concerned about doesn't appear there;
> >>>
> >>> But a photo of a different specimen does appear there.
> >> Yes, but that photo provides no evidence for your hypothesis.
> >>>>>> it's just by the
> >>>>>> first author of that paper, and there's no indication that it was ever
> >>>>>> published or thought about by him.
> >>>
> >>> Are you implying that Ilya never tested the lipids around it, if any, for percentages of sterols?
> >>> Why wouldn't he do it, do you suppose?
> >> No, I am implying no such thing. I'm telling you that the paper isn't
> >> about anatomy or reproduction or budding and has nothing to say on the
> >> subject you brought up, the one we've just been talking about, which you
> >> may perhaps remember.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It was published here:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://www.grenzwissenschaft-aktuell.de/558-millionen-jahre-alt-lipide-identifizieren-mit-dickinsonia-aelteste-tierart20180921/
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The caption, translated into English, goes:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dickinsonia fossil from the coast of the White Sea.
> >>>>> Copyright: Ilya Bobrovskiy, ANU
> >>>>>
> >>>>> He had to think about it enough to copyright it. Perhaps he even gave permission personally to have
> >>>>> it published in the article I've linked.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Do you imagine that he never gave that picture any additional thought?If so, perhaps he's seen a bunch of other pictures of specimens with similar features to the one we started discussing.
> >>>
> >>> <crickets>
> >> This seems empty speculation in the absence of any evidence. I refuse to
> >> "imagine" or deal with "perhaps". Hence the crickets.
> >>>>> Why aren't you looking for them?
> >>>
> >>>> How would you look except to search for more papers with Bobrovskiy as
> >>>> author?
> >>>
> >>> Stupid question. Do you imagine that you've seen photos of every Dickinsonia fossil besides those
> >>> photographed by Bobrovskiy?
> >> Certainly not. But it does appear that if any of those photos show
> >> something similar to Bobrovskiy's photo under discussion, nobody has
> >> noticed or made an issue of it. Here, I'll do a google search for
> >> images of Dickinsonia. Wait for me.
> >>
> >> OK, I looked through hundreds of Dickinsonia images. The only one
> >> anything like the one that inspired you is the one that inspired you.
> >> Now what?
> >>>>>> The paper is all about cholesterol
> >>>>>> and nothing else.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There are probably umpteen articles on nutrition which fit that description.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This article on paleontology doesn't. In fact, it has been hyped up all around the world, as though it had
> >>>>> established that [to paraphrase a notorious comment by then-editor of _Nature_, Henry Gee],
> >>>>> "Dickinsonia is an animal. The debate is over."
> >>>
> >>>> Now you're just getting needlessly testy.
> >>>
> >>> It's hard not to get testy with people who post such idiotic descriptions as
> >>> "The paper is all about cholesterol and nothing else." But if "testy" refers to the articles that hype Ilya's discovery,
> >>> I think I pretty accurately summed several of them up, including the German one.
> >> Now you're getting extra testy. Just try to calm down and perhaps be
> >> minimally civil.
> >>>> It's about finding cholesterol
> >>>> in Dickinsonia fossils as evidence that they're metazoans.
> >>>
> >>> Your current penchant for understatement amazes me. I can't recall you behaving like this before.
> >> ?
> >>>> The point is
> >>>> that it isn't about Dickinsonia anatomy and doesn't talk about it at
> >>>> all, much less about the photo you reference.
> >>>
> >>> Why bother even pointing this out?
> >> Because you seemed to have missed the point and launched into an
> >> irrelevant harangue about nutrition.
> >>>>>>> Anyway, there is plenty of food for thought in the questions I've asked about this one. Others reading this
> >>>>>>> might try taking a stab at them.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If they aren't, it might be because they are influenced by your attitude.
> >>>
> >>>> There's really no need to get testy.
> >>>
> >>> It's hard not to get testy with someone who ignores evidence that he is seriously biased against Bechly.

On 8/4/21 1:48 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 27, 2021 at 4:54:52 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 7/27/21 7:49 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 10:41:42 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 7/22/21 6:46 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 12:05:59 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/20/21 5:40 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, July 15, 2021 at 11:31:13 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/15/21 7:24 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, July 14, 2021 at 9:54:11 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/14/21 6:22 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [quoting Bechly:]
>>>>>>>>>> that larger specimens are all (!) deformed by torsion is clearly refuted by the perfectly preserved large specimen photographically documented by Ilya Bobrovskiy (see SBS News and below). By the way: if not due to a folding artifact, this photo also may show a unique mode of reproduction by terminal budding that has never been described for dickinsoniids in the literature and that would clearly contradict a bilaterian relationship.
>>>>>>>>>>> [end of excerpt]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'd say that the photo is sufficiently ambiguous and the preservation
>>>>>>>>>> sufficiently coarse to leave the question open.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The question of bilateral vs glide symmetry?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Did you look at Ilya Bobrovskiy's photo? The possible terminal budding doesn't look like a folding artifact to me;
>>>>>>>>>>> what do you think?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think it's unclear, given the state of preservation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You seem to be still thinking about glide symmetry vs bilateral. The budding, which is what it looks like to me,
>>>>>>>>> is a highly macroscopic feature. What's unclear about it?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is a dimple on the top in the fossil which is suggestive of an earlier budding of the same sort, but smaller.
>>>>>>>>> The fringe around it is narrower than the main part of the fringe that goes around the specimen. The same is true
>>>>>>>>> of the outside of the "bud" or whatever it is, and its immediate vicinity.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How would you account for these features? Can you think of any ways to construe them as folding artifacts?
>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It would be nice
>>>>>>>>>> if there were other similar specimens.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Perhaps there are. Have you consulted the primary literature?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You didn't consult it to find "other similar specimens," apparently.
>>>>>>> And yet, in your other reply to this post, you wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "I would feel better about it if
>>>>>>> there were other specimens showing something similar, ideally different
>>>>>>> stages."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you think you'd feel better if you DID search the primary literature for such things?
>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know how to search for that. The guy who took the photo seems
>>>>>> not to have mentioned that feature anywhere, and nothing is cited in the
>>>>>> paper. Where do you go from there?
>>>>>
>>>>> Isn't it obvious? Let go of your obsession with "primary literature" long enough to search
>>>>> the web for other photos of Dickinsonia specimens. With any luck, they will lead you to
>>>>> the primary literature, and that might take you to more of them.
>>>> Tell, you what: why don't you try that and report back?
>>>>>>>> Here in fact is the primary literature in question:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You decided it was "in question." I, on the other hand, haven't gotten around to the topic
>>>>>>> of the paper you are linking:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6408/1246
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The photo you're concerned about doesn't appear there;
>>>>>
>>>>> But a photo of a different specimen does appear there.
>>>> Yes, but that photo provides no evidence for your hypothesis.
>>>>>>>> it's just by the
>>>>>>>> first author of that paper, and there's no indication that it was ever
>>>>>>>> published or thought about by him.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you implying that Ilya never tested the lipids around it, if any, for percentages of sterols?
>>>>> Why wouldn't he do it, do you suppose?
>>>> No, I am implying no such thing. I'm telling you that the paper isn't
>>>> about anatomy or reproduction or budding and has nothing to say on the
>>>> subject you brought up, the one we've just been talking about, which you
>>>> may perhaps remember.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It was published here:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.grenzwissenschaft-aktuell.de/558-millionen-jahre-alt-lipide-identifizieren-mit-dickinsonia-aelteste-tierart20180921/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The caption, translated into English, goes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dickinsonia fossil from the coast of the White Sea.
>>>>>>> Copyright: Ilya Bobrovskiy, ANU
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He had to think about it enough to copyright it. Perhaps he even gave permission personally to have
>>>>>>> it published in the article I've linked.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you imagine that he never gave that picture any additional thought?If so, perhaps he's seen a bunch of other pictures of specimens with similar features to the one we started discussing.
>>>>>
>>>>> <crickets>
>>>> This seems empty speculation in the absence of any evidence. I refuse to
>>>> "imagine" or deal with "perhaps". Hence the crickets.
>>>>>>> Why aren't you looking for them?
>>>>>
>>>>>> How would you look except to search for more papers with Bobrovskiy as
>>>>>> author?
>>>>>
>>>>> Stupid question. Do you imagine that you've seen photos of every Dickinsonia fossil besides those
>>>>> photographed by Bobrovskiy?
>>>> Certainly not. But it does appear that if any of those photos show
>>>> something similar to Bobrovskiy's photo under discussion, nobody has
>>>> noticed or made an issue of it. Here, I'll do a google search for
>>>> images of Dickinsonia. Wait for me.
>>>>
>>>> OK, I looked through hundreds of Dickinsonia images. The only one
>>>> anything like the one that inspired you is the one that inspired you.
>>>> Now what?
>>>>>>>> The paper is all about cholesterol
>>>>>>>> and nothing else.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are probably umpteen articles on nutrition which fit that description.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This article on paleontology doesn't. In fact, it has been hyped up all around the world, as though it had
>>>>>>> established that [to paraphrase a notorious comment by then-editor of _Nature_, Henry Gee],
>>>>>>> "Dickinsonia is an animal. The debate is over."
>>>>>
>>>>>> Now you're just getting needlessly testy.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's hard not to get testy with people who post such idiotic descriptions as
>>>>> "The paper is all about cholesterol and nothing else." But if "testy" refers to the articles that hype Ilya's discovery,
>>>>> I think I pretty accurately summed several of them up, including the German one.
>>>> Now you're getting extra testy. Just try to calm down and perhaps be
>>>> minimally civil.
>>>>>> It's about finding cholesterol
>>>>>> in Dickinsonia fossils as evidence that they're metazoans.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your current penchant for understatement amazes me. I can't recall you behaving like this before.
>>>> ?
>>>>>> The point is
>>>>>> that it isn't about Dickinsonia anatomy and doesn't talk about it at
>>>>>> all, much less about the photo you reference.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why bother even pointing this out?
>>>> Because you seemed to have missed the point and launched into an
>>>> irrelevant harangue about nutrition.
>>>>>>>>> Anyway, there is plenty of food for thought in the questions I've asked about this one. Others reading this
>>>>>>>>> might try taking a stab at them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If they aren't, it might be because they are influenced by your attitude.
>>>>>
>>>>>> There's really no need to get testy.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's hard not to get testy with someone who ignores evidence that he is seriously biased against Bechly.
>
> This referred to a single post, which you haven't begun to explain.
>
>>>> I'm sorry, but you are misunderstanding so much of what you read, and I
>>>> get tired of explaining.
>
> There has been nothing about Bechly himself on this thread. We never discussed him directly.
>
> The only other place where there might have been a misunderstanding is on the thread where you
> are refusing to clarify some ambiguous [AT BEST] statements of yours here:
>
>>>>> I provided it here, in a post that you've ignored all this time:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/y_NKDdJixf8/m/Edmq1g26AQAJ
>>>>> Re: Dickinsonia is very likely an animal
>>>>> Jul 9, 2021, 6:12:59 PM
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a long post, so scroll to near the bottom where you write,
>>>>> "Bechly is a puzzling case. His manifesto says he's a saltationist, ..."
>>>>> and you'll see the evidence.
>
> I can't find any attempt to explain any "misunderstandings" elsewhere on that thread about Bechly,
> only evidence that you are biased against me, in an insulting accusation that I "bend over backwards"
> to avoid "subtext" for which you never gave evidence.
>
>
>>>> Seriously, I have no interest in trying to explain this to you.
>>>
>>> Indeed, if you did try to explain the inexplicable, you'd just be making a fool out of yourself.
>>>
>>> Your time would be better spent in trying to give credible evidence that Bechly
>>> is skeptical of evolution.
>>>
>>> But then, you have no interest in doing this either, do you?
>
>> It seems like a side-issue.
>
> Can we just agree to drop this "side-issue" altogether when we start actual discussion
> about what kind of creature Dickinsonia is?
>
> > Can we just agree that Bechly has an odd
>> take on evolution that's seriously at odds with the standard view, and
>> presumably with yours?
>
> "seriously at odds" lacks anything resembling delimitation.
>
> But if you substitute "noticeably different from the standard view, and yours" I'll say that,
> based on the highly fragmentary evidence you've shown so far, that the answer is yes.
>
> Can we both agree to jettison the implicit double standard in your first post to this thread,
> in the words...
>
> "One should therefore be very careful about believing anything it says without
> checking the primary literature."
>
> ...and judge each statement on its own merits, regardless of where it appeared?
>
>
>> While his views may seem to change from time to
>> time, that at least is constant.
>
> On this, I cannot comment, since you haven't shown evidence of this that is backed up by dates.

On 8/4/2021 4:48 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
[snip]

Hey, Peter! When are you gonna man up and admit you were wrong about the
2gyo multicellular fossils thing?

On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 2:07:56 PM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:
> On 8/4/2021 4:48 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> [snip]
>
> Hey, Peter! When are you gonna man up and admit you were wrong about the
> 2gyo multicellular fossils thing?

Don't goad him. I think he's more interested in arguing about others' opinions of other's
opinions than in Dickinsonia itself.

On 8/6/2021 5:30 PM, erik simpson wrote:
> On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 2:07:56 PM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:
>> On 8/4/2021 4:48 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>> Hey, Peter! When are you gonna man up and admit you were wrong about the
>> 2gyo multicellular fossils thing?
>
> Don't goad him. I think he's more interested in arguing about others' opinions of other's
> opinions than in Dickinsonia itself.
>

Alright, fair enough.