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

Are you more interested in discussing the characteristics and possible affinities of Dickinsonia, or arguing about
the characteristics and affinities of Bechly? If the former, fine. If the latter, you may find yourself without much of
an audience, unless Glenn comes back,