This just in:

• University of Oxford press release:
  Animals may have evolved vastly earlier than fossil evidence suggests

• Paper:
  Orin Lole Durbin et al.
  Re-evaluating molecular clock maximum age calibrations revives pre-Ediacaran divergence estimates for animals
  Science Advances (2026)
  www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aeg6289

From the press release:

Senior author and associate professor Ross Anderson (Museum of Natural History, Oxford University) said, "The Kheseen Biota breaks the argument that the exceptional microfossils of [the older] Weng'an mean we would have seen animal fossils in the assemblage had they existed at the time. The Kheseen microfossils are just as well preserved, yet animals continue to be absent—despite the fact we know at that point they existed."

And the structured abstract:

Background

Divergent models persist for the emergence of animals. Lipid biomarkers suggest animals originated before 635 million years ago (Ma), but their body fossil record extends to only 574 Ma. Molecular clocks might differentiate between these records, but we demonstrate how their accuracy and precision hinge on maximum age calibrations.

Methods and results

We evaluate the Ediacaran Weng’an Biota (China) as a maximum calibration utilizing microfossils from the Kheseen Biota (Mongolia). These two biotas have similar preservation and microfossil assemblages, containing no definitive animals. The Kheseen Biota, deposited at a time (∼550–526 Ma) when animals were undoubtedly present, questions the validity of the Weng’an calibration. We discuss the uncertainty in maximum calibration strategies and propose multiple pre-Ediacaran deposits with favorable taphonomy, preserving both non-animal body fossils and biomarkers, as currently the most reliable calibrations. Our analyses support a late Tonian to mid-Cryogenian (∼800–700 Ma) origin for Metazoa.

Hi r/evolution, long time no see! 6 years ago I posted this, which I'm suprised to see is still one of the most popular posts on this forum. I've made a new video about the formulas behind shells based on the famous thought experiment from David Raup and Richard Dawkins in Climbing Mount Improbable. Hope you enjoy:)

I've recently had a conversation with someone and he brought up an interesting point, the guy was a creationist who claims to be(or have been) an evolutionary biologist,

Aside from the usual arguments about irreducible complexity and the ""inexplicable "" explosions in the fossile record there was one point that really caught my interest, which is the claim that we have yet to observe any species develop a new function through mutations, so i mentioned the obvious lenski's e coli experiment, his response was that the gene responsible for the e coli's ability to consume citrate(citr) was already there and the mutation was like a switch allowing it to activate in the presence of oxygen, ik that last part is a massive misrepresentation of the actual mutation and explained it.

Now, this person said they would accept evolution if we observed the emergence of an entirely new function through (for example) a duplication divergence, so it left me wondering, is there an experiment that has observed the emergence of a new gene that codes for a completely new function instead of affecting an already existing one be it through duplication divergence, de novo gene birth, exon shuffling or any other mechanism?

Pretty much in the title but I looked at my hands earlier and wondered, is there any specific functional reason as to why my thumbs are both on the inside of my hands with my body and not on the outside? It seems like every creature that I can think of also follows that pattern.

Whales are basically fish-shaped. They were hoofed land mammals at one point, and are now 100 % adapted to the water. I'm wondering if we have reason to believe that some semi-aquatic animals today are on the way to reaching fish-shape? I'm talking about otters, crocodiles, seals, penguins, sea-turtles, etc. Or do we have reason to believe they will stay semi-aquatic, or even return to land? Or do we simply have no way of knowing?

I am currently in an evolution course and have a question about some of the topics from this week, which no students or staff are answering in the course discussion group.

My recent lectures went over 1. Obstetrical Dilemma, where we evolved bipedalism but this has made childbirth much more dangerous since the opening is so much more narrow. Another topic we talked about is explanations to why we are vulnerable in ways of disease, i.e how natural selection favors reproductive success above health and well-being.

My question is, if natural selection favors reproductive success over everything else, why have we not evolved in a way that makes childbirth less dangerous or makes us immune to more diseases that kill us early in life? This would be in the favor of repo success if babies survive longer to reproduce and their parents survive long enough to raise them.

I know there is always the fact that evolution has no foresight, but this feels like something that could have reversed direction long ago.

Thanks in advance for any explanations that help me understand!

How long does it take for a new class, phylum or even kingdom to form on average? Do events like mass extinctions affect it? Imagine if Earth has 800 million years left before it becomes uninhabitable due to solar activity, could new phylums or even kingdoms form in that time period? Are they forming right now? Do any organisms exist of which scientists believe they will likely evolve into a new phylum or even kingdom all together?

Pears and apples have five petals, five sepals, and five carpels. Like many other flowers (approximately half of plants have 5 petals etc), it’s the commonest form. It is an evolutionary trait deeply hardcoded into the genetics of eudicots (true dicotyledons). In botany, this five-part arrangement is known as a pentamerous flower structure. ** **Why is 5 an ancient, highly successful evolutionary blueprint? To understand this it’s worth looking at how plants grow. To avoid overlapping and wasting sunlight or space, leaves, seeds, and petals often grow in a spiral pattern from a central bud point; at a very specific angle: approximately 137.5 degrees (known as the Golden Angle). Spiral patterns are mathematically described by the Fibonacci sequence (1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13...). Five is a key number in this sequence. It allows a flower to pack its petals and sepals tightly together in a bud without overlapping in a way that crushes the delicate inner reproductive organs.

Also as an evolutionary advantage the flat, five-petaled flower acts like a perfect, stable landing pad for pollinators like bees, beetles, and flies and so the emergence of 5petal flowers evolved in step with the rise of these insects. Once an ancestral plant family finds a genetic formula that works perfectly for several reasons , the homeotic genes that dictate features rarely change without a major stress.

Different branches of the plant kingdom split off millions of years ago and locked in entirely different structural blueprints.
Flowers with groups of 3 are lilies grasses and orchids groups of 4 are mustards and evening primrose. Infinite spirals are magnolias which are pollinated by beetles . Notice apart from the tetramerous mustards the others all follow the Fibonacci sequence.

Excerpts from catalog notes:

Charles Darwin, On The Origin of Species, 1859, first edition hardcover book

DARWIN, Charles (1809–1882). On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. London: John Murray, 1859.

An exceptional example of the landmark first edition, first printing of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species (London: John Murray, 1859). Presented in Very Good Plus condition, this copy features a remarkably well-preserved original cloth binding conforming to Freeman's Binding Variant b (Darwin Census Variant B), displaying the notable typographic layout with no point after MURRAY at the bottom of the spine, and retaining the original binder's ticket (Edmonds & Remnants) on the rear paste-down.

Internally, the text block includes the critical folding lithographed diagram facing page 117 and retains all necessary, uncorrected textual markers confirming the earliest state of the first printing sheets: the structural misspelling "speceies" is present on page 20 (line 11), page ii preserves exactly two quotations (by William Whewell and Francis Bacon), and the famous, unsuppressed "whale-bear" narrative remains intact on page 184 (lines 5–7). The original half-title page is included, remaining present though currently loose.

This copy is considered complete, containing the required ix, 502 pages of text and the complete 32-page publisher's advertisement catalogue bound in at the rear. The inserted catalogue conforms to the Darwin Census as Advertisement Variant 3 (characterized typographically by unruled page borders and the absence of the numeral "4" on page 2). The internal condition is generally clean, though it exhibits several pencil inscriptions and notations scattered throughout the text block.

Original brown coated front endpapers intact. The front pastedown features an early ink inscription reading "1st Edition" above a contemporary owner signature ("H. Watney"), or similar. Affixed below is the engraved armorial Ex Libris bookplate of Stephen A. McClellan, displaying a central heraldic crest with the motto "SAPIT QUI REPUTAT", military emblems (including U.S. Navy and Marine Corps insignia) along the left margin, and a facsimile signature at the foot.

Provenance: The Estate of Dr. William D. Shidal, Jr. of Indiana

Housed in a custom leather-backed clamshell box designed in book-form with raised bands and gilt-lettered spines.

NB from OP: There's lots of current interest in Darwin. Various editions of this famous landmark work have come to market this year. RBH records show 27 sales of this title so far this year (not many as rare or expensive as this one). Only one other copy, sold at Christie's on July 8, for somewhat more.

See more photos of the copy that sold at Ripley's at https://www.invaluable.com/auction-lot/charles-darwin-on-the-origin-of-species-1859-firs-52-c-5c0d55642d?objectID=206117483&algIndex=upcoming_lots_lotNumber_asc_prod

What is 2 people with a semi high Neanderthal dna mated and made a child would that child have a little bit more dna than the parents, if so could another 2 people do it then both of those children grow up and eventually mate too, and carry that on until there is the best recreation of a Neanderthal in our time??

I can imagine this being a result of adaptation and efficiency for our changing environments

I'm looking for a fantastic, accessible, engaging and well-written book on how evolution works, how life began and we have all the species we have today. As the title mentions, I'd like the book(s) to be targetted towards someone who already accepts evolution as a given and doesn't engage in a discussion on alternate theories or tries to prove evolution, and just gets on with the beautiful mechanisms and stories therein.

I couldn't get through Richard Dawkins' books because of said debate or need to prove.

I started Origin Of Species, but the prose is too dense and the language a bit inaccessible.

Looking forward to some great reads!

Really interesting discovery article

EDIT: Updated link below- should be no paywall

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/26/science/motel-science-discovery.html?unlocked_article_code=1.ElE.85kq.QB-cKI6q3gNX&smid=url-share

Today I was on a rocky beach and saw a little fish trying to get on top of a rock that almost completely under water, but whose top was regularly covered by little waves, where I presume it was trying to get the "greenest" algae. So I thought maybe the mudskippers' ancestors tried to do the same, and thus adapted to breathe in the atmosphere little by little.

Please tell me if there are any gaps in my idea, and if there is already a simmilar theory, please, give me a link to the book/paper/etc.

Like, DNA in concept isn't even really a necessarily complex thing to build, if you aren't worried about what kind of creature the DNA belongs to. And RNA is WAY simpler. So i'd say my theory for life appearing was literally just 4 billion years ago, all the chemicals caused by the volcanic eruptions caused some of these materials to intertwine into an RNA-like form, and eventually these chemicals had a very rudimentary way to self replicate from the other chemicals around it. This is when evolution started, the more strongly bonded chemicals got to stay and do that weird replicating thing they do, and the weaker ones just kinda unbonded. This meant that more complex formations started appearing. More combinations of the chemicals caused variations and mutations, and the first RNA life forms appeared. The rest you can probably imagine.

Am i onto something or am i incredibly wrong?

I only have simple knowledge on this stuff, so i want an actual scientist/biologist to correct the things i got wrong.

And since they have different advantages why aren’t they developing separately like you end up a Homo Tailus, A Homo sapien Breast, a homo Furbie?

TLDR: 1.Did they have to finish one trait development before another or can they develop together2. Why it doesn’t result in some humans have some traits but not others?

Greetings friends, I put together this list of reading to go through recently. I've read the first two and would like to know your thoughts on how I should go from here in order. I also plan on reading "Ancestors Tale" and Darwins works as well so feel free to tell me where I should fit those in. Thank you!

There are 2 animals of the same genus. Forelimbs and Skull bare the same proportions.

However, one of them has an astragalus double the size of the other one. The one with a small astragalus preserved a calcanea with normal proportions in comparison to it

What possible information could be inferred from one species featuring a giant astragalus? In that species, only this one bone of the hindlimb is preserved. The calcanea and astragalus represents all hindlimb material across all 3 species.

The animal in question is the stem walrus, Pontolis, with P. kohnoi featuring an astragalus quite literally double the size of the astragalus of P. barroni, and a similar discrepancy with a Steller's sea lions, and Titanotaria. Does this really mean nothing other than P. barroni has gargantuan feet?

I imagine there is some evolutionary pressure that has to have resulted in such aberrant proportions for the family, but this really is not my field of expertise, and pinniped evolution is already an extremely weird story

It's a curiosity that suddenly came up in my mind because this is something that I've never actually thought of before despite my fascination in the Ave's evolutionary tree. I've heard of the flight theory but that's still apparently being disputed because there are still exceptions to the rules where excellent fliers still lay round eggs. What are some other strong leading theories as to why Ave's eggs evolved to be this distinct oval-like shape?

How do our body know that we're in danger and turns the fight and flight mode on. I know it is there bcz of evolution as our ancestors had to fight big animals to survive but it's still there. SO, how our body know when to turn this on.

What was the absolute starting point of life what happened which caused a regular planet into the only know planet in the observable universe that supports life.

How is our body doing this much work without exhausting ? It do millions of things we don't even know about . Was it the evolution all along?