Science and Inquiry discussion

For June 2026, we will be reading Beasts Before Us: The Untold Story of Mammal Origins and Evolution by Elsa Panciroli.

Please use this thread to post questions, comments, and reviews, at any time.

The book's opening paragraph of the introduction with its well written sentences count as a favorable indication of its worthiness to read. And the content of this paragraph sparked thoughts probably unintended by the author.

I'm unabashedly, a fan of the uncountable human origin stories. Their ingenuity and the multigenerational, even multicultural life of these stories is really amazing. Remarkably, some of them have been told, relatively unchanged, for years that number in the thousands and, in some cases, tens of thousands.

For example, there's:

1) The Abrahamic Story (Creationism), aka: The Garden of Eden narrative (found in Genesis, 1-2) which is unequivocal about humans being created fully formed and in God’s image;

2) The Osage Story (an Indigenous American culture). These people originally existed as spirits in the sky. Wishing to be human, they descended to earth but landed in a chaotic, watery world. They met the river spirit, who told them they must become physical to survive. The Osage, as spirits, eventually found the "Isolated Earth People," and merged with them to become the human tribe, learning to live in harmony with the earth;

3) Culturally, the Australian Aboriginal people, with an estimated pre European 1788 population of over 750,000, believe they have been in Australia since the beginning of time and were created during the spiritual "Dreaming" era. Dreamtime is the foundation of Aboriginal culture, a "timeless" era where ancestral spirits created the landscape, moral laws, and people.

Interestingly, prior to European arrival, Australia's Aboriginal population comprised hundreds of distinct groups with over 250 languages. Noteworthy is that this dreamtime origin story was consistent across their remarkable cultural diversity.

The Rainbow Serpent slithered over a flat, still world, forming mountains and valleys.

Traditional beliefs are crystal clear that Aboriginal people are part of the land, rather than owners, with deep spiritual connections to specific areas (like Uluru / Ayers Rock).

4) Proponents of the Alien Hybrid Hypothesis / Paleocontact Theory suggest that advanced, "out-of-place" ancient structures (e.g., Giza pyramids, Stonehenge, Puma Punku) were built with, or heavily influenced by, alien technology.

Some versions of the theory argue that ancient astronauts altered human DNA to speed up human evolution or create a slave workforce (e.g., Zecharia Sitchin’s "Nibiru" theory).

Interpretations of cave paintings, hieroglyphs (e.g., the "Abydos Helicopter"), and religious texts (such as the Bible or Hindu epics) have been cited as giving descriptions of spaceships and advanced beings.

Paleocontact Theory appears to denigrate intellectual accomplishments of non-European ancient cultures, suggesting they were not smart enough to build their own monuments. Or, more simply, the implication is that ancient people, in general, obviously were inferior to us of the "modern" era;

5) Other Stories, too many to count, such as the Polynesians' god Tane (often associated with forests and light) who desired a human companion and fashioned a human form out of red clay/mud found at the beach. Then there's the Hellenismos' (Ancient Greek Religion) origin story, as you probably know, which is endlessly amazing. Additionally, it's worth knowing about a prominent Norse creation myth where gods create the first man and woman from specific ash and elm trees, respectively. Some days, I could write pages about the interesting, ancient Egyptian creation story;

6) The Scientific Origin Story (Human Evolution) is the focus of this book and it's my favorite of the other ones mentioned above. Its emphasis on physical evidence like fossils and use of stratigraphy aligns with my way of thinking. Also, I like that this origin story is open to change. Dogmatic stories, though often imaginative and interesting, suffer from being disconnected from the reality of change.

It practically goes without saying that this very lengthy fossil record documenting the beasts before us is interesting. One example, a favorite of mine, is the legendary, proto-mammal - gorgonopsian. Its origins are first seen in the fossil record beginning mid to late-Permian. It's of the clade therapsida and likely they were not fully endothermic like modern mammals. Fossilized gorgon skulls with their enormous gnashers, are particularly abundant in South Africa.

I'm looking forward to learning details of available fossil evidence about the earliest mammalian beasts. No doubt, the author tells a good story about their evolution.

Further into this narrative, I've learned that the terminology, 'missing links' is archaic.

Nineteenth century people following the energetic cascades of changes to knowledge such as electricity, magnetism, microbes, and evolution, tended to believe evolution progressed from primitive to advanced. Also, back then the classification of living organisms was hierarchical.

For example, back then, there was a widespread belief that the progenitors of the human race were European.

In a post-Darwinian world, people were eager to fill in the gaps in the evolutionary story of life on Earth. They were searching for 'missing links' - a term no longer used in science. Due to the modern understanding of evolution, in the context of taxonomy, the terminology 'missing links' is defunct because it implies a flawed, linear "chain" of evolution where one species directly turns into another.

'Missing' Implies Intent: The phrase "missing link" unintentionally suggests that animals are actively "trying" to evolve into a more advanced form. In reality, traits simply emerge to help organisms survive in their specific environments. Imagine how a language like Latin evolved into modern Romance languages like Spanish, French, and Italian. You wouldn't say "Spanish is a missing link between Latin and French." Rather, Latin is the shared common ancestor.

We now know mammals evolved from the Triassic cynodonts - an exceedingly bushy taxa (one group of animals of the even bushier therapsids). Like a set of Russian dolls: mammals are a subgroup of cynodonts, and cynodonts are a subgroup of therapsids.

Gorgonopsians (an apex predator) are one of the better known clads of the order therapsida. Although, of course in terms of star power, they aren't comparable to the dinosaurs, orders Saurischia ("lizard-hipped") and Ornithischia ("bird-hipped"). FYI, most dinosaurs were likely endothermic (warm-blooded). Therapsida, aka proto mammals, are first seen in the fossil record during the Permian period.

Further into this narrative, I've learned that the terminology, 'missing links' is archaic.

Nineteenth century people following the energetic cascades of changes to knowledge such as electricity, magnetism, microbes, and evolution, tended to believe evolution progressed from primitive to advanced. Also, back then the classification of living organisms was hierarchical.

For example, back then, there was a widespread belief that the progenitors of the human race were European.

In a post-Darwinian world, people were eager to fill in the gaps in the evolutionary story of life on Earth. They were searching for 'missing links' - a term no longer used in science. Due to the modern understanding of evolution, in the context of taxonomy, the terminology 'missing links' is defunct because it implies a flawed, linear "chain" of evolution where one species directly turns into another.

'Missing' Implies Intent: The phrase "missing link" unintentionally suggests that animals are actively "trying" to evolve into a more advanced form. In reality, traits simply emerge to help organisms survive in their specific environments. Imagine how a language like Latin evolved into modern Romance languages like Spanish, French, and Italian. You wouldn't say "Spanish is a missing link between Latin and French." Rather, Latin is the shared common ancestor.

We now know mammals evolved from the Triassic cynodonts - an exceedingly bushy taxa (one group of animals of the even bushier therapsids). Like a set of Russian dolls: mammals are a subgroup of cynodonts, and cynodonts are a subgroup of therapsids.

Gorgonopsians (an apex predator) are one of the better known clads of the order therapsida. Although, of course in terms of star power, they aren't comparable to the dinosaurs, orders Saurischia ("lizard-hipped") and Ornithischia ("bird-hipped"). FYI, most dinosaurs were likely endothermic (warm-blooded). Therapsida, aka proto mammals, are first seen in the fossil record during the Permian period.

Started this book and haven’t gotten very far into it. The topic is fascinating but already I’m sifting through what seems like a bunch of extraneous stuff. Third page into the introduction she’s already “There is still a long way to go to address the diversity balance in paleontology (as in other sciences) — we’re still a little too white and western.”
I foresee diatribes about privilege and sexism and all this woke stuff that we are being bombarded with ad nauseum. Can’t these people just shut up and do science? I REALLY WANT TO LEARN ABOUT THESE EARLY MAMMALS!

Glad I hung in there, as this is a very readable book and I had no idea of the diversity of early mammals and mammaliaforms. Author writes with humor and is very likeable until she goes off on a periodic rant about White Males, evil Colonizers, Western customs etc.
I would like more family tree type illustrations to keep the timelines straight in my mind. She goes off on some very interesting tangents, taking the reader to the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility in France, where they make incredibly detailed images of fossils; a fossil-rich South African quarry; an International Symposium on Mesozoic Mammals in China, etc. but in between all that I find myself muddling up who’s who among the Docododonts and Synapsids and cynodonts.

Nancy wrote: "I find myself muddling up who’s who among the Docododonts and Synapsids and cynodonts."

I had a lot of trouble with that, too. Not with this book -- I haven't read it -- but with a similar book that we read a couple years ago, The Rise and Reign of the Mammals: A New History, from the Shadow of the Dinosaurs to Us – A Bestselling Book on the Natural History of Mammalian Evolution.

I finished the book and completely forgot to put my thoughts over here!

I appreciated how clearly Dr. Panciroli's expertise is demonstrated throughout the book in both how she talks about the subject matter as well as how she conducts herself in the stories about her fieldwork.

I did also appreciate the socially-focused arguments she presented, even if they felt heavy-handed in some points, because these are relevant parts of the history (and present) of science. The fossils may be objective, but we humans who interpret what we find are not capable of objectivity because we're navigating the world using biases, heuristics, etc. So, Dr. Panciroli pointing out these human errors is relevant whether we like it or not.

However, my main issue is that this is intended for a generalist audience but is nevertheless written for an academic crowd. As a researcher and PhD-level writer myself, I find it is incredibly hard for many academics and researchers to accurately write for a general audience.

I haven't read this book yet, but I've meaning to see how it compares to Brusatte's "The Rise and Reign of the Mammals". Right now, I'm here b/c 1 member said in their review comment section, "I don’t think white males necessarily have any extra “privilege.” I think that concept is a bunch of BS that just gives people an excuse to feel victimized and resentful". Just in case others here feel the same way, I'm really sorry to be the "actually" guy, but scientific studies show otherwise. Those linked in the following articles are just a few examples. I hope you guys find them helpful:

web.archive.org/web/20150417225214/ht...

web.archive.org/web/20170330011954/ht...

web.archive.org/web/20170410180313/ht...

Betsy wrote: "Nancy wrote: "I find myself muddling up who’s who among the Docododonts and Synapsids and cynodonts."

I had a lot of trouble with that, too. Not with this book -- I haven't read it -- but with a s..."

Oh I loved that one too. In fact more. Really well written. But all those names .... worse than reading those old Russian novels!

Herman wrote: "I haven't read this book yet, but I've meaning to see how it compares to Brusatte's "The Rise and Reign of the Mammals". Right now, I'm here b/c 1 member said in their review comment section, "I do..."

The links aren't working for me.
I'm not saying white males have never had advantages. Just that at this point in our history, it's not an issue, and belaboring it just sounds whiny and bigoted, and do not add anything positive to a science book, in my view. I'm aware others feel differently.