Skip to content

Southern Fried Science

Over 15 years of ocean science and conservation online

  • Home
  • About SFS
  • Authors
  • Support SFS

Bone-eating worms and contorted creationist thinking

Posted on September 7, 2010January 12, 2012 By Andrew Thaler 10 Comments on Bone-eating worms and contorted creationist thinking
Science

I tend to avoid the creationist blogs. Every time I get sucked into that vortex of pseudoscience, I find the exact same debunked claims that were bunk when I was 12. There are better bloggers out there who have the energy and patience to systematically dissect the same tired old rubbish day after day, but I’m not one of them.

This claim, however, is special. There’s nothing new in the rhetoric behind it, it’s just another “how could this commensalism/symbiosis/mutualism evolve? It must be magic!” mantra. And the analysis isn’t terribly sophisticated, anyone could do the basic googling to find out why every argument in it is either wrong or deceptive. What’s special is that it’s about one of my favorite critters, Osedax – the bone eating worm.

The author misses the mark from the very beginning. He claims that:

“Bone worms have specialized features that enable them to bore holes through whale bones. Ecologically, they serve to recycle whale bones back into the undersea environment.”

source

Osedax frankpressi
Osedax rubiplumus

While it is true that Osedax were first discovered on whale carcasses, since then they’ve been found on a host of vertebrate skeletons, including seals, pigs, and cows, and have been hypothesized to occur on dolphins, shark cartilage, and even large fish. Osedax occurrence is not limited exclusively to whales. That fact alone essential makes the rest of the article flawed.

They also don’t recycle entire whale bones back into the ecosystem. Osedax extract certain compounds from the bones and (with the help of autotrophic endosymbionts) convert those compounds into energy. But they leave plenty of material behind, most notably calcium carbonate.

Also, it should go without saying that the “purpose” of Osedax is not to recycle whale bones, the “purpose” is to survive and reproduce another generation of viable individuals and they’ve developed a way to occupy a specific ecologic niche in order to do that.

At this point I should make clear that, while the author seems to be of the impression that there is only one species of Osedax, there are more than 20, each with different life-histories, distributions, and carcass preferences.

The author goes on to make this bizarre claim:

“The very fact that a creature as large as a whale became fossilized in the first place testifies to a uniquely terrible watery disaster in earth’s past. A whale would simply swim away from any of today’s local-level disturbances or tsunamis.”

source

I guess we never see beached whales, predation, or illness, and whales must be immortal, since they clearly can’t die from old age. In fact, the only thing that could kill a whale is a catastrophic global event. Or maybe he’s arguing that whales wouldn’t be fossilized, since they couldn’t be buried quickly enough? In that case, isn’t he disproving his own point? Whale carcasses on the sea-floor can last for decades, providing a food source to a huge community. Osedax can only colonize the carcass once the bones are exposed. Fossil whale bones colonized by Osedax would never occur in a rapidly buried carcass.

Further, the whale bones examined in the study had not yet been entirely recycled. They were largely intact yet riddled with bore holes. This shows that the bones were preserved before decomposition–a process that takes months, not millions of years–could be completed.

source

Yet more confusion about what Osedax does. I’ll admit, “bone-eating worm” is a bit of a misleading name. Although the feeding ecology is not completely understood, Osedax do not eat the entire skeleton. They bore into hydrocarbon-rich bones and convert hydrocarbons and collagen into energy. They do not utilize calcium carbonate. So you would absolutely expect to see fossil bones with bore-holes.

So when the author makes the argument that:

The energy associated with inundating a whale is on an order of magnitude consistent with a global flood. And the relative lack of decay during the whale’s fossilization indicates a rapid, not lengthy, time for its burial and preservation.

source

Is simply inconsistent with reality.

His final statement:

But evolutionary paleontologists ought to also be less happy about this co-occurrence of Osedax with whales, since their presence from the very beginning of the whale’s fossil record is consistent with biblical history. If God created them both on the same day or during the same week, it would stand to reason that there would be no time gap between the origin of whales and the origin of whale-bone-eating Osedax worms.

source

Is contradicted by his own report that “The PNAS study concluded that Osedax was ‘at least 30 million years old.”‘ The earliest whale fossils date back nearly 65 million years. The seven sources at the bottom of this page go on to provide more details about these amazing animals.

This is a prime example of pseudoscience distorting science under the assumption that readers won’t bother to fact-check their claims.

~Southern Fried Scientist


ResearchBlogging.org

Jones WJ, Johnson SB, Rouse GW, & Vrijenhoek RC (2008). Marine worms (genus Osedax) colonize cow bones. Proceedings. Biological sciences / The Royal Society, 275 (1633), 387-91 PMID: 18077256

Rouse, G., Wilson, N., Goffredi, S., Johnson, S., Smart, T., Widmer, C., Young, C., & Vrijenhoek, R. (2008). Spawning and development in Osedax boneworms (Siboglinidae, Annelida) Marine Biology, 156 (3), 395-405 DOI: 10.1007/s00227-008-1091-z

Vrijenhoek, R., Collins, P., & Van Dover, C. (2008). Bone-eating marine worms: habitat specialists or generalists? Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 275 (1646), 1963-1964 DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2008.0350

Glover AG, Kemp KM, Smith CR, & Dahlgren TG (2008). On the role of bone-eating worms in the degradation of marine vertebrate remains. Proceedings. Biological sciences / The Royal Society, 275 (1646) PMID: 18505721

Haag, A. (2005). Marine biology: Whale fall Nature, 433 (7026), 566-567 DOI: 10.1038/433566a

Goffredi SK, Orphan VJ, Rouse GW, Jahnke L, Embaye T, Turk K, Lee R, & Vrijenhoek RC (2005). Evolutionary innovation: a bone-eating marine symbiosis. Environmental microbiology, 7 (9), 1369-78 PMID: 16104860

Kiel, S., Goedert, J., Kahl, W., & Rouse, G. (2010). Fossil traces of the bone-eating worm Osedax in early Oligocene whale bones Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107 (19), 8656-8659 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1002014107

Share this:

  • Click to share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Threads (Opens in new window) Threads
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • Click to share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon

Related

Tags: creationism osedax pseudoscience

Post navigation

❮ Previous Post: Chemistry of the Great Big Blue: Nutrients
Next Post: Ocean of Pseudoscience Shorty – Bloop! ❯

You may also like

Science
Elaine Morgan says we evolved from aquatic apes
September 9, 2010
Uncategorized
Our favorite sea monsters – Mermaids (#5)
September 7, 2010
Uncategorized
365 days of Darwin: September 6, 2010 (2/7)
September 6, 2010
Science
The Sex Lives of Spoonworms: 10 marine animals with parasitic, dwarf, and otherwise reduced males
May 31, 2013

10 thoughts on “Bone-eating worms and contorted creationist thinking”

  1. WhySharksMatter says:
    September 7, 2010 at 1:10 pm

    Why would a flood harm a whale in the first place?

  2. Rogue Medic says:
    September 7, 2010 at 5:50 pm

    I agree with WhySharksMatter. I was reading this at first to find out what was different about this creationist silliness to get you to write about it. I agree with you about the pointlessness of trying to reason with creationists.

    Then, I was wondering why anyone, even a creationist, would think that a flood would kill a whale. I was hoping that the Osedax had written Jonah was here in some of the bones.

    A God, who created creationists, would have to have a great sense of humor. A comic with an unappreciative, but captive, audience. Maybe a rewrite of Sartre, just leave out the word other.

  3. Samantha Vimes says:
    September 8, 2010 at 5:25 am

    Ah, the Flood *could* in fact, would kill many sea animals. The dirtying of the water with silts, the dilution of salt water with fresh, the change in temperature, how little photosynthesis would be going on: with all these factors, it seems more strange that the ocean life wasn’t being preserved in the same way as the land animals in the Ark.

    Or maybe the Bible just left out Chang’s aquarium, constructed by God’s orders, because he was too smart to leave all the work to one twit.

    Although the simpler explanation is none of it happened.

  4. Rogue Medic says:
    September 8, 2010 at 1:20 pm

    Samantha Vimes,

    I am not a biologist, but aren’t most whales are deep water animals, with many species living off of kelp? Neither should be greatly influenced by what happens near land.

    Flooding would drive competitors for food into environments they are probably not going to thrive in, not being naturally selected for the deep sea life. Not a lot of whale predators to worry about, but illnesses carried by competitors could be a problem.

    Chang’s aquarium? How many cubits per side? 😉

  5. WhySharksMatter says:
    September 8, 2010 at 2:17 pm

    I’m not aware of any kelp-eating whales, but I’m a sharkie by trade. Most whales eat fish/squid/seals or plankton, both of which are pelagic.

  6. Southern Fried Scientist says:
    September 8, 2010 at 2:50 pm

    Orcas are also known to use nature’s most infamous shark as a tasty, tasty snack

  7. Rogue Medic says:
    September 9, 2010 at 2:30 am

    I thought that many whales used baleens to filter kelp out of the ocean. I guess they would consume anything that would be caught in the mouth. I can’t see a whale spitting out some shrimp, claiming that it might have MSG. :-0

    It has been a while seen I did any reading on whales.

    Orcas have also been known to nibble on the occasional trainer at the water park.

  8. Southern Fried Scientist says:
    September 9, 2010 at 8:39 am

    Baleen whales generally eat plankton, not kelp, and they definitely spit out what they don’t want. The baleen works like a filter, but in the opposite direction than most people think. Baleen whales gulp huge amounts of water (containing tasty tasty plankters) and then force the water out of their mouths, through the baleen pleats. They then use their tongues to lick whatever’s left off their pleats.

  9. Rogue Medic says:
    September 9, 2010 at 11:47 am

    It seems that I should hold off on writing any papers on whales. 😉

  10. NickD says:
    September 13, 2010 at 10:56 am

    My PhD work is based on the role of Osedax in whale taphonomy and I’ve also seen other occurrences of using whale-falls in creationist literature; always highlighting their scientific ignorance, as illustrated by the assertion that:

    “The energy associated with inundating a whale is on an order of magnitude consistent with a global flood”

    Clearly they have never herd of turbidity currents or benthic storms! Even under normal slope conditions burial of “Osedaxed” bones is not surprising.

Comments are closed.

Recent Popular Posts

Deep-sea Mining: It’s science fiction, until it isn’t.Deep-sea Mining: It’s science fiction, until it isn’t.May 14, 2025Andrew Thaler
My "Follow ocean science and conservation experts on Bluesky and Instagram" assignmentMy "Follow ocean science and conservation experts on Bluesky and Instagram" assignmentNovember 19, 2024David Shiffman
Here's what I teach my students about finding jobs in marine biology and conservationHere's what I teach my students about finding jobs in marine biology and conservationApril 10, 2024David Shiffman
Shark of Darkness: Wrath of Submarine is a fake documentaryShark of Darkness: Wrath of Submarine is a fake documentaryAugust 10, 2014Michelle Jewell
Our favorite sea monsters – Ningen (#4)Our favorite sea monsters – Ningen (#4)September 7, 2010Andrew Thaler
Alberta, Canada is the proud owner of the largest man-made pyramid on the planetAlberta, Canada is the proud owner of the largest man-made pyramid on the planetOctober 16, 2012Andrew Thaler
What can the funniest shark memes on the internetz teach us about ocean science and conservation?What can the funniest shark memes on the internetz teach us about ocean science and conservation?November 8, 2013David Shiffman
I turned my woodshop into a personal solar farm.I turned my woodshop into a personal solar farm.June 21, 2021Andrew Thaler
Megalodon: the New Evidence is a fake documentaryMegalodon: the New Evidence is a fake documentaryAugust 7, 2014David Shiffman
A quick and dirty guide to making custom feeds on BlueskyA quick and dirty guide to making custom feeds on BlueskyFebruary 7, 2024Andrew Thaler
Subscribe to our RSS Feed for updates whenever new articles are published.

We recommend Feedly for RSS management. It's like Google Reader, except it still exists.

Southern Fried Science

  • Home
  • About SFS
  • Authors
  • Support SFS


If you enjoy Southern Fried Science, consider contributing to our Patreon campaign.

Copyright © 2025 Southern Fried Science.

Theme: Oceanly Premium by ScriptsTown