Seals' amphibious hearing developed a long, long time ago 21%

By Melissa Hobson21%

7/27/2026, 6:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Overconfidence Bias, Anchoring Bias, and Negativity Bias, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 17% saturation with 90 hits. Analysis detected 681 faulty-reasoning hits from 529 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 28.8% and a BS Rank of 21% (22,794 of 28,846 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 79.00% of the article peer group.

Seals, sea lions and walruses  collectively known as pinnipeds  are the only mammals with excellent hearing both above and below the water. 
The evolution of this unique ability occurred nearly 26.7 million years ago  about 100 million years after mammals first heard in air, researchers report July 15 in Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 
Their amphibious hearing is “something of a superpower,” says James Rule, a vertebrate paleontologist at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia. 
“They are the only mammals which can do this.” 
Human middle ears, chambers sealed between the eardrum and inner ear, are permanently filled with air. 
They conduct sound well on land but cause issues underwater. 
“Water is over 800 times more dense than air,” Rule says, so sound waves don’t travel to our ears as effectively as they would in the air. 
Less than 1 percent of underwater sounds get through, he says. 
Pinniped ears have spongy cavernous tissue that fills with blood when diving underwater to help equalize pressure. 
Because blood’s density is much closer to that of water, this “enables them to hear sounds clearly, filter out useful sound signals and tell what direction they come from,” Rule says. 
To find out how pinniped ears evolved, Rule and colleagues micro-CT scanned 217 ear specimens from 119 mammal species from museums around the world, allowing them to gain detailed 3-D images of the animals’ ears  “like the scan you would get at the doctor, but much more powerful and for very small objects,” Rule says. 
They scanned all 34 modern pinniped species, as well as closely related species including dogs, weasels, otters and raccoons and extinct fossil lineages. 
Among these early ancestors were semi-aquatic freshwater carnivores called Puijila, which could hear only in air, and Enaliarctos, which is believed to be the first fully marine pinniped genus. 
Creating a family tree of these ancient creatures’ ears to see when they developed this cavernous tissue enabled the researchers to determine that pinnipeds evolved amphibious hearing around 26 million years ago. 
“Among the things that surprise me is how early in the fossil record the shift towards amphibious hearing is meant to have occurred,” says marine ecologist Steven Benjamins, who wasn’t involved in the study. 
The fact that underwater hearing developed early among pinniped ancestors suggests that accurate hearing underwater is significant to their survival, particularly as they evolved into deeper ocean waters, says Benjamins, of the Scottish Association for Marine Science in Oban. 
The oldest species included in the study “are much more otterlike in their anatomy, likely having lived in shallow freshwater systems where underwater hearing may have been less important.” 
The study suggests that the ability of the blood-filled cavernous sinus to conduct sound was an evolutionary accident. 
At first, this probably made underwater sound too loud, but pinniped middle ears evolved again to adjust this amplification. 
Thanks to their unique hearing, pinnipeds have great rhythm and can mimic vocalizations, like a parrot, but are incredibly sensitive to sound, such as noise pollution. 
“The evolution of amphibious hearing has made pinnipeds the masters of sound,” Rule says. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.3%Melissa Hobson: 1.8%Science News: 2.5%Confirmation Bias4.3%This article: 12.3%Melissa Hobson: 2.9%Science News: 1.0%Anchoring Bias12.3%This article: 2.1%Melissa Hobson: 1.5%Science News: 2.0%Availability Heuristic2.1%This article: 4.5%Melissa Hobson: 1.0%Science News: 1.3%Representativeness Heuristic4.5%This article: 5.5%Melissa Hobson: 0.7%Science News: 0.4%Hindsight Bias5.5%This article: 14.0%Melissa Hobson: 2.2%Science News: 1.8%Overconfidence Bias14.0%This article: 2.6%Melissa Hobson: 0.5%Science News: 3.2%Framing Effect2.6%This article: 0.0%Melissa Hobson: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Melissa Hobson: 0.0%Science News: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Melissa Hobson: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Melissa Hobson: 1.4%Science News: 3.3%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 7.4%Melissa Hobson: 2.6%Science News: 1.2%Pessimism Bias7.4%This article: 11.3%Melissa Hobson: 2.6%Science News: 3.1%Negativity Bias11.3%This article: 0.0%Melissa Hobson: 0.4%Science News: 0.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Melissa Hobson: 0.0%Science News: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Melissa Hobson: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Melissa Hobson: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Melissa Hobson: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 4.9%Melissa Hobson: 1.0%Science News: 0.9%Halo Effect4.9%This article: 0.0%Melissa Hobson: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Melissa Hobson: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Melissa Hobson: 0.0%Science News: 0.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Melissa Hobson: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Melissa Hobson: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Melissa Hobson: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Melissa Hobson: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Melissa Hobson: 1.3%Science News: 3.5%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Melissa Hobson: 0.0%Science News: 1.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Melissa Hobson: 1.6%Science News: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Melissa Hobson: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.5%Melissa Hobson: 3.1%Science News: 3.5%Hasty Generalization5.5%This article: 0.0%Melissa Hobson: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Melissa Hobson: 0.0%Science News: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Melissa Hobson: 2.6%Science News: 1.8%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 6.0%Melissa Hobson: 0.8%Science News: 0.4%Begging the Question6.0%This article: 17.0%Melissa Hobson: 9.2%Science News: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)17.0%This article: 0.0%Melissa Hobson: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Melissa Hobson: 0.0%Science News: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 10.6%Melissa Hobson: 1.4%Science News: 0.3%Appeal to Nature10.6%This article: 0.0%Melissa Hobson: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 4.9%Melissa Hobson: 0.6%Science News: 1.0%Anecdotal4.9%This article: 0.0%Melissa Hobson: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.4%Melissa Hobson: 1.3%Science News: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.4%This article: 0.0%Melissa Hobson: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Melissa Hobson: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Melissa Hobson: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Melissa Hobson: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Melissa Hobson: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.9%Melissa Hobson: 1.7%Science News: 0.6%Unattributed Quote5.9%This article: 0.0%Melissa Hobson: 0.0%Science News: 0.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 6.4%Melissa Hobson: 2.5%Science News: 2.0%Biased Writer Voice6.4%This article: 0.0%Melissa Hobson: 0.0%Science News: 0.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Melissa Hobson: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Melissa Hobson: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Melissa Hobson: 0.0%Science News: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

529 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers35%attributed speech344writer words
Selected voice

Steven Benjamins

100%flagged-word coverage
73 attributed words39% of attributed speech85% writer coverage

No manipulation-pattern hits were found in this speaker's attributed words or the writer's voice.

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.