Tim Minchin on Evolution

A slight departure from some of the other videos I have posted, as this is comedy and therefore does not have to be scientifically accurate (it is tempting to use it as a platform for discussing how evolution works, such as putting emphasis on populations and not individuals, but I would rather laugh right now than be a pedant). Naturally I disagree with his views on religion, but still, these clips are hilarious and Tim Minchin is a talented comedian and musician. If you like musical comedy, including comedy aimed at musicians, check him out if you haven't already.

I would like...

Thanks to the repetition of "I want doesn't get" by an ex-girlfriend, I don't often declare that I want something any more. Instead I end up saying "I would like" or "I desire". Here is something I would very much like, the new Jurassic Park poster:

I particularly love that there are two scenes from the film in this image, which very well might have occurred at the same time.

On another note, I am half way through writing a couple of posts which I intended to put here before now, but other things came up. Stay tuned (they are creationist oriented, if that interests you).

Archaeopteryx Again (x11)

Two weeks ago I did a little blog about Archaeopteryx. It didn't say much, but if you are interested, see here. If only I had been lazy and waited two weeks to write about it, I could have done something much more exciting. Solnhofen in Germany has turned up an eleventh Archaeopteryx specimen, which is complete except for its missing head. This dinosaur might not be considered the first bird any more due to a study published this year (I could launch into a rant about the concept of a first bird, but I won't) but it is still an iconic transitional form and these fossils are potentially worth millions. Hopefully this fossil, like the other specimens, will yield some fascinating insights into this incredible period of evolutionary history.

I'm actually going to Solnhofen next year and like many others would love to find one of these. Chances of it happening? Slim to none. Ah well, one can dream...

Evolution Made Simple

I recently found this excellent video with Dr Yan of Bang Goes the Theory talking about evolution, using an excellent visual analogy for how random variations lead to diversity. He manages to show the cumulative effects of mutations (his mentor Dawkins will have loved him for that) and manages to slip in ideas about speciation (unsurprisingly allopatric) and even draws a little cladogram. There could have been more Liz Bonnin, but I think that about most programmes.




My only criticism of it is that it does not give the full picture. A lot of laymen mistakenly think that evolution is random and this video does nothing to really dispel that myth. Natural selection filters the random changes and is itself a non-random process. It is natural selection which really makes evolution work, so hopefully they will do a piece on that some time to complement this one. Otherwise, fantastic stuff.

Evolution: 'nuff said!

This picture was posted on Facebook and made so many points which I end up making repeatedly, and it did so succinctly. I may just use this over and over:

My only slight quibble would be the claim that life does not improve, though to be precise on that matter would have required a lot more text on the poster. Improvement is often subjective, and the way this poster means it is that things don't become "better" over time in the sense most of us would think. Evolution does, however, involve improvement in another way, because populations adapt to their environment and can be said to become "better fit" or "adaptively improved". This is, of course, dependent on the environment, so what is "better" or an "improvement" in one environment is not automatically so in another. Sadly all of the words we could use seem to be loaded in such a way which gives the wrong impression. A lot of what I just typed felt wrong because I know those words give the wrong idea about evolution.

Creation Beliefs Update

Back in February of 2010 I attempted to group together and classify the many creation beliefs that are found in Christianity. I thought I had covered all of the stand out beliefs, but now I need to update it. The original attempt can be seen here and still seems to stand up, though naturally it has some issues (and should not be taken as a prediction of origins).

A few months ago I stumbled across a blog which discussed a different view of creation, one which has its roots in gap theory (1.2.1 in my scheme) yet accepts evolution (putting it in 2.2). Perhaps I could formulate a complementary scheme which takes origins of views into account, but for now I will explain what this belief claims and how it fits into my current taxonomy.

I found this unusual view on Greg Boyd's blog for Christus Victor Ministries. It takes seriously the palaeontological evidence for extinction throughout the history of life yet tries to stick to a literal reading of Genesis creation. It is quite inventive, to say the least. Like other gap theorists, they see a gap between verse 1 and 2, but they additionally claim that nature was corrupted by demonic powers during this time. Elsewhere in the Bible, when creation is mentioned, some warfare symbolism can be seen and evolutionary gap theorists claim that this fits in between verses 1 and 2, a gap which also contains the creation and fall of angels. Then there was a cataclysmic judgement and a recreation (for which this view departs from the evidence).

It goes further than that, well into some fantastical scenarios. Ralph Winters claims that God set angels to oversee creation, angels which were also in training, which explains why it took so long. Some of these angels rebelled during the Cambrian period, hence why we have predation. Winters also goes on to claim that the rest of Genesis 1 is from the perspective of someone on Earth, though this appears to be a difference between him and Boyd and is not integral to their beliefs.

For more on evolution as cosmic conflict and modified/evolutionary gap theory, see these blog posts, as I cannot do justice to a view I know so little about:
http://gregboyd.blogspot.com/2007/06/back-to-drawing-board-on-gap-theory.html
http://gregboyd.blogspot.com/2007/07/ralph-winters-modified-gap-theory.html
http://www.gregboyd.org/blog/evolution-as-cosmic-warfare/
http://www.gregboyd.org/blog/more-on-evolution-as-cosmic-warfare/
http://www.gregboyd.org/blog/unclean-animals-and-the-corruption-of-creation/

So in my previous taxonomy this is clearly part of group 2.2 Christian Evolutionism, as it accepts evolution in the history of life. It seems to fit somewhere in or around 2.2.1 Weak Theistic Evolution, as it clings to a literalistic Genesis, even though it is still rather loose with it. I get the feeling that if I investigate more evangelical approaches to evolution, that 2.2.1 will develop its own subdivisions, within which this view, which I will keep calling Evolutionary Gap Theory, will fit.

It is not a view I buy at all, but I found it interesting nonetheless. It is a step up from a lot of the other creation views, but it does not accommodate the scientific evidence sufficiently. It seems the sort of view which would only be persuasive to theologians and evangelicals who have no proper grasp of evolution. But as I said, it is a step up at least.

Christians and Fossils: an overview

I posted this to Facebook as an overview which I do intend to do as a blog series here. Naturally it will be in much more detail, looking at each individual view and providing a critique. Some will be more detailed than others, as there are views which require more debunking and there are some where I know little about them. I also intend to do this as a possible book some day, though I intended to start it last year. 

This will simply be a brief look at modern Christian explanations for the fossil record. If any of these fit your view, then feel free to expand on what I write and explain why you believe it. If I have missed any, then please present the views I have missed.

Dismissive views:

1. Fossils can only tell us that something died. This sort of statement is often used in order not to address the fossil record or to dismiss any succession perceived in it.
2. Fossils are a test of faith. A view which allows for dismissal of the evidence.
3. Fossils were planted by Satan. This is similar to 2.
4. Fossils are fake. A rare view which invokes global conspiracy as the explanation.
None of the above views are serious attempts to engage with the evidence and so will not be addressed in any more detail.

Young Earth Creationist views:

The following four views are not necessarily mutually exclusive and all invoke a global flood.

1. Hydrological sorting. This is the view that the fossil record can be explained by organisms being sorted by density and other factors rather than evolution.http://creationwiki.org/Hydrological_sorting

2. Differential escape. This explanation is used to account for the increase in complexity seen in the fossil record. It posits that smarter, faster animals were able to escape the flood for longer, while all the slower, dumber animals died first, giving the illusion of evolving complexity. It also tries to explain the abundance of marine fossils.

3. Habitat sorting/ecological zonation. In this explanation, differing environments are used to explain fossils found in different strata and locations. The reason we do not find trilobites and man together is because trilobites are marine and humans are terrestrial, for example.

4. The European flood model. This is more complex than the other YEC models, as it does not propose the flood as an explanation for the whole fossil record. Instead, the pre-flood/post-flood boundary is in Carboniferous strata. The fossil record shows a succession of pre-flood organisms which died (all were marine because the land was destroyed), through organisms which proliferated during the flood, followed by the progressive filling of the Earth after the flood receded. A proponent of this view is Paul Garner.

Favourite evidences used by the YEC groups include polystrate fossils and fossil lagerstatte (areas of exceptional preservation). Proponents include Duane Gish, Henry Morris, Kent Hovind and the palaeontologist Kurt Wise.
http://www.bryancore.org/anniversary/04.pdf

Devolution:

I have included this one for a laugh. I once met a guy on a different discussion board who is trying to raise funds to start a museum which will explain the fossil record his way:

The greater ancestor explanation: The fossil record shows devolution, where ancestors were bigger and better in the past and have been progressively getting worse. Favoured evidence includes large mammal fossils from throughout the Cenozoic and large insect fossils from the Carboniferous.

Old Earth Creationist views:

1. Gap theory: This explains the fossil record by considering it as almost a separate creation, before God wiped the slate clean and started afresh with man and other animals. The fossil record is therefore the remnants of a failed creation.

2. Concordism and day-age: This view accepts the age of the Earth and instead suggests that there were many stages of creation and that Genesis matches what the fossils show. No large scale evolution was involved, just God stepping in to make created kinds.

Proponents of these views try to take the fossil record as a whole, though tend not to engage with it much. A prominent proponent is Hugh Ross.

Intelligent Design:

1. The patterns in the fossil record are real, but not explained by evolution. This is simply a rejection of evolution as an explanation for the whole fossil record. ID theorists differ in the degree to which God has stepped in during geological history.

Evidence given often includes the Cambrian explosion as a rapid source of new "information", and also examples such as whale evolution are used to claim that evolution would be too slow. Proponents include Michael Behe and Stephen Meyer.
http://www.discovery.org/a/2177

Theistic evolution views:

1. Evolution as cosmic warfare/modified gap theory: The fossil record is explained by cosmic warfare between Satan and good, corrupting the creation and causing mass mortality. It accepts a literal Genesis with a gap in Genesis 1.http://www.gregboyd.org/blog/evolution-as-cosmic-warfare/

2. Teleological evolution: Evolution is the explanation for the fossil record, but it also shows that there is an inevitable progression in complexity, which points to God. Proponents of this view, such as palaeontologist Simon Conway Morris, use palaeontological evidence of convergence in evolution as support, combined with constraints in nature. http://www.mapoflife.org/

3. Generic theistic evolution: Simply accepts evolution as the explanation for the fossil record, based on the evidence for an increase in the spread of complexity and faunal succession, along with transitional forms and other lines of fossil data.

Proponents of theistic evolution include Kenneth Miller, John Polkinghorne, and palaeontologists Bob Bakker and Mary Schweitzer.

Jurassic Park on the big screen.

A couple of nights ago I went to see Westworld with dinosaurs. By that, I mean that I went to see Jurassic Park at the cinema. I went to the 11:55pm showing, which was difficult as I got tired, but well worth it. I watch the films a couple of times a year, yet watching it on the big screen again had me spotting details which I had never noticed before, so I thought I would share some nuggets of information.

During the scene in which John Hammond makes his first appearance in the film, the big screen made it easier to read newspaper clippings decorating the trailer. On the fridge was an article titled "Space Aliens Stole My Face". As if that wasn't amusing enough, the words "Dinosaurs on Mars" could also be seen. There are some hints at proper palaeontological literature, but it is these which really catch the eye.

One of my favourite mistakes in the film stood out even more at the cinema. When Dennis Nedry is stealing the dinosaur embryos, the labels can be quite clearly seen. One of them reads "STEGASAURUS". I find it very amusing that one of the few Jurassic period dinosaurs mentioned is not spelled correctly, as it should be Stegosaurus. 


Whilst looking up images for this post, I stumbled upon more Jurassic Park trivia and found some of the casting choices interesting. Juliette Binoche was actually offered the role of Ellie Sattler, but turned it down to make the excellent Trois couleurs: Bleu, which is a shame, as I have a soft spot for Juliette. I've also often wondered why they did not get David Attenborough to narrate during the car scenes, as that would clearly be a case of sparing no expense, though it has come to my attention recently that he is not quite as well known in America and that Richard Kiley is known for his voice over there.

It was also brought to my attention recently that during the first proper dinosaur scene, where the Brachiosaurus is seen rearing up to get to higher branches, that it does not actually get any higher. Its head stays on the same level. It still looks good though, and the timing of the music is perfect.

If it were on for longer I might have gone again to see what else I can spot, though I will simply have to stick with the DVDs.

The world's most expensive steak.

I do love ribeye steak...

I'm in a fortunate position where I am making myself hungry by talking about one of my favourite foods and have a piece waiting for me in the fridge (I should have taken it out of the fridge though, as they should be cooked at room temperature so that they cook evenly). But this blog is not actually about steak, it is about that famous fossil bird, Archaeopteryx.

We should all know about Archaeopteryx as it is one of the most iconic transitional fossils, bring a very dinosaur-like bird, or bird-like dinosaur (the confusion is deliberate). Discovered just two years after Darwin had published The Origin of Species and had lamented the lack of such forms, there are now 10-12 specimens worldwide (all from Solnhofen, Germany, though) and they are much coveted, so find one and you can become a millionaire.

Old Archaeopteryx has been in the middle of some interesting debates. Thomas Huxley recognised it as a link between dinosaurs and modern birds, but then this view got ignored and thrown out until the 60s and 70s when palaeontologists started looking at it again. It is now considered to be rather obvious. It was also once claimed to be fake, by physicists and astronomers who know nothing about fossils, but the palaeontologists came back and showed them up for their idiocy (they would have been ignored, but Sir Fred Hoyle was very well known and needed silencing). This year is the 150th anniversary of its discovery and recent studies have "knocked it off its perch" as the first verifiable bird, see here.

The price of steak.

But what I find really interesting involves the Berlin specimen, the second Archaeopteryx found. It was discovered in 1874 or 1875 and has been labelled Archaeopteryx siemensii (as opposed to A. lithographica). It was discovered by a farmer, Jakob Niemeyer, who sold it to an innkeeper so that he could purchase a cow. That's right, he sold one of the most important fossils in the world in order to buy a cow. I hope that cow produced the tastiest steaks on the planet. Despite my love of steak, I would not have relinquished the fossil so easily, unless it was T-bone...

Taphonomy and Art

According to the Oxford Dictionary of Earth Sciences, taphonomy is "[the] study of the transition of all or part of an organism from the biosphere into the lithosphere (i.e. *fossilization). The term was coined by J. A. Efremov in 1940." A subdivision of taphonomy is biostratinomy, which looks at what happens between the time an organism dies and its final burial. This can involve the movement of the body, scavenging, decay, chemical effects and so on. It is no surprise then that a lot of palaeontologists study taphonomy, as it is useful in interpreting the fossils we find; if we know how they decay and what their remains look like in certain situations, then we can identify those phenomena in the fossil record and use them to interpret how the fossils looked when they were alive.

So it seems that I can justify looking at dead animals, as it helps with palaeontology, but that is not the real reason I do it. I find them poetic. I often take pictures of dead animals and find that they are capable of evoking a range of emotions. Some people find this strange, whereas others, including girls, have encouraged me to do it. Sometimes I am struck by the lack of emotion I feel; I know that I am looking at something which has lost its life, which has been killed when it could have gone on living, yet I often feel nothing (this seems to be true when I see rabbits and hedgehogs dead, yet when I see people harming them I get irate). Sometimes I honestly find them funny, which strikes me as even more morbid. But there are times where I get philosophical or emotional, especially when I see something such as a dog (being a dog owner means that the sight of a dead dog can tug the heart strings). I also find them fascinating, especially as they are occasionally animals I have not seen before.

So here are some pictures I have taken over the years, some with comments. Feel free to respond telling me what they made you think of. Have I taken death too lightly? Am I sick? Is this art? I'm dedicating this blog post to my friend Emily, whose blog can be found here.

This is one of my oldest ones, which looks even more poignant in black and white than it did in colour. I love corvids, they are amongst my favourite groups of birds. This one was on Bridlington beach, during a walk with a lady friend who encouraged my unusual photography habits (which nearly got me run over at one point). I don't think I can explain what I love about this image, it might be how broken it looks, as though it never stood a chance.

This was taken on the same holiday, at Reighton Sands, not far from Bridlington (the Yorkshire coast). I love how lifeless this one clearly is, as though it lost some spark very suddenly. I often find fish comical, but this one jumps out at me. We often do not see fish like we do other animals, as though they are not as important, but hopefully people will recognise the horrors of such things as shark-finning (see here for my post on shark-finning, with a depressing video).

Half way through writing this blog post I decided that it would be a good idea to make all of the pictures black and white. That way they look more artistic and I don't look as morbid...

I love how mangled this one looks. It is well on its way to not existing and is beginning to blend in with the assorted rocks and rubbish surrounding it. The phrase "gone but not forgotten" comes to mind in an unusual way. Thanks to my odd fascination, this bird has been immortalised, yet it will only ever be known for its appearance in death, after much decay has taken place. Whilst changing the colours on this one, I inverted them as well, producing an effect I really liked:

This is a porpoise I found dead on the beach at Cleethorpes. I say that I found it, one of my dogs actually did (Peanut is very good at finding dead things, though she likes to roll in them when she finds them). I was fascinated by this one, especially as it was not obvious what it was straight away. You could even see the vertebrae sticking out of the back of it:

Send me a message if you want to see more of the porpoise.

Earlier I said that dead dogs faze me a bit. This one did not. I'm not sure why. I took this photo, and many others, during a field trip to Spain. We were mapping the area (geological mapping) and this area became known as "dead dog bend" as it was near a bend in the road. This thing was huge and for a change I was not the only one taking pictures of it. Towards the end of the trip, 4 days later, I took another picture of it and it had changed somewhat (that's taphonomy for you):

The dog was large, but not the biggest dead animal I have photographed. Around a month before, I went on a fossil collecting trip to Saltwick Bay, Whitby, and saw this enormous dead seal. Its head appears to be buried, but the rest of it can be seen and it gave off quite the stench.

For a while after that I do not seem to have taken pictures of anything dead. It was probably due to the lack of a camera. Until my recent fieldwork (which I still have not written about). I took a few more pictures, but these are my favourites:

I have not edited the colour on this one because it is one of the goriest images. Sometimes that is the appeal with dead things, as it can satiate blood lust. This was one which I honestly found funny, despite its horrifying nature. I even put it up on Facebook with the lyrics to Michael Jackson's Thriller. Poor thing.

Last but not least is this snake, which I found dead on the road during my fieldwork. It was not the only one I found either. I wish I took a picture of it a few days before, when I first saw it, as it was much more three dimensional, whereas here it has almost blended into the road. By now this snake will have completely decayed. I love how the backbone is quite clear and the skin is still clearly that of a snake, yet it is a complete mess.

Well, this is a sample of some of my photography, more specifically my "dead things" collection. If anyone stumbles across this and wants to share their own, feel free to link me. I'd also love it if any poets could get some inspiration out of this. In this blog I have decided not to go into depth about the emotions they evoke, as I would rather let the images speak for themselves. We all experience death in so many ways, which is something to think about.

Rugby in Nature?

I like rugby. I don't follow any teams, mostly because I am lazy and cannot be bothered to keep up with it, though I do follow England during major competitions. As anyone who has not been living in a hole should know, the rugby world cup is currently being played in New Zealand and the knock-out stages begin this coming weekend. Due to the time difference I've had some early mornings in order to watch all of the England matches and even got up extra early to watch one of the Wales games (don't tell my ex this, but my second favourite team of the home nations is Wales, followed by Ireland). On Saturday, England will be playing France and will have their work cut out for them, as England are not playing to a high standard and could be outplayed by France if they play well (they haven't so far, but who knows?).

A couple of days ago I caught a bit of Life on the telly, which is a David Attenborough documentary from a couple of years ago. This particular episode was about birds and has some astonishing footage (look out for the bird which drops bones from a height in order to smash them and then devour them). The clip I want to share shows the red-billed tropicbird and frigate birds (man o' war birds). The tropicbirds have to run the gauntlet, trying to get their food back to their nests, whilst frigate birds attack them, trying to force them to let go of their prizes. It reminded me of rugby, watching players tackle each other for the ball. Obviously the differences are plentiful, as birds cannot form scrums in the air, but just watch this amazing clip:

A Creationist Misconception About Transitional Forms

Palaeontology is just the study of old bones and all we can know about them is that something died. It is surprising how many people have that view of the fossil record, with no idea that we can study the lives of many fossil organisms in a lot of detail, even able to determine their behaviour. When it comes to studying evolution using the fossil record we can learn quite a lot about what happened. The creationist misconception I intend to clear up is not the impoverished understanding I just mentioned, but the idea that in order to claim a fossil as a transitional form we must demonstrate that this particular organism reproduced and passed on its genes. This is an unreasonable request based on a misunderstanding of palaeontology.

What is a transitional form?


The public often use the term "missing link" when talking about fossils which plug a gap in our knowledge. This term is a useless tautology because a missing link is always missing by definition. Not to mention, whenever a "link" is found, that just creates two more smaller gaps which need filling. The correct term is transitional form which is used to refer to fossils which possess traits which fit them between two taxonomical groups (intermediate form is roughly synonymous with transitional form). Technically all fossils are transitional forms, but that assumes evolution and so will not pacify creationist attacks. What creationists seem to request is those transitions between major groups which grab the headlines and fortunately we have many.

One thing to keep in mind is that transitional forms should not be put in a chain of ancestor-descendent relationships. This cannot be done with the fossil record because it creates untestable hypotheses and becomes nothing more than story telling. Transitional forms should instead be thought of in terms of the traits they possess, as they indicate the latest possible time that trait could have evolved (the traits in question are shared, derived characteristics, which can get confusing when taken in isolation and with convergence taken into account). The traits should also not be expected to evolve at the same rates or in a sequential order; there can be overlapping.

So, did transitional forms reproduce?


It is safe to assume that they did and here is why.

1. Fossilisation is rare. Small populations are unlikely to be preserved in the fossil record, even just an individual. The larger the population, the more likely it is that an individual will become part of the fossil record and will be discovered by a palaeontologist. It is therefore safe to assume that a transitional form was not some atypical individual, but part of a large population.
2. Evolution functions by the spreading of genes in the gene pool of a population. Populations reproduce, so even if the individual which was preserved did not reproduce, it was part of a population which did reproduce. 
3. If, somehow it was a "freak of nature", then it is unlikely that it was physically very different to the population average as survival to adulthood would also be unlikely. 

Some transitional fossils are clearly part of a population, as numerous fossils have been found. Archaeopteryx is a key example considering its fame, as there are several fossil examples. Clearly these Archaeopteryx individuals were part of a large population and even if they did not reproduce themselves, the population contained many reproducing members. They are transitional forms which bridge the gap between non-avian dinosaurs and birds.

8 of the 9 Archaeopteryx specimens

A more recent example is Darwinopterus, a transitional pterosaur which fills the gap between the two major groups. It is known from numerous specimens which have yielded a wealth of information, providing evidence for sexual dimorphism in pterosaurs. One of the specimens has an egg preserved, showing unequivocally that they were capable of reproduction and the numbers demonstrate that it was part of a population.

The famous female Darwinopterus with egg.

Some transitional forms are, of course, represented by a single individual which is also often fragmented. A good example is the now well known Tiktaalik, which has been labelled as a "fishibian" due to its mixture of fish and amphibian traits. It is so clearly transitional that when its discoverer, Neil Shubin, took a model of it into an infant school class and asked them what they thought it was, some said it was a fish, some said a crocodile, whereas others recognised that it could be both. Only an unthinking pedant would claim that they are wrong. Only one specimen is known, but it is not the only organism which is part of the fish to amphibian transition. Whenever Tiktaalik is brought up, it makes sense to think of the other forms it fits with too, showing the evolution of key traits: 

This applies to all transitions. They should not be taken in isolation, but viewed as part of the whole evolutionary narrative, alongside the other transitional forms. Check out the evolution of whales or the early evolution of mammals, as there are numerous species known for each transition and all should be seen as part of a population in the deep past. 

Probabilities mean that it is extremely likely that transitional forms found were part of a population which involved reproduction. The individuals themselves need not have reproduced because evolution functions in populations, not a string of individuals. If a creationist demands evidence that the individual reproduced they are making a claim based on ignorance of palaeontology. 

I am a "paleontologist"

A friend linked to this video on Facebook earlier, I thought I would share:




A look through the comments sees someone lamenting that this would be considered politically incorrect due to the mention of evolution. What utter nonsense, palaeontologists study evolution, this should not be kept quiet (rant over).

Could it really be? A news round-up?

I've not done one of these for ages and it is about time I got back into the habit. I have been posting interesting news articles on my Facebook profile for a while now and could very easily have linked to them here. So here are the news items which have piqued my interest:

Jurassic Park is back!

Next month sees the release of the Jurassic Park trilogy on Blu-Ray, but before that the first Jurassic Park film will be shown as a limited run at the cinema again. On September 23rd the roar of the Tyrannosaurus will be heard throughout UK cinemas, and I will most certainly be going to see it (provided the loan is through). I remember when I first saw it, I even remember my anticipation of first seeing it. All I knew about it was that my mum's friend had seen a dinosaur film which he said was so realistic that it felt like the dinosaurs were going to burst out of the screen. I was around seven years old at the time and nothing was more exciting. I went to see it with my dad and sister, climbing up onto his knee during the famous raptors in the kitchen scene. We went to see it again, allowing me to be braver second time round. I collected every toy I could get my hands on and still own them all, hidden away in my asbestos-riddled loft. I watch the films a couple of times per year. When my ex-girlfriend suggested that we cuddle up and watch them all together, I instantly thought I was onto a winner (though sadly I was not allowed to say the lines along with the film). I could go on and on about the memories I have from this film, but instead I will just have to go watch it at the cinema again and create yet another memory. See here for an article about the re-release, including a trailer.

Dino Feathers in Amber


If you haven't heard about this, then I have to ask where you have been. I've had people talking to me about this loads, wanting to know if I had heard about it. A friend even randomly phoned me from home just to talk about it. Amber is rather good for preserving three dimensional fossils of things which would not normally be fossilised, such as soft parts. In this case numerous feathers have been preserved in amber dating back to the Late Cretaceous, a time when birds and non-avian dinosaurs lived side by side, both sporting feathers (it is a shared trait due to ancestry). These fossil feathers show an evolutionary range, from primitive feathers through to highly derived feathers which match those of modern birds. There is also yet more information on pigmentation in Mesozoic feathers, giving us more of an idea of the colouration of dinosaurs and early birds. It will soon be common knowledge that the colours of dinosaurs are not complete fantasy any more, though there is still a long way to go and a lot more to learn. See here for the BBC article on this well known discovery.

Sometimes spiders can be cool...


This is not a news item, though it was for me. I found a picture of a spider which interested me, rather than making me shudder and squirm as most do:

It also allows me to put another picture in this blog, as it was feeling a bit text heavy (despite that I am keeping the news short).

DNA regulation in the news again


Whenever I discuss evolution with people in any sort of detail I put emphasis on gene regulation. Genes code for proteins and are flanked by regions of DNA which determine where and when the gene in question will be expressed in the developing embryo. It is through changes in gene switches that you get changes in development, resulting in changes in morphology which can be as gradualistic as natural selection requires. This is how something such as the tetrapod limb has become so diverse; just think of wings, such as the wings of birds, bats and pterosaurs, as they are all variations on the same bones. Gene regulation changes have caused some bones to become longer, some shorter, some fuse, some are different shapes, some disappear entirely (though gradually). Evolution uses what is available and modifies it, often resulting in new combinations which allow for novel form and function. This information is important to our understanding of evolution, yet it gets overlooked a lot. This recent bit of news is the identification of the oldest known regulatory region in vertebrates and invertebrates, see here. Back in August a study was published looking at diversification events in vertebrates based on gene regulation, see here.

Ah, the classic conundrum involving fossils and genes

When looked at broadly the genetic data and the fossil data match up nicely, both showing that evolution is the explanation for how they appear. When we look closely, we find areas of conflict which are difficult to resolve. One of those problems has apparently just been solved (I haven't read the journal paper, so I don't know if their confidence has been justified). One of the problems is that we only have the genomes of recent organisms to study, giving us information only about the survivors. Each genome we have comes from lineages which got through every mass extinction; we lack the genetic information for those which perished. When we look at current genetic diversity it looks like the end result of diversification, because if there are six species in a genus it will look like that was the peak of diversity. The fossils, however, tell a different story. After mass extinctions there is often a boom in diversity, with large increases in the number of species, but as with any boom this then goes bust. Many of those species go extinct, so the fossils may show that those six species are what remains of a genus which once contained ten species. The genetic data would not be able to show this, yet the fossils do. Additionally, sometimes the fossil data is so poor that it can't tell us anything useful (such as when soft tissue is not preserved) so the genetic data is all we have. A new technique has been created, making up for this problem. See here.

Epigenetic changes are short-lived


Anyone who is interested in evolution must pay attention to epigenetics these days. Epigenetic changes do not involve the genome directly, but instead are changes which occur during the life of an individual which can affect how genes are regulated and expressed. I personally know little about epigenetics, so I may go wrong in talking about it. The recent study has shown that these changes are rarely lasting, so they play a small role in the variation available in evolution (though people still love to claim that Lamarck has been vindicated it seems). See here for more information. Also, keep in mind this other bit of news from earlier this year, as a study has shown that lasting evolutionary change takes around a million years to become fixed. Evolution in the short term can be rather fast, much like if you recorded your weight change throughout the day using extremely sensitive scales, as you would see clear changes with every meal and trip to the loo. If you do the same with a child you would find no trends in any discernible direction, until you stepped back and looked at the data over a long period, as you would clearly see growth. One of the difficulties in studying evolution is that gap from short-scale to long-scale is difficult to bridge.

Terra Nova!


This was announced a while ago and got me very excited. Next month will see the release of Spielberg-produced TV series Terra Nova, in which an apocalyptic future sees people travelling back to the Mesozoic to seek paradise and live without the problems which an ever-growing population have caused. I don't know about you, but this is right up my alley. Incredible locations, an apocalyptic future, and of course, dinosaurs.

Now that is how you do micropalaeontology!

During my recent dissertation fieldwork, which I have yet to blog about, I met a palaeontologist from Keele University, Michael Montenari. When I got back I looked him up on his university website and found this awesome image:

That's him, magnified thousands of times, studying fossil extremophiles. If only it were that easy.

Catholics Going Backwards?

I've been lazy all day. I've been doing very little and could have been blogging, but never got the motivation. Until I saw this article on CosmOnline. I was shocked to say the least. I get involved in the science-faith debate/discussion as much as I can, having posted on this blog about it and delved into discussion boards. I intend to make that involvement more academic some day, as I have a lot to say. I feel like I know a lot when it comes to this topic, but every so often I find a surprise.

Anyone who has looked into this subject even slightly will know that the Catholic Church has made mistakes in the past, citing their own authority over science and rejecting discoveries which we now take as given. They've done a fair bit of forgiving over the years and in the past century seem to be making amends. It is well known that Catholics are rarely creationists, that they can accept evolution and many prominent theistic evolutionists are Catholic scholars. The Big Bang theory, repudiated by creationists of many stripes, was first proposed by a Catholic priest. Yet they are not without their crazies when it comes to science. Enter Robert Sungenis and co.

Sungenis is a conservative Catholic who believes that Galileo was wrong, the celestial bodies really do revolve around the Earth! (Terry Pratchett would probably use five exclamation marks there as a sign of insanity.) Geocentrism is still alive, though naturally an extreme fringe view (I do wonder if it has as many followers as the flat earth believers). Sungenis makes me think of Kent Hovind, with the way he emphasises his Ph.D despite the fact that it is from an unaccredited university (he even wrote his thesis on geocentrism). He typically writes books about it and I wonder if anyone is mad enough to take him seriously:

If you want to check out this lunacy for yourself, see here. I have nothing more to say on this, I'm more than a little incredulous.

I should try this

Just a brief little news article, have a read, as a man sent a letter of complaint after he was over-charged for a sandwich and said he wanted a dinosaur drawing as a refund. He got it. See for yourself.

This is my first post since fieldwork and I intend to keep it up. Naturally my fieldwork itself needs writing about at length, but for now you simply get the cartoon dinosaur.

A Comeback?

During this year I have neglected my blog. I stopped posting all together, I left many things unfinished and just could not be bothered any more. I can't say what caused this as I think it might have been a mix of things (laziness coupled with the stress of a relationship for starters, though the latter is no longer a problem). So, I intend to get this blog running again and better than ever! As long as I can fit it around my dissertation work. Tomorrow I set off for two weeks of camping and working in quarries in search of some of the oldest fossils in the country - the Early Cambrian small shelly fossils of Shropshire. Naturally I will not blog during that time, but when I return I will begin again. I've spent this year posting a lot of interesting links to my Facebook page which I could also have blogged about and will be doing my dissertation, which should be interesting.

For now I simply leave with promises I will hopefully keep.

I should really get Kale Ktisis up and running again, as I started posting a three part series. Ah well...

An interesting academic year...

Recently I have not been blogging and I am not completely sure why. In part it has been because I have been exceptionally busy with coursework, exam revision and personal bits and bobs. Even when busy I should still be able to give the odd little update, so here I am going to give lots of little interesting nuggets which I could have given throughout the year.

Don't keep horseshoe crabs as pets

During a trip to Alton Towers I popped into the aquarium that they have there. I marvelled at the many marine beasties as they swam all around, but what really stood out were the horseshoe crabs which you were allowed to touch. I ignored the misinformation presented (the guy was trying to entertain kids but said bizarre things like "they look like dinosaurs" at which point I very nearly put my dromaeosaur tattoo next to it to compare). I wanted one. They were fascinating to watch and are of course as close to a pet trilobite as you can get. So I looked into whether they would be easy to keep as pets and sadly they are not. Many do keep them in their homes, but they are capable of growing up to 2 feet long and so should not be kept unless you are a specialist with an enormous tank. Such a shame, as it would have made a really cool pet. The jellyfish were also quite mesmerising. Perhaps I should get a stuffed one instead:

Horseshoe crabs have made some of the most spectacular trace fossils, where their dying movements have been recorded in the rocks forever and even the crab itself is fossilised at the end!

Turtles make a mockery of Linnaeus


Sadly I have not read the paper in question, but managed to dig up a couple of details about it. It appears to be E. S. Gaffney & P. A. Meylan, 1988. A phylogeny of turtles. in M.J. Benton (ed.), The Phylogeny and Classification of the Tetrapods, Volume 1: Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds Clarendon Press, Oxford,  pp. 157-219. In which Linnaean hierarchy was used to such a degree that new classifications had to be used to make it all fit. At some point most of us learn the whole Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species divisions and are aware of extras like Sub-Species or Super-Order. The new ranks of Gaffney and Meylan included gigaorder, megaorder, capaxorder and hyperorder which go alongside others such as suborder, nanorder, parvorder and so on. I'm not aware of how seriously this paper was taken at the time (along with a similar paper on dinosaurs by Sereno) but it seems like a huge piss-take to show how Linnaean taxonomy could not stand up as a model of the real biological world. For an example of the confusion it can cause, see here. I'm so glad I don't have to learn all of those in order.

Ostracoderms are cool

I don't know why I like them, I just do. These armoured, jawless fish were around in the Ordovician to the Devonian and I am pretty sure some of them could have been converted in to ping pong bats.

Helicoprion was just plain bizarre...


This odd-looking shark was around from the Carboniferous to the Triassic and sported a spiral arrangement of teeth which have been baffling palaeontologists for a while now. The idea that it preyed on ammonites is nice, but seems to be wishful thinking. I personally like the idea of it swimming into a shoal of fish at speed and launching its lower jaw at them to snag some prey.

Check out the other reconstructions you can find from a simple Google image search. It is not yet known what this strange beast looked like.

Dave Peters has returned


I was originally told to check out Dave Peters if I wanted to see some bizarre ideas on pterosaurs, but his website appeared to have been taken down. Well, it turns out he is back and with two new websites. Peters apparently prefers not to look directly at the fossils to interpret them, but instead thinks it is more scientific to trace them on photoshop (I kid you not). For a more detailed overview of the crazy world of Dave Peters see this blog. Dave's new website is ReptileEvolution.com  If you know a thing or two about reptiles, or specifically pterosaurs, then check out his website and chuckle, here he is talking about Longisquama being related to pterosaurs. And here is his page devoted to ranting about what the experts are claiming. He is not to be muddled up with the many other Daves involved in pterosaur research.

Fossil giant salamander identified as human?


In 1726 Scheuchzer named a giant salamander fossil Homo diluvii testis, which means "evidence of a diluvian human". He believed that it was a human which had died during Noah's flood. The name of the species, Andrias scheuchzeri, means "Scheuchzer's image of man" in his honour. It wasn't until 1812 when Cuvier identified it as not being human. Personally I cannot see how it is meant to resemble a person, even if it was meant to be a heavily trampled child:

That's all for now, I intend to do the same tomorrow, but then I will not be able to blog for at least a week as I have a field trip.

Fossils, fossils, everywhere, And all the rocks did speak;

As I have not been blogging much lately, this is not going to be a very long or informative post, I simply wanted to post something. Today I went to Rother Valley Country Park, South Yorkshire, with my sister and a few friends, including some with four legs. The intention was to have a bit of a picnic, enjoy the sun and have a walk around. Having been there in my youth I remember lakes, grass and trees, so I was not expecting rocks, let alone fossils. Like many parks there are rocks dotted around for decoration and seating, sadly not in situ so I have no idea about their age, I simply had a nosey and spotted the odd bivalve shell here or there:

I pointed the odd bit of shell out to my sister, who then took a couple of pictures. I've not had a very good look at them, so I can't say much at all. There were some very good examples in a couple of the rocks.

My time spent looking at these rocks was very brief, as we moved on to another spot around the lake. Whilst sitting at the edge of the water I found a very small patch of shale, which also contained remnants of bivalves. Oddly enough I seemed to be sitting on top of one of the only patches of shale there (it was around 15cm across) a good example of serendipity. I get the feeling that those particular rocks might also have been placed there, but sadly I have no photos to look at and I did not look very closely. I did take some of the shale with me though...