tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-59021674639337102892024-03-05T05:12:13.663+00:00The PalaeobabblerThe thoughts of a student on evolution, palaeontology, creationism and Christianity with occasional randomness and short stories.The Palaeobabblerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04287371449302573605noreply@blogger.comBlogger179125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902167463933710289.post-27213859649727300172012-11-20T00:55:00.001+00:002012-11-20T00:55:53.918+00:00New beginnings... I haven't used this blog for rather a long time and now it is time to move on. I have started a new blog, using WordPress, with the same name as this one. It will focus on evolution and palaeontology (it is meant to be more "professional" but only time will tell). I will not abandon this blog completely, but it will not get much use.<br />
<br />
The new blog can be found here: <a href="http://palaeobabbler.wordpress.com/">http://palaeobabbler.wordpress.com/ </a>The Palaeobabblerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04287371449302573605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902167463933710289.post-53586964342855389102012-07-04T21:04:00.001+01:002012-07-04T21:04:13.548+01:00Avoid ReptileEvolution.com at all costs!I said I was stopping posting blogs, except for short stories (one of which is coming soon) but this is worth bringing to everyone's attention. If you are interested at all in evolution, particularly reptile evolution, then you need to know this. There are two websites, <a href="http://reptileevolution.com/">ReptileEvolution.com</a> and <a href="http://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/">The Pterosaur Heresies</a>, which should be avoided if you want to know about these subjects. I believe everyone should be able to post whatever they want on these topics, but the problem with these websites is that they come up on web searches as the top choices (try just Googling "reptile evolution") yet the views expressed on them are rejected by vertebrate palaeontologists.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUod2JO-EY92ZlLkJslg_N976rqNFe3erbRe93qaKUfGz4mrvCq10f0QnWVJrflfSsRZAp4mJym8IjTldbvSDN6pYNWTeSb6Yweuf-gl64kplPOu4RAQY0TcVgSBsARE-lWPXT6y4EiyU/s1600/pterodactylus_peters+resized.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUod2JO-EY92ZlLkJslg_N976rqNFe3erbRe93qaKUfGz4mrvCq10f0QnWVJrflfSsRZAp4mJym8IjTldbvSDN6pYNWTeSb6Yweuf-gl64kplPOu4RAQY0TcVgSBsARE-lWPXT6y4EiyU/s320/pterodactylus_peters+resized.jpg" width="234" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">A picture, by Koseman and Conway, based on Peter's interpretations of <i>Pterodactylus. </i>Looks weird, doesn't it? No other pterosaur worker agrees with Peters' ideas.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
This is not scientific snobbery, it is just to make sure that laymen are aware that these are not useful websites unless you are investigating bizarre fringe ideas. Dave Peters' views (the author of those blogs) should be taken with a fist full of salt. Ideally, I would go into some of the details of why his work should not be trusted, but there are far more qualified people than myself who have been blogging about this (though one of his main techniques effectively involves tracing on photoshop without ever looking at the fossils - judge that as you wish). Peters does not need to be censored, the major problem in my opinion is that his information is all over the internet and can fool laymen.<br />
<br />
But don't trust me, here are the views of a few vertebrate palaeontologists involved in the field. These are well worth reading and thoroughly explain why Peters' work should only be viewed with a heavy dose of scepticism.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/2012/07/03/world-must-ignore-reptileevolution-com/">Here is Darren Naish of Tetrapod Zoology fame. </a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/07/pterosaurs-done-wrong/">Brian Switek of Laelaps and <i>Written in Stone </i>fame. </a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://paleoking.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/strange-journey-of-david-peters.html">Here is a good assessment by palaeoartist Nima from Paleo King. </a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://pterosaur-net.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/pterosaurnet-wades-in-against.html">Mark Witton (a pterosaur palaeontologist and palaeoartist) has posted this on Pterosaur.net.</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://pterosaur-net.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/staking-vampire-pterosaur-jeholopterus.html">And this is an older criticism by Mark on one of Peters' bizarre claims which got some media attention</a>.<br />
<br />
If you don't see the issue, just Google search a few well known fossil reptiles (I went straight for <i>Longisquama</i>) and see how commonly Peters' site comes up.The Palaeobabblerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04287371449302573605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902167463933710289.post-20863352769189292582012-03-12T23:56:00.000+00:002012-03-12T23:56:14.671+00:00Velociraptors Riding Bikes?I know I should probably do a blog about <i><a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46673856/ns/technology_and_science-science/#.T16Bl4EaOHN">Coronacollina acula</a> </i>but I am just too tired and busy (a full day at uni followed by an evening of rugby does that to a man). Instead, have a bunch of pictures of velociraptors riding bikes. I found these today whilst trying to find out about the pelvis of <i>Velociraptor mongoliensis</i> for a cladistic analysis. It turns out that even though <i>Velociraptor </i>is so well known and studied, there has been no monograph published, and finding decent pictures of the pelvis proved difficult. <a href="http://media.photobucket.com/image/velociraptor/mediocre1/velociraptor.gif">Click here to see an animated gif</a>, the rest will be images...<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p69/jimg1986/velociraptor-480.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="257" src="http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p69/jimg1986/velociraptor-480.png" width="400" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kwl6knA3z01qzxzwwo1_500.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="297" src="http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kwl6knA3z01qzxzwwo1_500.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://fineartamerica.com/images-medium/velociraptor-karl-addison.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="http://fineartamerica.com/images-medium/velociraptor-karl-addison.jpg" width="398" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bicycle.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/velociraptor-cycling-speed-record.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="278" src="http://www.bicycle.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/velociraptor-cycling-speed-record.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br />
They even ride motorbikes:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.thepoxbox.com/contentimages/drawing053.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="http://www.thepoxbox.com/contentimages/drawing053.jpg" width="342" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.topillustrations.com/_upload/portfolio/129984049557328130.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="297" src="http://www.topillustrations.com/_upload/portfolio/129984049557328130.png" width="400" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1N7huSfMDT1m5UQSfeyB17PqnUPtNJqaoVmNenRunZFI9Ou2mm9qG2m_NJ4cAwXCFIQbgsI-zuAxaIj8yKH6xX63KSkrxts_sK0NHR5ryA3yDN02xerqEbGiILSSpxd2l43VlI3s2vtM/s1600/322315_10150452612526810_517241809_10482057_1683590289_o.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="263" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1N7huSfMDT1m5UQSfeyB17PqnUPtNJqaoVmNenRunZFI9Ou2mm9qG2m_NJ4cAwXCFIQbgsI-zuAxaIj8yKH6xX63KSkrxts_sK0NHR5ryA3yDN02xerqEbGiILSSpxd2l43VlI3s2vtM/s400/322315_10150452612526810_517241809_10482057_1683590289_o.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div>The Palaeobabblerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04287371449302573605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902167463933710289.post-79325041733554976622012-01-30T02:29:00.000+00:002012-01-30T02:29:59.454+00:00How to falsify evolution using the fossil recordCritics of evolutionary theory often claim that evolution cannot be falsified and is therefore not scientific. An excellent place to turn with regards to this apparent dilemma is the fossil record, as it is more tangible than many other lines of evidence and is a record of the evolutionary change which has occurred over time. It is also an area where, for me personally, I would expect to be convinced that evolution is false, or at least in trouble, if it really is not true.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.talkingsquid.net/blogpix/cambrianrabbit.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="237" src="http://www.talkingsquid.net/blogpix/cambrianrabbit.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
<br />
<b>Disclaimer</b><br />
<b><br />
</b><br />
If such evidence were to arise, it would not instantly overturn evolutionary theory. It would need to be scrutinised first, even replicated if possible, to show that there is no other explanation for it and that we have interpreted it correctly. Palaeontologists would first have to determine that the fossil had been correctly identified, that it was not a hoax, and that the interpretation of the fossil-bearing strata is correct. The evidence would not automatically tell us that evolution is wrong, but that there is a serious error with the theory as we currently understand it.<br />
<br />
<b>Predictions</b><br />
<b><br />
</b><br />
One of the predictions of common descent is a nested hierarchy pattern of relatedness, with groups within groups. In evolutionary theory, groups of organisms become more derived over time and build upon the traits which their ancestors possessed. With this in mind, key traits should appear in what will appear to be an ordered fashion. For example, for humans to evolve from "lesser" animals, many features need to have already evolved, such as bilateral symmetry, a well developed head, vertebrae, the tetrapod limb set-up, mammary glands, hair, and the list goes on.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/phylo.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="368" src="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/phylo.gif" width="400" /></a></div><br />
<br />
<b>Rabbits in the Precambrian</b><br />
<b><br />
</b><br />
Apparently growled by the influential evolutionary biologist J.B.S. Haldane as a response to what would make him doubt evolution, "rabbits in the Precambrian" is a phrase which is popular in discussions about the falsifiability of the theory. It is also exactly what I wish to talk about here. In the predictions I mentioned above, finding evidence which goes contrary to them would cause problems for evolution, such as finding the remains of <i>Homo sapiens </i>before any of those traits had evolved. We would not expect to find rabbits in the Precambrian, because rabbits are highly derived multicellular eukaryotes, more specifically animals, tetrapods, mammals and so on. Finding a multicellular organism or even more specifically an animal in the Precambrian would not be a problem (unless it was found before the evolution of eukaryotes) but finding a tetrapod or anything "higher" certainly would. Finding a tetrapod in the Cambrian or Ordovician would also cause huge problems for the theory. We could list all sorts of possible examples, which can make for quite fun thought experiments.<br />
<br />
Fossils found out of place are termed <i>anachronistic </i>fossils, but simply being in the wrong place is not quite enough. These fossils need to be a specific sort of out of place fossil, such as those mentioned above. Fossils which are "out of place" could be put in a few categories, many of which would not falsify evolution.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://ih3.redbubble.net/image.4818792.8690/flat,550x550,075,f.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://ih3.redbubble.net/image.4818792.8690/flat,550x550,075,f.jpg" width="319" /></a></div><br />
<br />
<b>What will not do...</b><br />
<b><br />
</b><br />
<i>Fossils which are later than expected </i>would not falsify evolution. The fossil record documents evolution and extinction, but it does so imperfectly. Occasionally, an organism which was thought to be extinct appears later on, providing evidence that they did not go extinct at that time. For example, trilobites are exclusively Palaeozoic, so finding one in the Mesozoic would be a huge surprise, but it would not falsify evolution, as it would simply mean that they survived extinction for longer than previously thought. Claiming an organism is extinct is effectively based on an absence of fossils past the point when they were thought to go extinct and is the sort of hypothesis which cannot be empirically confirmed, but gains weight through not finding what would be necessary to falsify it.<br />
<br />
<i>Reworked fossils </i>could fit with fossils which are later than expected, though there are different reasons for them. Reworked fossils were originally contained in older rocks, but have been weathered out and become part of younger rocks. This is easy to imagine occurring if you have ever been to a place where fossils are easily collected, as those loose fossils are often quite tough and could easily become part of a new sediment. Palaeontologists have ways of identifying reworked fossils most of the time. So again, these sorts of fossils would not falsify evolution.<br />
<br />
<i>Range extending fossils </i>will be unlikely to falsify evolution. By this I mean fossils which extend a fossil group further back in time (or forward, but obviously that is irrelevant here). Now this is the more complicated one, as technically those fossils which can falsify evolution would fit into this category. The fossil record shows the first possible occurrences of the traits we can identify. If you find a confirmed vertebrate in older strata than anyone else has found them, then you have the earliest known occurrence of that particular trait and have extended the range, which obviously would not falsify evolution and could itself be overturned by new data. This can happen simply because the fossil record is imperfect and we simply have many more rocks to look at.<br />
<br />
This can especially be the case with trace fossils. During the lifetime of an organism, it travels around making numerous traces but only has one body (even organisms which shed their coverings only do so a small amount of time compared to potential trails they leave). Sometimes the only record of a population is the traces they leave behind and not the bodies. We can, therefore, expect for there to be many examples of trace fossils appearing before potential causative organisms (but not much earlier). This would also happen if the environment of deposition was not conducive to preserving body fossils, but did preserve trace fossils.<br />
<br />
So fossils which extend the range earlier in time, in order to falsify evolution, must come before traits which they are dependent on. A tetrapod being found slightly earlier than expected is simply a surprise, but a tetrapod before the evolution of jaws, or vertebrae, for example, would falsify evolution.<br />
<br />
<i>Fossils in the wrong environment </i>would not falsify evolution. Fossils are occasionally found in the wrong place in the sense that they are in the wrong environment. Ankylosaurs, for example, are terrestrial animals (insofar as we are aware) and yet are often found in marine strata. Considering animals can easily float out to sea, it should be obvious why this is not a problem for evolution. We even see out of place organisms ourselves from time to time, like a beached whale, as the beach is not its habitat, it requires deeper waters. Fossils in the wrong environment are not anachronistic, even if they are sometimes puzzling.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/Animantarx%20Mural.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/Animantarx%20Mural.jpg" width="258" /></a></div><br />
<br />
<b>Can this challenge be met?</b><br />
<b><br />
</b><br />
If evolution is not true, then anachronistic fossils really should be the rule, not the exception. This is especially true if a global flood deposited the majority of fossils (or even just a smaller portion of them). We should not find an order consistent with evolutionary theory in such a case. Naturally, as has already been mentioned, the finding of such a fossil would not instantly overturn evolution, but it would spread ripples of doubt through the scientific community.<br />
<b><br />
</b><br />
<b>Anti-evolution attempts</b><br />
<b><br />
</b><br />
Proponents of creationism and ID often claim that this potential falsification of evolution is dishonest and that evolutionary biologists will cobble together some sort of excuse or will ignore the data completely. Nonetheless, they provide examples from time to time which they claim fits the bill.<br />
<br />
Rabbits fit the category of "complex non-marine multicellular eukaryotes" so some anti-evolutionists have jumped on a claim of such things in the Precambrian. See <a href="http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/no-fossil-rabbits-in-the-precambrian-but-what-about-complex-cells/">here for example</a>. But the problem with their claim is that these fossils are not as derived as would be necessary; they are exceptionally primitive compared to even something like a jawless fish.<br />
<br />
The relatively recent find of <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7277/full/nature08623.html">tetrapod trackways from around 18 million years earlier than the first tetrapod fossils</a> is occasionally cited. For reasons already stated, we should be sceptical of this as a claimed anachronism. They were also in a different environment (one not conducive to fossilisation) to early tetrapod body fossils, which changes views on how tetrapods might have evolved. This trackway has palaeontologists asking some important questions, but it is not the sort to cast doubt on evolution. Find those trackways in the Silurian or earlier and you might have a strong case.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCch3PiraWHTW5yqECmtX6CcBp0T_KmNEa-vP5dF-MibqxaD3A5ctffrWagCIkKekpREnt6wlVx9lIseLy0VmIWMs8jTVDUSuvyaz_J514xsGueGH8-70yNKASNwTbGDxbUJrgvzHDeyg/s400/_47047996_devonian_footprints_466in.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCch3PiraWHTW5yqECmtX6CcBp0T_KmNEa-vP5dF-MibqxaD3A5ctffrWagCIkKekpREnt6wlVx9lIseLy0VmIWMs8jTVDUSuvyaz_J514xsGueGH8-70yNKASNwTbGDxbUJrgvzHDeyg/s320/_47047996_devonian_footprints_466in.gif" width="320" /></a></div><br />
<br />
Other examples tend to fit into the categories I listed above which just will not do, or tend to include things such as human footprints alongside dinosaur footprints (many of which have been hoaxes or are not actually human prints). Just type something like "out of place fossils" into Google and lots of creationist claims should pop up. Follow them through though, and I am willing to bet that none are the sort which would falsify evolution.<br />
<br />
Of course, evolution is true, and we can use it to predict what sort of fossils we can find in particular strata. There are thousands (if not millions) of people out there collecting fossils and yet they all find what we would expect if evolution were true. I find that during my own fieldwork as well; I've even joked with friends about finding an anachronistic fossil in the area I did my dissertation fieldwork. Just last night, in fact, when someone mentioned being asked if they had found any vertebrate material in their own samples, I quipped that I wanted to find some in mine, as I am studying early Cambrian rocks, which will not contain vertebrate remains. If I did find something along those lines I certainly would not suppress it, but would be able to ride the wave of publicity. Sadly, though, I will find no such thing.<br />
<b><br />
</b>The Palaeobabblerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04287371449302573605noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902167463933710289.post-57794752896635595262012-01-21T20:48:00.000+00:002012-01-21T20:48:42.059+00:00Want to learn from a kid?Meet "Riley the Paleontologist" an eight year old kid who has apparently done a few major media appearances in the US, along with having his own series of videos teaching about palaeontology. I've not checked his videos out yet, so I have no idea if they are any good, just thought I would share.<br />
<a href="http://www.rileytalk.com/">http://www.rileytalk.com/</a> <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.rileytalk.com/Riley-Dino-3%20(2).jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="232" src="http://www.rileytalk.com/Riley-Dino-3%20(2).jpg" width="320" /></a></div>The Palaeobabblerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04287371449302573605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902167463933710289.post-2370641096009553652012-01-19T14:33:00.000+00:002012-01-19T14:33:03.324+00:00Mini News Round-UpI am resisting temptation to write detailed posts about any of these, just go out and read about it for yourself, as some fascinating stuff has been discovered recently.<br />
<br />
<b>The Burgess Shale "Tulip creature"</b><br />
<b><br />
</b><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/2012/fig-3-cluster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/2012/fig-3-cluster.jpg" width="280" /></a></div>A new species, <i>Siphusauctum gregarium, </i>has been discovered in abundance in the famous Burgess Shale Lagerstatte. They have a unique filter feeding system and superficially resemble crinoids (though I can imagine a few other comparisons being made). Its relationship with other organisms is unknown, just like when the classic Burgess Shale beasties were being discovered. For more, see <a href="http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-01-scientists-unusual-tulip-creature.html">here</a> or <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120118173659.htm">here</a>, though both say exactly the same thing.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/2012/fig-2-reconstruction.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/2012/fig-2-reconstruction.jpg" width="270" /></a></div><br />
<b>Half Animal, Half Plant?</b><br />
<b><br />
</b><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn21353/dn21353-1_300.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn21353/dn21353-1_300.jpg" /></a></div>Another new species, <i>Mesodinium chamaeleon, </i>has been found which is an unusual combination of animal and plant (or so it is being reported). These single celled organisms use cilia to move around as they eat other organisms, making them rather animal-like. This particular species, however, engulfs types of algae and forms a union with it, where the algae photosynthesises and provides energy, and the host provides protection. Endosymbiosis has been known for a while now, so this is no surprise, but it is pretty cool. See <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21353-zoologger-unique-life-form-is-half-plant-half-animal.html">here</a> for more.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Multicellularity Observed Evolving</b><br />
<b><br />
</b><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/2012/biologistsre.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/2012/biologistsre.jpg" /></a></div>A group of biologists attempted to recreate the origin of multicellularity, a key step in the evolution of life on Earth, and actually found that it is not too difficult. Using yeast, they managed to demonstrate that they were forming genetically similar clusters, instead of random clusters, and some were even undergoing programmed suicide (apoptosis) to allow offspring to separate. See <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120117144330.htm">here</a> for more.<br />
<br />
<b>Darwin's Thin Sections Found</b><br />
<b><br />
</b><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/57922000/jpg/_57922220_57922219.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/57922000/jpg/_57922220_57922219.jpg" /></a></div>The British Geological Survey have found lots of lost specimens in their vaults, including some fro Charles Darwin. Thin sections are thin slices of rock placed on a slide so that they can be viewed under a light microscope. Some of the slides come from samples Darwin collected on his famous Beagle voyage. See <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16578330">here</a> for some more information.The Palaeobabblerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04287371449302573605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902167463933710289.post-15929091264175256612012-01-17T13:39:00.000+00:002012-01-17T13:39:01.603+00:00Palaeontology in the postSeveral times per year I receive the journal <i>Palaeontology </i>and there is often a paper which jumps out as worth talking about, yet for some reason I never blog about them. Sadly I have an exam tomorrow so I can only talk very briefly about the articles which jumped out at me today.<br />
<br />
<b>New Devonian Tetrapod</b><br />
<b><br />
</b><br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/Ichthyostega_BW.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="120" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/Ichthyostega_BW.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Ichthyostega, </i>a well known close relative of <i>Ymeria.</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table><b><br />
</b><br />
<b><br />
</b><br />
Although not a brand new discovery, it has just been named <i>Ymeria denticulata </i>and is yet another tetrapod in the transition from water to land. What came to mind upon reading this (not the full article, I've not read it yet) is the creationist claim that "evolutionists" will tout any fossil as transitional and spread that propaganda all over the news. I'm betting that the news of <i>Ymeria </i>gets no further than the palaeontological community, maybe just into a couple of public press releases. This particular statement in the article jumped out at me (I've edited out the references just to make it clearer):<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">Since the mid-1980s, the number of named Devonian tetrapod genera has increased from three (<i>Ichthyostega, Acanthostega, Tulerpeton</i>) or four (confirmation of <i>Metaxygnathus</i>), to eleven, with the addition of <i>Elginerpeton, Obruchevichthys, Ventastega, Hynerpeton, Densignathus, Sinostega </i>and <i>Jakubsonia</i>, while an un-named <i>Ichthyostega</i>-like tetrapod has recently been described from Belgium. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;">I don't know about you, but there were some names there I had never come across before. So, far from shoving these things down the throats of the public, it seems most are kept relatively quiet, as finding transitional forms is nothing unusual, so you have to hit on some pretty special ones like <i>Tiktaalik </i>if you want the limelight. Old <i>Tiktaalik </i>pops up on the phylogenetic analyses and we see the sort of thing we would expect from evolution. If you want to see the paper for yourself, go <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-4983.2011.01117.x/abstract">here</a>. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Stegosaur Plates and Spines</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br />
</b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.dinosaursinart.com/stegosaurus/IMAG0009.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="211" src="http://www.dinosaursinart.com/stegosaurus/IMAG0009.JPG" width="320" /></a></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br />
</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br />
</b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Just before Christmas I had to do an essay on a palaeobiological aspect of Dinosauria. I chose to do the stegosaurs as I rather like them and focussed on a really well researched area of stegosaur palaeobiology: the functions of their osteoderms (<i>Stegosaurus </i>itself is the most well studied in this regard as it is rather atypical). When the marks came back I was a tad surprised; I'd gotten a decent mark (a 2:1) and my image choice seems to have let me down, but the first comment in the feedback described it as brief but well researched. My surprise was because I was actually 60 words or so over the word limit, which was a short 1,500, not enough to go into any real amount of detail. Ah well.<br />
<br />
Why did I mention this? Well, this issue of <i>Palaeontology </i>has an article titled "Ontogenetic histology of <i>Stegosaurus </i>plates and spikes". I had a feeling that there would be an article which I could have used in one of my essays (my other was on the <i>Borhyaenoidea </i>and certainly could be labelled <i>brief </i>as I ran out of time to write it). Thankfully both essays had a decent amount of references anyway. I do intend to post them both at some point, along with many other essays and articles I have written. If you would like to read the article in <i>Palaeontology</i>, go <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-4983.2011.01122.x/abstract">here</a>. </div>The Palaeobabblerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04287371449302573605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902167463933710289.post-32730129776221976812012-01-15T17:39:00.001+00:002012-01-15T17:40:30.870+00:00Cool video on flood geologyI've just watched this video and thought it would be worthwhile posting here, especially in light of my recent post on geological arguments against a global flood. The video makes some great points which I have raised before with creationists and which need repeating often (though I don't think I ever really got responses).<br />
<br />
As I study palaeontology, I am often accused by creationists as having a need for accepting evolution and the antiquity of our planet. If I do not swear by these tenets, I will not be employed, or so the argument goes. But this is clear nonsense. For starters, I could join a creationist organisation and write book after book, get employed at a conservative Christian university, and so on. But the big point which they miss is that many palaeontologists work for oil companies (plus oil companies use the data of academic palaeontologists too). Oil companies care about one thing - finding oil and doing it as cheaply as possible. If flood geology worked, they would use it, but it does not. What works is what mainstream geologists are teaching us.<br />
<br />
When YEC geologists bother to go out into the field and look at the rocks which they make claims about, they find that the data does not support them. This is particularly true for those who became part of the oil industry and this video includes reference to some of those testimonies.<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/dc6uhQWQQMQ?rel=0" width="420"></iframe>The Palaeobabblerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04287371449302573605noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902167463933710289.post-77324802185023066842012-01-14T22:22:00.000+00:002012-01-14T22:22:40.193+00:00The Cambrian Explosion and Being Thwarted by BlockingYou will have to forgive me for this post, it is simply me not wanting to feel like my time was wasted. I was posting on an anti-evolution discussion group and spotted someone making bizarre claims about theism and materialism in one long post, whilst also having another post on the Cambrian explosion. So I had two tabs open; one for discussing with him on the materialism thread, the other with the Cambrian explosion stuff so that I could critique it in more detail. During that time it appears he has blocked me on Facebook, meaning I cannot see the post any more and cannot post my response. Fortunately, the page is still open. So here I will copy his post and below will be my response.<br />
<br />
Philip Cunningham wrote the following:<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #666666;">Darwin's Dilemma - Excellent Cambrian Explosion Movie<br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUkLKZjJuU0">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUkLKZjJuU0</a><br />
<br />
Exotic Cambrian Animals and Plants and Ediacaran biota - Animated videos<br />
<a href="http://www.lightproductionsvideo.com/Cambrian-Animals.html">http://www.lightproductionsvideo.com/Cambrian-Animals.html</a><br />
<br />
Fossil Gallery - images of species from Cambrian period - Main Gallery<br />
The Main Gallery is a comprehensive source of information based on the latest scientific research covering the majority of species so far described from the Burgess Shale. It contains a growing collection of over 500 high resolution images representing 184 species in 135 genera. In addition, dozens of scientifically accurate drawings and breathtaking digital animations will allow you to visualize these organisms in three dimensions and see how they lived.<br />
<a href="http://burgess-shale.rom.on.ca/en/fossil-gallery/list-species.php">http://burgess-shale.rom.on.ca/en/fossil-gallery/list-species.php</a><br />
<br />
Anomalocaris - The largest predator of the Cambrian (3D Animation)<br />
<a href="http://burgess-shale.rom.on.ca/en/fossil-gallery/intro_1.php">http://burgess-shale.rom.on.ca/en/fossil-gallery/intro_1.php</a><br />
<br />
Virtual Sea Odyssey; Observe the creatures who lived in the Burgess Shale community from a "virtual submarine". - video<br />
<a href="http://burgess-shale.rom.on.ca/en/sea-odyssey/">http://burgess-shale.rom.on.ca/en/sea-odyssey/</a><br />
<br />
"Darwin's Dilemma examines some of the most important fossil discoveries ever made and with them, a mystery deeper than Charles Darwin ever imagined. For the fossil record of the Cambrian Explosion does not reveal the gradual development of life forms as Darwin posited in his work, but a period in which compound eyes, articulated limbs, sophisticated sensory organs and skeletal frames burst into existence seemingly out of nowhere." -<br />
Anika Smith - Discovery Institute<br />
<br />
Deepening Darwin's Dilemma - Jonathan Wells - Sept. 2009<br />
Excerpt: "The truth is that (finding) “exceptionally preserved microbes” from the late Precambrian actually deepen Darwin’s dilemma, because they suggest that if there had been ancestors to the Cambrian phyla they would have been preserved."<br />
<a href="http://www.discovery.org/a/12471">http://www.discovery.org/a/12471</a><br />
<br />
Deepening Darwin's Dilemma - Jonathan Wells - The Cambrian Explosion - video<br />
<a href="http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4154263">http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4154263</a> <br />
<br />
Challenging Fossil of a Little Fish<br />
What they had actually proved was that Chinese phosphate is fully capable of preserving whatever animals may have lived there in Precambrian times. Because they found sponges and sponge embryos in abundance, researchers are no longer so confident that Precambrian animals were too soft or too small to be preserved. “I think this is a major mystery in paleontology,” said Chen. “Before the Cambrian, we should see a number of steps: differentiation of cells, differentiation of tissue, of dorsal and ventral, right and left. But we don’t have strong evidence for any of these.” Taiwanese biologist Li was also direct: “No evolution theory can explain these kinds of phenomena.”<br />
<a href="http://www.fredheeren.com/boston.htm">http://www.fredheeren.com/boston.htm</a><br />
Punctuated Equilibrium and Patterns from the Fossil Record - Casey Luskin<br />
Excerpt: “The Cambrian Explosion is by no means the only “explosion” in the fossil record. One evolutionist concedes that for the origin of fishes, “this is one count in the creationists’ charge that can only evoke in unison from paleontologists a plea of nolo contendere [no contest].” Plant biologists have called the origin of plants an “explosion,” saying, “the … radiation of land (plant) biotas is the terrestrial equivalent of the much-debated Cambrian ‘explosion’ of marine faunas.” Vertebrate paleontologists believe there was a mammal explosion because of the few transitional forms between major mammal groups: “There are all sorts of gaps: absence of gradationally intermediate ‘transitional’ forms between species, but also between larger groups — between, say, families of carnivores, or the orders of mammals.” Another study, “Evolutionary Explosions and the Phylogenetic Fuse,” found a bird (as well as a mammal) “Early Tertiary ‘explosion’” because many bird and mammal groups appear in a short time period lacking immediately recognizable ancestral forms. Finally, others have called the origin of our own genus Homo, “a genetic revolution” where “no australopithecine (ape) species is obviously transitional” leading one commentator to call it, like others called the Cambrian Explosion, a “big bang theory” of human evolution."<br />
<a href="http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1232">http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1232</a><br />
<br />
"In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms."<br />
Fossils and Evolution, TS Kemp - Curator of Zoological Collections, Oxford University, Oxford Uni Press, p246, 1999<br />
<br />
"Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.”<br />
George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.<br />
<br />
"No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It seems never to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change over millions of years, at a rate too slow to really account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the organisms did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on someplace else. Yet that's how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution." <br />
Niles Eldredge , "Reinventing Darwin: The Great Evolutionary Debate," 1996, p.95<br />
<br />
"Enthusiastic paleontologists in several countries have claimed pieces of this missing record, but the claims have all been disputed and in any case do not provide real connections. That brings me to the second most surprising feature of the fossil record...the abruptness of some of the major changes in the history of life."<br />
Ager, D. - Author of "The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record"-1981<br />
<br />
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology."<br />
Stephen Jay Gould<br />
<br />
"Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined? But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties?"<br />
Charles Darwin - Origin Of Species</span><div><span style="color: #666666;"><br />
</span></div><div>My response was as follows:</div><div><br />
</div><span style="color: #666666;">Ah, a favourite topic of mine. If anyone would like a good, accessible look into this topic, I recommend Darwin's Lost World by Martin Brasier.<br />
<br />
I watched some of the Cambrian animals videos and rather enjoyed them, but where were the Ediacaran videos? I also enjoyed looking at the Burgess Shale animals, but that makes me wonder, why did you present Middle Cambrian organisms without presenting Early Cambrian beasties as well? You will find that fauna of the Early Cambrian differs from that of the Middle (no trilobites until the Atdabanian for starters). A gallery of Tommotian or Nemakit-Daldynian fauna would be informative. Was this omission deliberate or accidental?<br />
<br />
In addition to that, why did none of the links you presented discuss the Ediacaran forms? Most sources would admittedly do a poor job of presenting them, not demonstrating the faunal changes within the group, but they should at least highlight the presence of terminal Ediacaran biomineralisation (Cloudina and Namacalathus). <br />
<br />
"Darwin's Dilemma examines some of the most important fossil discoveries ever made and with them, a mystery deeper than Charles Darwin ever imagined. For the fossil record of the Cambrian Explosion does not reveal the gradual development of life forms as Darwin posited in his work, but a period in which compound eyes, articulated limbs, sophisticated sensory organs and skeletal frames burst into existence seemingly out of nowhere."<br />
<br />
It certainly is a fascinating puzzle, but overstated in this case. These things coming "out of nowhere" is actually referring to millions of years. Conservative calculations for the evolution of an eye actually puts them as able to evolve so quickly that the fossil record would be expected to show it in a single step. Additionally, taphonomic experiments appear to highlight that the features we might want to observe evolving (usually the more complex and often soft ones, such as the eye) decay first. <br />
<br />
"The truth is that (finding) “exceptionally preserved microbes” from the late Precambrian actually deepen Darwin’s dilemma, because they suggest that if there had been ancestors to the Cambrian phyla they would have been preserved."<br />
<br />
This claim is rather jejune. Preservation of microbes does not mean everything else will be preserved as well; different processes preserve different organisms and sometimes it is even based on size. Fossilisation is often a biased process, preserving some organisms and not leaving a trace of others, even when they are equally abundant. Additionally, what is there to say that we would even be able to recognise ancestors to Cambrian phyla? We base our classifications on derived characters which the ancestors are unlikely to possess. What we should expect really is confusion and difficulty. Guess what we find.<br />
<br />
This might be a good point to mention another overlooked piece of evidence - trace fossils. Trace fossils from the end Proterozoic to the Phanerozoic show a steady increase in complexity, highlighting a steady increase in the complexity of organismal behaviour. Burrows in the Ediacaran are very simple, yet steadily become more complex and diverse in the Cambrian. Some can even be used for stratigraphy, for example, Diplocraterion (a U shaped burrow which shows signs of periodical adjustments in depth) appears in the late Tommotian and can be used to tell if a particular rock is of that age. Before Diplocraterion, simpler burrows such as Skolithos and Arenicolites are found (and persist throughout the fossil record). The majority of end Ediacaran and Early Cambrian trace fossils have unknown causative organisms, yet those organisms were certainly around. They weren't preserved, but we know that they were there because their burrows are preserved. <br />
<br />
Watching the Wells video, it is interesting that they seem to provide predictions which Darwin never made. His theories were compatible with a number of potential predictions with regards to how evolution progresses and Darwin even briefly seemed to suggest that it might be a jerky process. Throw in our modern understanding of speciation and that should be expected. <br />
<br />
He thankfully did mention Ediacaran forms, but there seems to be some dishonesty here. Half of the issue is that we cannot classify a lot of the organisms we find, they are justifiably termed "problematica". So to turn around and say "there are gaps in the fossil record at the origins of phyla" is rather premature considering we don't know where most fit.<br />
<br />
“I think this is a major mystery in paleontology,” said Chen. “Before the Cambrian, we should see a number of steps: differentiation of cells, differentiation of tissue, of dorsal and ventral, right and left. But we don’t have strong evidence for any of these.” <br />
<br />
I found this an interesting claim, as differentiation of cells and tissues appears in some Ediacaran forms (Spriggina, Charniodiscus, Kimberella for example), the origin of bilateral symmetry is debatable, though potentially found in Kimberella and Parvancorina for example. What we find are blurred lines, which we should expect. <br />
<br />
"Punctuated Equilibrium and Patterns from the Fossil Record - Casey Luskin Excerpt: “The Cambrian Explosion is by no means the only “explosion” in the fossil record. One evolutionist concedes that for the origin of fishes, “this is one count in the creationists’ charge that can only evoke in unison from paleontologists a plea of nolo contendere [no contest].” Plant biologists have called the origin of plants an “explosion,” saying, “the … radiation of land (plant) biotas is the terrestrial equivalent of the much-debated Cambrian ‘explosion’ of marine faunas.” "<br />
<br />
Why is this a surprise? Adaptive radiations are to be expected, especially when new niches open up. Many, if not most, of those radiations occurred after mass extinction events, which open up numerous niches. These radiations occurring rapidly should not surprise us. The claims of no gradational intermediates is not correct. What we find at the diversification events is that the fossils found are difficult to classify with ease (the whole Ida fiasco is testament to that) which is exactly what we should expect from evolution. <br />
<br />
You quote a few palaeontologists, many as out of date statements, others worth addressing. Take Gould and Eldredge for example, as they can also both be quoted as stating that gradualistic evolution is observable in the fossil record (albeit uncommon due to major change occurring around speciation events in isolated populations) and can both be quoted declaring that there are some superb transitional forms that are widely known (see Hooking Leviathan By Its Past by Gould for example). <br />
<br />
Since Darwin, his dilemma has been cleared up in many ways, but it does still remain a puzzle. It is not a puzzle which causes problems for evolution, but simply one which will prove difficult to explain accurately (so many factors are in play, such as environment, biotic interactions, changes in taphonomic processes, genetic changes and so on).</span><div><span style="color: #666666;"><br />
</span></div><div>I resisted temptation to make this even longer by throwing in a few references, quotations and links. I was also tempted to discuss a couple of aspects of my dissertation which were applicable, but decided not to. </div><div><br />
</div><div>I will try to get back to my posts on flood geology, as it appears I have a challenger (who so far has made an unsupported claim and nothing more). </div>The Palaeobabblerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04287371449302573605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902167463933710289.post-15477738965851680102012-01-12T13:05:00.000+00:002012-01-12T13:05:03.827+00:00Evolution and Church - What to teach? My thought for the day...<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.thejackb.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/evolution-picture.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="228" src="http://www.thejackb.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/evolution-picture.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>It is no secret that I believe Christians should accept evolution and that it would be <a href="http://palaeobabbler.blogspot.com/2009/09/embracing-evolution-benefits-to.html">beneficial </a>to their faith and the church. Would that mean teaching evolution in churches? Not necessarily. It might be necessary to teach that evolution is not an enemy, that it is compatible with faith, and maybe how it can be reconciled with Christian beliefs, but teaching what it is should not be necessary (though extra seminars could be beneficial).<br />
<br />
For a non-scientist preacher or theologian, that approach might seem risky. If we seemingly dogmatically hold to one creation belief and it turns out to be wrong, then it could cause harm (naturally I believe evolution is correct, but I'm not a non-scientist preacher).<br />
<br />
Another approach is to teach the diversity in creation beliefs. Teach that many different creation views have merit and are acceptable for Christians. Of course, this then runs the risk that some of the fringe views will increase in popularity, with no support from the evidence, until people start proclaiming it dogmatically as the only acceptable belief for Christians. This has already happened.<br />
<br />
My own church tends to teach that you can accept evolution and the vast majority of senior clergy and theologians explicitly accept it. The Catholic Church tends to teach the same sort of thing, but also presents it in ambiguous language which makes it appear as though the theory of evolution is not well supported.<br />
<br />
Ideally I would say that this approach is fine, but in reality there is so much doubt from the public about evolution that such vagueness can only make matters worse. It's about time that the clergy were taught just how strong evolution is as a theory.<br />
<br />
I'm not sure what prompted this post, it might have been something to do with this poll amongst American pastors: <a href="http://ncse.com/news/2012/01/polling-pastors-evolution-007089">http://ncse.com/news/2012/01/polling-pastors-evolution-007089</a><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/--3AR9C0YVjM/ToInYe__KPI/AAAAAAAACmg/xzkrqVtpoKY/s1600/lizardgod.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="272" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/--3AR9C0YVjM/ToInYe__KPI/AAAAAAAACmg/xzkrqVtpoKY/s400/lizardgod.gif" width="400" /></a></div>The Palaeobabblerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04287371449302573605noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902167463933710289.post-87387648667845141842012-01-11T16:14:00.000+00:002012-01-11T16:14:35.625+00:00Geological Evidence Against the Flood - Part 1I've decided, now that all coursework is handed in and I only have to focus on exams, that I will start a series of blog posts on geological arguments against a global flood. I'm not going to simply recycle commonly used arguments, though some of them might be well known, as I intend for these to be quite personal. By personal I mean things which I have observed in the field or things which have cropped up repeatedly in my studies.<br />
<br />
<b>Number 1 - Turbidites</b><br />
<br />
Turbidites are not unknown to creationists who have done a fair bit of research, as they sometimes see them as supporting their own flood position. Turbidites are geological structures which are formed rapidly by turbidity currents, a form of underwater landslides. Sometimes they are easy to recognise, as they often consist of alternating layers of mud and sand, with some distinct structures often on the bottom of the sandstone (sole structures such as flute casts or groove casts). The nice, undisturbed deep sea floor steadily accumulates mud, until it is disturbed by a sudden flow of coarser material which is rapidly deposited on top. The coarser material often drags debris over the mud, creating scoops and scours which are filled by sand.<br />
<br />
The image below shows some of those sole structures. Sadly not a good picture, as it was hastily taken of the ones I have on top of my freezer (a common depositional environment). What you can see is the bottom of the sandstone, as these grooves were formed in the underlying mud and infilled with sand carried by the turbidity current.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivXNTOpOQ21o4Mt8MeeBe4JbnsDgsDUB0gSCzEnwY40ifsseTQk7TuH-Rte4s147wbx-7myxuOTYSq1RVgYG0o73ZPRrXevJJ_5IoAzw0tCFEnJIE8dMzinVe7m1YnCdPwCPbWi2GRkZTw/s1600/DSC00091.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="297" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivXNTOpOQ21o4Mt8MeeBe4JbnsDgsDUB0gSCzEnwY40ifsseTQk7TuH-Rte4s147wbx-7myxuOTYSq1RVgYG0o73ZPRrXevJJ_5IoAzw0tCFEnJIE8dMzinVe7m1YnCdPwCPbWi2GRkZTw/s400/DSC00091.JPG" width="400" /></a></div><br />
Turbidites come in a variety of forms, often depending on how close to the turbidity current the deposit occurs. If it is close to the current, then these things can be large and with a lot going on. If they are distant from the original current, then they can be tiny and with little going on. They also occur on a variety of scales, so simply being small does not mean that the turbidity current started far away. Turbidites are classified based on the Bouma Sequence, the ideal of which looks something like this:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://sepmstrata.org/images/BoumaSeq1962.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="250" src="http://sepmstrata.org/images/BoumaSeq1962.gif" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">So why is this a problem for flood geology? On first glance, it really does not seem like an issue, after all, creationists love examples of rapid deposition and these occur in deep water, so it is easy to understand how one could miss that they do no favours for the flood model. In order to explain why I see this as a problem for flood geology, we need to take a little trip to Wales...</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">At the start of June last year, I found myself in Penstrowed Quarry, looking at some turbidite deposits (from Early-Mid Wenlock, Silurian, if anyone is interested). It was a sunny day, with minor cloud cover, and we had to do a sedimentary log of parts of the sequence. This involved getting right up to the rock face, taking measurements of bed thicknesses, how large the grains were (if visible), whether there were any changes in the individual beds, whether there were any distinctive features, and so on. Below is a picture of me doing just that...</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/248535_10150274674271055_624426054_9403378_1665955_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/248535_10150274674271055_624426054_9403378_1665955_n.jpg" width="420" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">I only managed to record data for seven of the beds, as I attempted to measure the eighth only to have the scree below me give way, causing me to tumble several metres on shale and sandstone. I only suffered a couple of cuts, though the log I was drawing was ruined. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">What I recorded (in my notebook) shows the typical alternation of sandstones with shales found in a turbidite. The sands were obviously deposited quite rapidly and sole structures were common, but the muds are a different matter, especially as many were <i>hemipelagites</i>. The Oxford Dictionary of Earth Sciences defines a hemipelagite as "A deep-sea, muddy sediment formed close to continental margins by the settling of fine particles, in which biogenic material comprises 5–75% of the total volume and more than 40% of the terrigenous material is silt." The muds were not homogeneous, showing changes in deposition, though they did all settle out of suspension slowly, unlike the rapidly deposited sandstones. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">So what we see is a normally quiescent environmental setting, where muds settle out of suspension slowly, containing biogenic material (likely planktic). This environment was intermittently interrupted by turbidity currents which deposited a large amount of coarser sediment. At this point we could ask some interesting questions, to which I do not know the answers. Does the hemipelagite fauna change through the sequence? Do the turbidites become increasingly proximal or distal? </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Below you can see this sequence more clearly and can make out the distinct alternation between the two rock types. A global flood may be able to produce turbidite deposits on a small scale, but it would be a stretch, considering the large amount of shale in this deposit in particular. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/248455_10150274674756055_624426054_9403382_7295140_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="265" src="https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/248455_10150274674756055_624426054_9403382_7295140_n.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">But if you are observant, you might have noticed that there are a lot of beds here and that they are not horizontal. There are hundreds of alternations between slow deposited muds and rapidly deposited sandstones, formed in the deep sea. These were buried deeper and deeper, undergoing the diagenetic processes which turn them into the rock we see today. These were later thrust up to ground level in mid-Wales and tilted eighty degrees. These are not rapid processes, but exceptionally slow. If a global flood explains the turbidites, then what explains the processes of uplift and tilting which followed their deposition? If the flood explains the later tectonic processes, how are the depositional events explained?</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">This is not small scale stuff, just look at the picture below. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/247193_10150274674646055_624426054_9403381_4038857_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="265" src="https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/247193_10150274674646055_624426054_9403381_4038857_n.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Tens of metres were exposed in this small part of the quarry (if not hundreds). It is easy to think of the quarry as an isolated occurrence, but context is always key. These deposits extend for tens of <u>kilometres</u> through the Welsh countryside. There were literally thousands (if not millions) of alternating depositional conditions, between slow mud deposition and rapid sand deposition, going on in that region of the deep sea. These many thousands of turbidites were slowly thrust up into the Welsh countryside and tilted. As they are at eighty degrees, one can follow them along in the direction of the bedding, using the law of superposition, and follow the beds into younger or older strata (to the right in the images for younger strata) and again, changes in environment are found. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Simply learning about something like turbidites is not always enough, actually seeing them in the field shows just how much was going on in our deep past. These deposits are not unique and turbidites also come in a wide variety of forms. Although I believe turbidite deposits, especially those in Penstrowed Quarry, are strong evidence that a global flood cannot explain the rock record, they should still not be taken in isolation. I will be presenting other arguments against the global flood, which, when taken with evidence such as turbidites, makes one wonder how anyone with any geological knowledge could take flood geology seriously. Stay tuned for more. </div>The Palaeobabblerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04287371449302573605noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902167463933710289.post-45488561790098475762012-01-11T01:39:00.000+00:002012-01-11T01:39:07.642+00:00Google StenoGoogle often does some pretty cool tributes, some of which are highly interactive, some are simply good to look at. Today they are celebrating the 374th birthday of Nicolas Steno, pioneer geologist, palaeontologist, stratigrapher and anatomist (even mineralogist, but let's not go there) before everyone else jumped on those bandwagons.<br />
<br />
Not the first to recognise fossil shark teeth as having biological origins, he did lend weight to the idea and correctly thought that they could change composition without losing their distinct shape. He was particularly dedicated to trying to work out how solid objects such as teeth could have ended up in other solid objects like rocks. As this was the 1660s he was really breaking new ground.<br />
<br />
His contributions to stratigraphy remain strong. He is credited with formulating the law of superposition, the principle of original horizontality, the principle of lateral continuity, the principle of cross-cutting relationships and even appears to have been aware of faunal succession, all of which are still used in modern stratigraphy (though admittedly expanded upon to an extent).<br />
<br />
Although most well known for his geological contributions, he also became a Catholic bishop, involved in the Counter-Reformation, and was even beatified by John Paul II in 1987.<br />
<br />
So get on to Google and learn about the man who has paved the way for all of modern geology.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdybHqIifivOLYmziSe7G8lnNh6T2eWeusNjGMLW5_JaldkjI9RYZwblvfi3ZTyy0JHVFvME6lzV0QcRazL1CiQBWZj6bdaLcWMLegU-fT6bXeDHfRcrJ03lVXBqNRkqPven_dLfHrk7Vq/s1600/Google+steno.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdybHqIifivOLYmziSe7G8lnNh6T2eWeusNjGMLW5_JaldkjI9RYZwblvfi3ZTyy0JHVFvME6lzV0QcRazL1CiQBWZj6bdaLcWMLegU-fT6bXeDHfRcrJ03lVXBqNRkqPven_dLfHrk7Vq/s400/Google+steno.png" width="400" /></a></div>The Palaeobabblerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04287371449302573605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902167463933710289.post-30128578640415121172011-12-20T11:18:00.000+00:002011-12-20T11:18:02.456+00:00Letting the Bible lead science?I've posted a picture before which showed the ancient Hebrew understanding of the cosmos, see <a href="http://palaeobabbler.blogspot.com/2010/05/creationist-view-of-cosmos.html">here</a>. It is a useful image because it shows how a literalist should see creation if they base it on Genesis, yet few, if any, creationists see the world that way. If we turn to the Bible to dictate science, then these are the views of the world we get. Many creationists claim that the Bible does determine what is true science and also claim that the Scriptures got many things right which we are only just figuring out through science. If they were to do this properly, then the following image would be their world-view.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/bosch/delight/delighto.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/bosch/delight/delighto.jpg" width="368" /></a></div><br />
This image is found on the outer panels of the triptych <i>The Garden of Earthly Delights </i>by 15th century painter Hieronymus Bosch. An artist I am fond of, Bosch is well known for his often grotesque depictions, such as the image of Hell on the same piece of art. The outer panels, however, show the third day of creation, and it is clear that this understanding of the world does not match our modern understanding. This is how a creationist should view creation, yet they dishonestly do not.The Palaeobabblerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04287371449302573605noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902167463933710289.post-88127197962512021972011-12-03T01:17:00.000+00:002011-12-03T01:17:03.994+00:00AnkylosaurusI am by no means a palaeoartist, but I did draw this the other day, for a friend. I'm not capable of looking at dinosaur skeletons and reconstructing them, so I simply look at artwork from dinosaur books and modify it a little.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJ5QgkJmqGy8FeJl0ttPyMh4C3BEflL5Br4udJ35kGn3xRcU6gbFxyU7Xj5L3uMg-loPH-g0luwyqnBtEunt4aSH1MooyWleY3RabM-Iv6vXA-icGqHKHvScCn6oji025diBkqggJHuTdq/s1600/DSC00148.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="296" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJ5QgkJmqGy8FeJl0ttPyMh4C3BEflL5Br4udJ35kGn3xRcU6gbFxyU7Xj5L3uMg-loPH-g0luwyqnBtEunt4aSH1MooyWleY3RabM-Iv6vXA-icGqHKHvScCn6oji025diBkqggJHuTdq/s400/DSC00148.JPG" width="400" /></a></div><br />
I drew another picture earlier tonight, but I can't upload it yet, so it will be on here in a week or so. This may even become a regular thing...The Palaeobabblerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04287371449302573605noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902167463933710289.post-76736998434360170142011-11-13T12:19:00.000+00:002011-11-13T12:19:07.139+00:00Toys needed...I've been a bit ill the last few days, some flu type thing, so I wouldn't mind having somebody or something to cuddle. I have nothing here. I'm also a big kid and still love toys, so here are some palaeo themed toys and cuddly stuff I would love to have.<br />
<br />
<b><i>Dickinsonia </i>toy</b><br />
<b><br />
</b><br />
<a href="http://www.dinotoyblog.com/dinotoyimages/may11/dickinsonia_yowie1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; display: inline !important; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" height="238" src="http://www.dinotoyblog.com/dinotoyimages/may11/dickinsonia_yowie1.jpg" width="320" /></a>This is a Yowie toy, whatever one of those is (something to do with Cadburys). They released a <i>Dickinsonia </i>model as part of their Lost Kingdoms range. I want one, even though it is labelled as a 'Giant Disc Jelly' and is clearly meant to be some sort of worm or jellyfish (some crown group) and seems to have the wrong symmetry (many Ediacarans have glide symmetry). Interesting choice of colours too. I never expected to see such a toy, so I want it.<br />
<br />
They did others too, including <i>Mawsonites, </i>which strikes me as an odd choice:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://multimedia.collectorsquest.com/image/420x1000/yowies-mawsonites-47545.jpg?1283992242" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="268" src="http://multimedia.collectorsquest.com/image/420x1000/yowies-mawsonites-47545.jpg?1283992242" width="320" /></a></div>There's also this cool <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/36773942@N06/4109960933/lightbox/">Devonian trilobite toy</a>, and I want this one as well, a Wiwaxiid:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://blogimg.goo.ne.jp/user_image/65/a2/ce8160508252e54153a947143b7f8d1a.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="238" src="http://blogimg.goo.ne.jp/user_image/65/a2/ce8160508252e54153a947143b7f8d1a.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
<b>Japanese models</b><br />
<b><br />
</b><br />
Whilst searching for those Yowie toys, I found these cool models, which I know nothing about:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://multimedia.collectorsquest.com/image/420x1000/yujinkimberella-47378.jpg?1283664740" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="237" src="http://multimedia.collectorsquest.com/image/420x1000/yujinkimberella-47378.jpg?1283664740" width="320" /></a></div>I would love a <i>Kimberella </i>model, especially as it is one of my favourite Ediacaran forms. A <i>Charniodiscus </i>would also be cool:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://multimedia.collectorsquest.com/image/420x1000/yujincharniodiscus-47385.jpg?1283668244" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://multimedia.collectorsquest.com/image/420x1000/yujincharniodiscus-47385.jpg?1283668244" width="264" /></a></div>And so I am not stuck in the Ediacaran, here is <i>Pterygotus, </i>a eurypterid:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://multimedia.collectorsquest.com/image/420x1000/kaiyodo-pterygotus-47535.jpg?1283988663" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://multimedia.collectorsquest.com/image/420x1000/kaiyodo-pterygotus-47535.jpg?1283988663" width="226" /></a></div>I also found two different takes on <i>Hallucigenia</i>:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://multimedia.collectorsquest.com/image/420x1000/kaiyodo-dinotales-hallucigenia-47525.jpg?1283985029" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a><img border="0" height="129" src="http://multimedia.collectorsquest.com/image/420x1000/kaiyodo-dinotales-hallucigenia-47525.jpg?1283985029" width="200" /><a href="http://multimedia.collectorsquest.com/image/420x1000/tedco-hallucigenia-47539.jpg?1283988697" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="144" src="http://multimedia.collectorsquest.com/image/420x1000/tedco-hallucigenia-47539.jpg?1283988697" width="200" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><br />
<b>Cuddly Toys</b><br />
<b><br />
</b><br />
All of these are taken from a single website and some can be bought here: <a href="http://www.etsy.com/shop/PaleoGirlCrafts">http://www.etsy.com/shop/PaleoGirlCrafts</a><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2011/201/3/a/wiwaxia_in_purple_by_paleogirl-d413k1p.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="212" src="http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2011/201/3/a/wiwaxia_in_purple_by_paleogirl-d413k1p.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>Another <i>Wiwaxia, </i>one which I would love to have in my bed. Plus the awesome artist custom makes them in different colours:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2011/207/6/c/wiwaxia_in_green_by_paleogirl-d41r5sb.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="212" src="http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2011/207/6/c/wiwaxia_in_green_by_paleogirl-d41r5sb.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2011/216/8/8/anomalocaris_plush_in_olive_by_paleogirl-d45hlpr.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="212" src="http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2011/216/8/8/anomalocaris_plush_in_olive_by_paleogirl-d45hlpr.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>There's also the fearsome Cambrian predator <i>Anomalocaris, </i>though it looks very cute and cuddly here. Again, I want one!<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Trilobites and eurypterids are quite common, I particularly like this mini trilobite:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2011/092/0/b/mini_felt_trilobite_plush_by_paleogirl-d3d33c8.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="212" src="http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2011/092/0/b/mini_felt_trilobite_plush_by_paleogirl-d3d33c8.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>Their loving creator even makes keyring sized ones and I can't decide which I prefer:<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2011/196/7/5/extinct_walliserops_trilobite_by_paleogirl-d3ti83r.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="212" src="http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2011/196/7/5/extinct_walliserops_trilobite_by_paleogirl-d3ti83r.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Walliserops </i>(a trilobite)</td></tr>
</tbody></table><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2011/181/7/0/baby_eurypterid_keychain_blue_by_paleogirl-d3kmd64.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="212" src="http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2011/181/7/0/baby_eurypterid_keychain_blue_by_paleogirl-d3kmd64.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">A baby eurypterid</td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
These can all be viewed here, along with a large variety which goes beyond the invertebrates here and even includes scarves: <a href="http://paleogirl.deviantart.com/gallery/?offset=0">http://paleogirl.deviantart.com/gallery/?offset=0</a><br />
<br />
<b>More cuddly beasties!</b><br />
<b><br />
</b><br />
This next bunch I actually came across a while ago whilst researching nudibranchs (sea slugs) as Weird Bug Lady makes cuddly nudibranchs, such as the one below, as well as many cuddly extinct organisms too.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://img1.etsystatic.com/il_570xN.262720185.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://img1.etsystatic.com/il_570xN.262720185.jpg" width="319" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Phyllidia exquisita</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>And these cuddly Ediacarans (<i>Tribrachidium</i>?) are only around £20 (hint hint):<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://img1.etsystatic.com/il_570xN.55431357.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://img1.etsystatic.com/il_570xN.55431357.jpg" width="319" /></a></div><br />
<div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div>The shop for these can be found here: <a href="http://www.etsy.com/shop/weirdbuglady?page=1">http://www.etsy.com/shop/weirdbuglady?page=1</a><br />
Check out her Flickr as well, as I round off this blog post simply by posting some of my favourites (as links, due to the way Flickr works): <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/weirdbuglady/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/weirdbuglady/</a><br />
<br />
An awesome trilobite: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/weirdbuglady/4622474158/in/photostream">http://www.flickr.com/photos/weirdbuglady/4622474158/in/photostream</a><br />
A tardigrade and <i>Opabinia</i>: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/weirdbuglady/4413564691/in/photostream">http://www.flickr.com/photos/weirdbuglady/4413564691/in/photostream</a><br />
Hydrothermal vent creatures: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/weirdbuglady/4356727920/in/photostream">http://www.flickr.com/photos/weirdbuglady/4356727920/in/photostream</a><br />
A cute <i>Panderichthys: </i><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/weirdbuglady/4285594257/in/photostream">http://www.flickr.com/photos/weirdbuglady/4285594257/in/photostream</a><br />
I'd post more, but I can't work out how to post the images instead of links.The Palaeobabblerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04287371449302573605noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902167463933710289.post-63532644125004430852011-11-11T20:52:00.000+00:002011-11-11T20:52:12.875+00:00The PtorydactylI'd never seen this image before, until today. It is by Gerald Scarfe, the artist known for the album artwork of <i>The Wall </i>by Pink Floyd. In case you can't tell, it is Margaret Thatcher. Thanks to this image, he has just had a pterosaur named after him, <i>Cuspicephalus scarfi, </i>the<a href="http://www.app.pan.pl/archive/published/app56/app20110071_acc.pdf"> paper describing it </a>is currently in press.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://standpointmag.co.uk/files/u28/ptory.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="278" src="http://standpointmag.co.uk/files/u28/ptory.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>I'm from what used to be an old mining village and my grandparents worked <i>dahn't'pit</i>. Naturally Maggie Thatcher is loathed in my area and even though John Major was prime minister when I was at junior school (I think) we still sang a song about Thatcher, which involved drawing on the hands and went something like this:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/s720x720/299792_10150391553633180_502068179_8457800_1933255452_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="297" src="https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/s720x720/299792_10150391553633180_502068179_8457800_1933255452_n.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><i>Here's Maggie Thatcher,</i></div><div style="text-align: center;"><i>Throw her up and catch her </i>[gesture throwing into the air and catching]</div><div style="text-align: center;"><i>Squish squash, squish squash </i>[rub hands together]</div><div style="text-align: center;"><i>Here's Maggie Thatcher:</i></div><div style="text-align: center;"><i><br />
</i></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/s720x720/381096_10150391553793180_502068179_8457801_938940363_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="297" src="https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/s720x720/381096_10150391553793180_502068179_8457801_938940363_n.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><i><br />
</i></div>The Palaeobabblerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04287371449302573605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902167463933710289.post-71691717915475359552011-11-11T20:10:00.000+00:002011-11-11T20:10:12.538+00:00Facebook and the end of an era...I came across this image on Facebook recently and found it very amusing, despite the fact that I have been paying no attention to anything with "we are the 1%" mentioned.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/308518_10150391792689901_710639900_8190865_646965534_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/308518_10150391792689901_710639900_8190865_646965534_n.jpg" width="278" /></a></div>One of the good things about this image is how true it is, regardless of the political climate. Such beautiful diversity exists out there, yet we tend to focus on those which are cute and cuddly, especially in conservation. This could be a good platform for a rant, but I am rather under the weather right now and want to talk about something else.<br />
<br />
I've been on Facebook discussion boards for around four years now. In that time I have developed a lot of my views, shared them with others, helped people learn and refine their own views and had a good laugh, making many online friends (some of which I have met and intend to meet in real life). I found that I most enjoyed discussing evolution on those boards, which were Christian boards, making me one of the few theistic evolutionists able to engage in the science and willing to engage in the theology. There are others out there, but they generally are not so outspoken. I tended to stick to a single discussion board, occasionally branching out into others, but always returning to my main group, where I often built a bit of a reputation (generally good). Every so often I would migrate to a new board and find lots of creationists to debate with, but before long they would all disappear or keep quiet (I can't claim I didn't have a hand in that, but I can't claim I did either). Only the last group I was on seemed to have a steady influx of outspoken creationists.<br />
<br />
Facebook has now removed those discussion boards. This looks to be the end of my time on those boards and is perhaps a good point in life to get away from them (it is rumoured they might return). It is a shame though, as I did enjoy it. It also means a lot of my old discussions are no longer archived and I can't pick up where I left off with people with whom I was discussing. Sometimes it got in the way of my life, causing me to neglect people, and, naturally, housework. I've wasted many useful hours on those boards, so I should be saying "good riddance," but I will mostly miss it. No other format appeals to me, though I do like blogging every so often.<br />
<br />
So, goodbye Facebook discussions, it has been an interesting ride!The Palaeobabblerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04287371449302573605noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902167463933710289.post-7772243081956431282011-11-07T01:55:00.000+00:002011-11-07T01:55:16.626+00:00Hollyoaks & Geology?For those of you who don't know, Hollyoaks is a British soap opera aimed mostly at teenagers, known for constantly having beautiful women (and apparently men). In the last few months there has been a serial killer storyline and it has been dragged on ridiculously. Still, I wanted to see how it turned out. I hadn't watched it at all last week, when the story reached its climax, so I've just watched four episodes online in my on time (despite a temperamental internet connection). So there, I admit it, I occasionally watch Hollyoaks.<br />
<br />
I wouldn't normally admit to such things so publically, but I spotted something in the background which interested me:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjoY9zAhBlNc80cQd-R51qiojHRPpq5oUhj592cypXtKqpKJnrphVooIsNzozu5pits_ycQRiuevuGUPnMAiiLq9E72NtoD_hRrdt1jS3q3GQn2m6ee_jMEBA1wrkzwndV24RvVH38J4YOB/s1600/Precambrian+Hollyoaks.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="224" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjoY9zAhBlNc80cQd-R51qiojHRPpq5oUhj592cypXtKqpKJnrphVooIsNzozu5pits_ycQRiuevuGUPnMAiiLq9E72NtoD_hRrdt1jS3q3GQn2m6ee_jMEBA1wrkzwndV24RvVH38J4YOB/s400/Precambrian+Hollyoaks.png" width="400" /></a></div><br />
Did you see it? It says "Precambrian times" on the banner in the background. If I remember correctly, it also says "the lophotrochozoa" though I am not sure why. The Precambrian loving geek in me could not help but hit print screen. I'll go to bed and reflect on my sad life now...The Palaeobabblerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04287371449302573605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902167463933710289.post-34888038302303996352011-11-03T23:53:00.002+00:002011-11-03T23:53:43.124+00:00Rap guide to evolution?Yep, you read correctly. There is a rap guide to evolution, enjoy:<br />
<br />
<br />
<iframe width="400" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/DB_kVIoovJI?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>The Palaeobabblerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04287371449302573605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902167463933710289.post-16978902458672612682011-11-01T18:27:00.000+00:002011-11-01T18:27:45.139+00:00A rant about discussion boards...Facebook recently announced that they were shutting down discussion boards, though it seems to have not happened. When the deadline was looming I reflected back on my many years on those boards and how I was perceived. At first I was not very active, mostly observing, but before long I gained respect and even appeared to be intimidating to some. In recent months the respect seemed to decline and instead I am simply known as an argumentative know-it-all. I am clearly argumentative, or else I would not be on a discussion board, but if they met me in person those views might change, as I am shy and reserved.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://rlv.zcache.com/yes_i_do_know_it_all_mouse_pad_mousepad-p144560054300716846td22_210.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://rlv.zcache.com/yes_i_do_know_it_all_mouse_pad_mousepad-p144560054300716846td22_210.jpg" /></a></div><br />
<br />
What really stuck in my mind, and prompted this post, is the "know-it-all" accusation. Many have noted that I show confidence in the things I present, that I rarely if ever state that I don't know or that I might be wrong, and people find this surprising, a negative character trait even. I only wish they would read my blog! On discussion boards I mostly end up discussing the basics of evolution, those things which are beyond reasonable doubt in the scientific community, things which I have been studying for several years now. Why would I be anything other than confident in that situation? Why would I say that I don't know, when we are talking about the basics, about things I do know? I have often acknowledged that I could be wrong about evolution, but that the chances are so slim that it is not worth thinking about.<br />
<br />
When we get into more complex aspects of evolution (try reading <i>Darwinian Populations and Natural Selection </i>by Peter Godfrey Smith) then my certainty steadily diminishes, I openly acknowledge that I might be wrong or that I don't know. On this blog I believe I have stated openly that I do not know whether contingency or convergence is the dominant trend in long term evolution, so I am critical of both Gould and Conway Morris. But really, anyone who has read my posts on Ediacarans should know that I prefer topics where I lack all of the knowledge, but sadly nobody on a Bible discussion board wants to talk about Ediacarans.<br />
<br />
Ediacarans are a group where people have good ideas concerning what they are, but nobody really knows. They constantly defy classification. The small shelly fossils, which I am working on for my dissertation, are similar in this sense, though many of them can be classified. I am intending to make my career saying "we don't know, but let's try our best". That's what many palaeontologists, many scientists in any field, do. In fact, that's how science really works. Saying "I don't know" is a big part of science, as long as it motivates one to find out. So the know-it-all accusation is really unsupported, they just need to broach a subject which is not so simple and beyond doubt.<br />
<br />
If you ever engage in such discussions, try doing what I do and stick to what you know, stick to your strengths. Mine are evolutionary biology, palaeontology, geology and theology of nature. But in sticking to those topics which favour your interests/qualifications, you risk being dismissed as an arrogant know-it-all.The Palaeobabblerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04287371449302573605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902167463933710289.post-90479998724744757342011-10-27T16:11:00.000+01:002011-10-27T16:11:39.381+01:00The Creationist Concept of Kind<b>Introduction</b><br />
<br />
This will not be a post about the ambiguity surrounding the term <i>kind </i>when used by creationists. The lack of taxonomic clarity can be largely ignored, as the philosophical ideas expressed through the term need to first be addressed. Kinds, in this post, will simply mean a discrete group of closely related organisms. I will attempt to demonstrate that the common creationist usage of <i>kind </i>goes beyond what Scripture teaches, being instead an interpretation of the possible meaning of the term, rather than its actual meaning. Many creationist arguments focus on this term, yet these, I hope to show, are not inherently Biblical.<br />
<br />
<b>What the Bible Says</b><br />
<br />
Genesis 1:11-13 (emphasis mine)<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various <b>kinds</b>.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their <b>kinds</b> and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their <b>kinds</b>. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;">Genesis 1:20-23</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;">And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their <b>kinds</b>, and every winged bird according to its <b>kind</b>. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;">Genesis 1:24-25</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;">And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their <b>kinds</b>: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its <b>kind</b>.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their <b>kinds</b>, the livestock according to their <b>kinds</b>, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their <b>kinds</b>. And God saw that it was good.</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;">When we look at the term <i>kind </i>based on Scripture alone, there is no definition given. It seems that we can say with certainty that they could reproduce and likely also that we could group them together. Trying to interbreed separate kinds would be seen as unnatural, based on Genesis 1. Anything more than that is not invalid, but cannot claim to be wholly Scriptural. (The term is used in other places in Scripture, such as Genesis 7 and Deuteronomy 14, but in no way which adds to our understanding.)</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Creationism and Essentialism</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;">The creationist concept of kind goes beyond the ambiguity of Genesis in an attempt to make more scientifically robust claims. Kinds can vary, but new kinds cannot be produced and the separate kinds are not related. This is a form of essentialism, which, when applied to biology, claims that species are unchanging through time. Creationists now have to acknowledge that species do change, but they are considered to be either deviations or well within the essential range of the <i>kind </i>in question (the classic example is that dogs vary enormously, but will always have the defining characteristics of dogs). </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;">Essentialism is a philosophy which stems from the ideas of Plato, particularly Platonic idealism, which has been unwittingly embraced by creationists. In order to understand the implications of <i>kind, </i>creationists have been using what I will label an "essentialist theology of kind". This is widely considered to be the common biological understanding before Darwin's work favoured population thinking. The essentialist theology of kind is an explanation and interpretation of the Biblical term, but it must be acknowledged that it is not the only possible explanation and interpretation of <i>kind. </i></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The Purpose of a Theology of Kind</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;">A theology of kind is developed to provide a more thorough understanding of what the Bible is saying about creation. It is effectively trying to bridge a gap between our scientific knowledge and our Scriptural knowledge with regards to biological classification. It is nothing more than an interpretation, one we could almost label a hypothesis, which must be consistent with the Bible and with the scientific data. If it cannot fit them both, then it is insufficient and subject to either change or rejection for a better model. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;">The essentialist theology of kind is often used improperly by creationists. It is presupposed as the only Biblically consistent explanation and instead of being tested against the scientific data, it is used to dictate it. Their definitions of kind are clearly Biblically consistent, but break down when tested against the biological data.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>A Darwinian Theology of Kind?</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;">Darwinian population thinking has replaced essentialism in our understanding of biology. Is it possible to have a Darwinian theology of kind which can replace the outdated essentialist theology of kind which creationists favour? In theory the answer should be yes, as it would clearly be consistent with the biological data. The problem is when we ask if it is consistent with the Biblical claims.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;">Creationists, using their essentialist thought, would reject the Darwinian understanding outright. Darwinian evolution makes claims which go contrary to their essentialist ideas, however, it is not the essentialism which is inherent in the Bible. Based on Scripture alone there is no real inconsistency between a Darwinian theology and the Biblical term <i>kind. </i>In evolution, organisms can be argued to be reproducing after their kind, as evolution is a branching process which does not involve organisms suddenly leaping across the evolutionary tree; such an occurrence would be evidence against the modern theory of evolution. Evolution produces a pattern of nested hierarchies, groups within groups, or, to borrow from the Bible, they can be seen as kinds within kinds. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;">The following image is from a creationist website:</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://creationwiki.org/images/0/08/Createdkinds.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://creationwiki.org/images/0/08/Createdkinds.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;">It shows dichotomies, with the groups diversifying, yet remaining the same kind. Turn it upside down and change some of the arbitrary details (the use of circles, for example) and you will probably be reminded of the following type of diagram:</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/phylo.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="368" src="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/phylo.gif" width="400" /></a></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;">The modern understanding of kinds as used by creationists is suspiciously similar to the Darwinian concept. The only differences really are their arbitrary distinctions of kinds and the time-scales involved. Look at the phylogenetic tree and follow a line from the bottom to the top; all the way along that line were ancestor-descendent relationships which can fit a Biblical definition of kind. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Conclusion</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;">The essentialist theology of kind used by creationists is not sufficient to explain the biological data and should not be considered synonymous with the Biblical use of kind. It can potentially be replaced with a Darwinian concept of kind, one which is Biblically and biologically consistent. This, however, is unnecessary. There is no need to bridge science and Scripture using a term which has no pragmatic meaning. Sticking to what Genesis says allows for both theologies of kind to be entertained, but there is no reason to embrace either, for we risk forcing those views upon the text instead of allowing it to speak for itself. With the Bible allowed to speak, it is clear that all organisms are blessed by God to reproduce, anything more and we are going beyond the book. </div>The Palaeobabblerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04287371449302573605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902167463933710289.post-3837740646872439972011-10-27T14:46:00.000+01:002011-10-27T14:46:50.287+01:00Creationist dishonesty? Can't be...I don't follow very many blogs, but amongst the ones I do follow there are a couple of creationists. I've critiqued them before and contrasted them both. If you follow <a href="http://palaeobabbler.blogspot.com/2010/08/critiquing-creationist-blogs-part-1.html">this link</a>, you will see my first critique, which was of a blog post by Daniel Mann. I don't know if he ever read my response to him, but even so, I responded to another of his posts, as you can see <a href="http://palaeobabbler.blogspot.com/2010/11/when-in-need-of-something-to-say-why.html">here</a>. I was very blunt in one of those posts, describing his arguments as "unconvincing, sloppy, overly simplistic and readily [using] dishonest tactics."<br />
<br />
It is Mann's blog I will be responding to yet again, as he recently wrote a post titled <i><a href="http://mannsword.blogspot.com/2011/10/commonalities-fail-to-prove-common.html">Commonalities Fail to Prove Common Descent.</a> </i>I originally intended to respond on his blog, but the format is awkward and word limits prevent one from being able to say much. He also censors comments on his blog, so this seems like the best option.<br />
<br />
Some creationists are more of a challenge than Mann, see <a href="http://palaeobabbler.blogspot.com/2010/04/heavens-declare-glory-of-god-and.html">here</a>, <a href="http://palaeobabbler.blogspot.com/2010/08/critiquing-creationist-blogs-part-2.html">here</a> and <a href="http://palaeobabbler.blogspot.com/2010/08/critique-of-critique-of-creationist.html">here</a> for my exchanges with one such example. I don't expect Daniel to pay any attention to this, but it is here nonetheless. I should also not make comments about his character, but Mann has openly admitted that he lacks scientific understanding, yet he happily turns around and declares that the majority of biologists are wrong. His sort need to be kept quiet through education.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://tolweb.org/tree/img/toloverview.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://tolweb.org/tree/img/toloverview.jpg" width="283" /></a></div><br />
<br />
<b>Commonalities Fail to Prove Common Descent?</b><br />
<br />
When I first started reading his blog post, I expected to just ignore it, but he mentioned palaeontology and I felt the urge to write this. He states "They attempted to [prove evolution] with the fossil record. However, this record has stubbornly resisted efforts to conform it to evolutionary orthodoxy." This, to me, quite clearly shows that he is at least twenty years behind modern palaeontology. The rise of palaeobiology in the 70s sparked a lot of debate about the relationship between palaeontology and evolution, a debate which creationists have twisted horrifically. That debate raged for a decade or so and eventually evolutionary biologists started to really get their heads around what the fossil record really showed with regards to evolution. For the past twenty years, transitional fossils in particular have been cropping up near constantly (especially since China opened up to collection).<br />
<br />
Mann then goes on to quote Stephen Jay Gould, using a quotation which I am sure he has been corrected on before as it is a blatant quote mine:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as a trade secret of palaeontology…The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with the idea that they gradually evolved:</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;">1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking pretty much the same as when they disappear…</div><div style="text-align: center;">2. Sudden appearance. In any local area a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’”</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;">One of the first things to note is the age of the quotation. Gould has actually been dead for nearly ten years now, but these words of his are much older than that. Considering how much palaeontology has progressed in the last few decades, this quotation is clearly out of date. It must also be noted what Gould is talking about, as he is addressing the rarity of transitional forms at the species level, as this change happens too rapidly to be recorded geologically. However, there are some examples which even Gould and Eldredge acknowledged. Additionally, Gould wrote often about transitional forms above the species level. This quotation does not support Mann's claims at all. For a bit more detail on Gould's views, I wrote <a href="http://palaeobabbler.blogspot.com/2009/12/punctuated-equilbiria-explained-or-pee.html">this piece about punctuated equilibria</a> a few years ago, in which some examples of microevolution are acknowledged.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/jaws1.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="400" src="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/jaws1.gif" width="293" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The beautiful mammalian jaw/inner ear bone transition.</td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;">He then quotes Mark Ridley in a quotation from 1981:</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;">"No real evolutionist…uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;">Again, this is outdated, and again, it is out of context. Ridley goes on to explain the evidence which is used for evolution and even that is outdated, as he makes no real reference to the genetic data which has also become voluminous over the past couple of decades. Mann has often been accused of quote mining, even though he is simply parroting the quote mines of others, but he should surely have realised by now that it would make sense to check his sources to make sure they are saying what he thinks they are saying. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;">He then quotes Gareth Nelson, in what is probably his worst misunderstanding:</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;">"It is a mistake to believe that even one fossil species… can be demonstrated to have been ancestral to another."</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;">I wholeheartedly agree. Nelson's point is that we have no way to test and confirm whether one fossil species was ancestral to another, but his point is not that we cannot confirm whether or not they were related. Palaeontologists these days are aware that claiming an ancestral relationship in the vast majority of cases is not scientific. Instead, you will find them pointing out that they possessed a transitional morphology and were closely related to other such forms. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://sciencenotes.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/tiktaalik.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="338" src="http://sciencenotes.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/tiktaalik.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The transition from fish to amphibian. Note that these are not claims of direct ancestry.</td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
<br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Convergence is a problem for evolution??</b><br />
<b><br />
</b><br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://withfriendship.com/images/d/19141/Convergent-evolution-picture.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://withfriendship.com/images/d/19141/Convergent-evolution-picture.gif" width="316" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Convergence between placentals and marsupials. Note that the convergences are functional.</td></tr>
</tbody></table><b><br />
</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div>In his post, Mann considers these to be nails in the coffin of common descent. Clearly he has not achieved this, but either way he declares that "[biologists] have sought out commonalities in other areas to support their belief in common descent." </div><div><br />
</div><div>Mann's chosen example is an interesting one, as it allows us to explore evolution a little and was also something I had not looked into. Instead of addressing the most common lines of evidence, such as the abundant genetic data, he focusses on a morphological similarity and makes some arguments which appear to be becoming more common amongst anti-evolutionists. His chosen example is bioluminescence, but it is his how he uses it which interests me. </div><div><br />
</div><div>The science deniers are becoming increasingly fascinated with convergent evolution. But unlike convergence enthusiast Simon Conway Morris, their fascination comes from an attempt to disprove evolution. It basically boils down to "oh look, evolutionists said similarities prove evolution, now they are saying that similarities can occur without them being closely related". There is a huge oversight going on here. Some of the best evidence for evolution comes from non-function, such as pseudogenes and retrotransposons in the genome. Instead, the commonalities Mann wants to look at are functional.</div><div><br />
</div><div>Convergent evolution occurs when function is similar or the same. Some problems have limited solutions and so we can expect that natural selection will lead to some traits occurring multiple times independently. Often the convergence is imperfect, or will have a different genetic substrate, but occasionally convergence appears to be perfect on all levels. Nature is constrained in the possible solutions available, so convergence is inevitable.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://rpdp.net/sciencetips_v2/images/L12D3_5.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="188" src="http://rpdp.net/sciencetips_v2/images/L12D3_5.gif" width="320" /></a></div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div><div>Hydrodynamic form is an excellent example, because there are very few ways in which a body can be streamlined in water. The torpedo shape is an obvious one for travelling at speed, so animals adapting to that lifestyle would be likely to stumble upon that form. That's why we can see the same basic body shape in sharks, ichthyosaurs and dolphins. When we look at them closely, we start to see some key differences, with one obvious one being how they actually move through the water. The up-down motion of the dolphin tail fluke gives away their mammalian ancestry. For my longer argument on that, see here: <a href="http://palaeobabbler.blogspot.com/2010/08/whats-that-swimming-toward-me.html">http://palaeobabbler.blogspot.com/2010/08/whats-that-swimming-toward-me.html</a></div><div><br />
</div><div><b>A very brief look at phylogenetics</b></div><div><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1b/Identical_cladograms.svg/250px-Identical_cladograms.svg.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1b/Identical_cladograms.svg/250px-Identical_cladograms.svg.png" /></a></div><br />
<br />
</div><div>When plotting evolutionary family trees (phylogenies) there are certain characters which need to be taken into account and there are some problems to overcome. The terms used here are synapomorphies, plesiomorphies, and homoplasy. I'll briefly look at these.</div><div><br />
</div><div><i>Synapomorphies: </i>These are the derived traits, the ones which define a group. They are shared by taxa with a common ancestor which also has that trait, but whose ancestor does not have that trait. For example, feathers in birds and theropods are a synapomorphy which is shared by all in this group. Synapomorphies must be distinguished from plesiomorphies in order for cladistics to work.</div><div><br />
</div><div><i>Plesiomorphies: </i>These are ancestral traits, shared by the taxa but going back to a further common ancestor. One such character for birds would be their erect gait, which is found in dinosaurs which do not belong to Theropoda. It therefore cannot be used as a defining feature of birds, as their non-avian ancestors possessed it too. </div><div><br />
</div><div><i>Homoplasy: </i>This is perhaps the most frustrating for such analyses. This basically includes any trait which is found in distantly related species but is, as Mann would call it, a "commonality". This includes convergent evolution, parallel evolution, and mimicry. Continuing the bird example, birds are warm blooded and so are mammals, but this evolved independently. These traits cannot be used for establishing phylogeny, though it is usually possibly to establish convergence as an explanation.</div><div><br />
</div><div>For more on convergent evolution, check out the Map of Life website for some amazing examples and explanations: <a href="http://www.mapoflife.org/">http://www.mapoflife.org/</a> It is based on the work of Simon Conway Morris, who sees convergence as pointing towards God (so Christians need not think of him as having an atheistic agenda, as they are wont to do).<br />
<br />
Biologists do not carelessly write off such similarities as convergent evolution, not without justification. Convergence is rarely precise and so can be quite obvious. Going back to dolphins and sharks, it is clear that their shape is dictated by natural constraints, so when we look at their other features it is clear that their ancestry is different. Dolphins are clearly mammals, not least due to their possession of mammary glands. The simple ability to nest dolphins within mammalia should show that convergent evolution is not just possible, but to be expected.<br />
<br />
I will not comment on Mann's bio-luminescence example. I know little with regards to that specific adaptation and would not like to speak ignorantly. Convergent evolution, however, needs to be properly understood in order to criticise it, and no creationist seems to want to do the legwork. </div>The Palaeobabblerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04287371449302573605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902167463933710289.post-114763706994378332011-10-25T23:06:00.000+01:002011-10-25T23:06:17.075+01:00Tim Minchin on EvolutionA 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.<br />
<br />
<br />
<iframe width="400" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/4DXl68NF_uI?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe><br />
<br />
<iframe width="400" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/H9uIMR8yCPg?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>The Palaeobabblerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04287371449302573605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902167463933710289.post-29009503698285008522011-10-24T21:28:00.000+01:002011-10-24T21:28:36.336+01:00I 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:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://images.fandango.com/MDCsite/images/featured/201110/jurassic-park-mondo-poster-jc-richard-large.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="http://images.fandango.com/MDCsite/images/featured/201110/jurassic-park-mondo-poster-jc-richard-large.jpg" width="263" /></a></div><br />
I particularly love that there are two scenes from the film in this image, which very well might have occurred at the same time.<br />
<br />
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).The Palaeobabblerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04287371449302573605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902167463933710289.post-73193834316856565522011-10-21T00:29:00.000+01:002011-10-21T00:29:25.908+01:00Archaeopteryx Again (x11)Two weeks ago I did a little blog about <i>Archaeopteryx. </i>It didn't say much, but if you are interested, see <a href="http://palaeobabbler.blogspot.com/2011/10/worlds-most-expensive-steak.html">here</a>. 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 <i>Archaeopteryx </i>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.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/10/20/Der_neue_Archaeopteryx_Nr.11_P1170529_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="339" src="http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/10/20/Der_neue_Archaeopteryx_Nr.11_P1170529_.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br />
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...The Palaeobabblerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04287371449302573605noreply@blogger.com0