Click me first.
I know a few people, especially laymen, that are going to have a conniption over this. The fact of the matter is that it is relatively unexciting and shouldn't be a shock to anyone.
Dinosaurs are an exceptionally diverse group, especially when one properly includes Aves, as they should, into the mix. They are at least as diverse as mammals, I would think, and mammals don't typically use venom at all. There are few that have or had venom, but it's not a typical thing like it is in Eureptilia, where snakes (obviously), monitors and even bearded dragons have some form of venom. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see most Eureptilians with venom of some sort- it would certainly explain the docility of their insect prey shortly after capture.
With such diversity within Dinosauria, it's definitely not a shock that one or probably more dinosaurs developed venom. It makes sense for a relatively diminutive dinosaur such as this to upgrade it's arsenal to create a niche for itself. The question in my mind is whether or not it also used the grooves to channel bacteria to a live animal, in the same way komodo dragons do today, if they hunted larger prey (which is entirely possible depending on the strength of the venom) or if they merely used it to subdue some upstart mammal with something to prove, thereby removing the need for a more robust skull and jaw system. Guess there's not many ways of proving that though. Oh well.
In conclusion, I hope anyone reading this is done with the excitement and awe of being shocked by nature. That boat sailed long ago for me and it should have for you as well.
Update: I was talking to a theropod expert and asked about this paper. He remains a bit skeptical and is very good at what he does, so I'm waiting to get my greasy hands on a pdf of the actual paper for further updates. In the meantime:
"They could be teeth that have slipped out of their sockets. All theropod teeth have grooves in the sides: of the roots" - Dr. Awesome
also
"Except for blood grooves along the serrations. They would make sense exapted for venom delivery, among the "wuss"-type theropods." -Dr. Awesome
"Archosaurs seem to suck at having chemical factories in their mouths, and lepidosaurs are good at it. Are there any lizards with bacteria incorporated into glands? It seems more likely that their salivary glands go crazy, and occasionally start making nasty stuff that natural selection promulgates." -Dr. Awesome
"Well actually, if a komodo dragon doesn't have access to rotting flesh it doesn't gain access to the bacterial bite. Komodos are the only ones I know of that actually harness it effectively, or at all. As far as I know the bacteria just kind of hang around the surfaces of the mouth but it IS facilitated for somehow- I'm not clear on how, but they do seem to have gone evolutionarily out of their way to help the situation." -Mr. Steve
Looks like I'm a jackass, after a short internet search
However, the point about venom in komodos is true, as is the fact that they do have exceptionally filthy mouths. I wouldn't be shocked if that comes into play somehow, as I do think some of the wounds they inflict become gangrenous rather rapidly. Other varanoids are venomous, including the famous Heloderms- but on the other extreme of the squamate family tree, Agamids have been shown to have some type of venom. Sphenodonts, I think, are too basal to be involved in any common ancestry involving venom.
Well, both points are very good, so I must wait for the paper to see...I will update again once I've read it, or have more data, but I'm fairly sure squamates are too far removed from archosauria to really be a fair comparison.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Turtles: they aren't true reptiles.
I'm just going to jump right into this. Firstly: Testudines are anapsids. Anyone who lumps them in with Eureptilia is a total moron. They lack the Diapsid condition and are clearly holdovers from the ancient Anapsida. I see absolutely no reason to assume they are diapsids that simply closed their temporal fenestrae- it is, in my rather humble palaeontological opinion, silly to assume they have those origins. I've been demonstrated to be wrong before, so it'd be cool if that happened, but I am highly skeptical. I lean heavily on Procolophonid ancestry for testudines simple because the skulls look so shockingly similar and they are a lot more similar, as far as I can tell, than any of the other proposed groups for testudine ancestry. Keep in mind I'm not alone in this opinion, so it's not like I'm blowing smoke on this.
So I bring this up as a bit of background to my upcoming diatribe on testudines themselves. Honestly, this group is fucked up. A toothless beak, jaw muscles that insert on the INSIDE of their damn skulls (as opposed to the outside like other "higher" verts), a shoulder girdle that develops originally outside of the rib cage and then, ontogonetically, rotates INSIDE the ribs, dermal bone connecting the ribs on top and bottom, an uncanny ability to slide the neck, head and limbs inside the rib cage and of course the ability to poop out their tail (hah).
This group may be fucked up but it is also a bit of a mystery. Until the recent discovery in China, the first turtles in the fossil record were quite literally already turtles and the only hints at their origin came from similarities in other groups. We didn't even know if they were aquatic or terrestrial in origin or if the plastron or carapace evolved first! Well, at least we have Odontochelys, or "toothed turtle" to look at. That name alone should be a big hint that it is a turtle with teeth- showing just how plesiomorphic it is (as if having only a plastron wasn't enough to tell you that).
The relative timing and process, at least as far as I am aware, of the shoulder girdle moving inside the ribcage is a bit of a mystery, though genetics, which are not my field, will likely tell a bit about the process and probably already has. The problem with this group is that even with Odontochelys, we still don't know where the hell they came from.
To compare to other reptiles, we have limbed snakes that betray their true location within the squamates- snuggled in with monitors and mosasaurs and not near Amphisbaenia. We know where the eureptilian tree shakes out, more or less, as we do with lissamphibia (though it does look like caecillians are more close to microsaurs, an ancient amphibian group. While we are on that topic, amphibian is a hideous waste basket term much like reptile. The amphibians today may be old, but they aren't the same thing as ones from the Devonian. If we are using that logic, then pretty much every tetrapod is an amphibian. Lissamphibia may be the most similar to that group, but that doesn't mean they are the same.
So what becomes of our turtley pals? Well, they aren't getting their due credit as a truely ancient survivor that is likely one of, if not the, oldest relatively unchanged tetrapod group on the planet. It saddens me to some extent that they are so callously lumped in with lizards under the generic "reptile" umbrella when birds are so much closer to being true reptiles than testudines are.
So I bring this up as a bit of background to my upcoming diatribe on testudines themselves. Honestly, this group is fucked up. A toothless beak, jaw muscles that insert on the INSIDE of their damn skulls (as opposed to the outside like other "higher" verts), a shoulder girdle that develops originally outside of the rib cage and then, ontogonetically, rotates INSIDE the ribs, dermal bone connecting the ribs on top and bottom, an uncanny ability to slide the neck, head and limbs inside the rib cage and of course the ability to poop out their tail (hah).
This group may be fucked up but it is also a bit of a mystery. Until the recent discovery in China, the first turtles in the fossil record were quite literally already turtles and the only hints at their origin came from similarities in other groups. We didn't even know if they were aquatic or terrestrial in origin or if the plastron or carapace evolved first! Well, at least we have Odontochelys, or "toothed turtle" to look at. That name alone should be a big hint that it is a turtle with teeth- showing just how plesiomorphic it is (as if having only a plastron wasn't enough to tell you that).
The relative timing and process, at least as far as I am aware, of the shoulder girdle moving inside the ribcage is a bit of a mystery, though genetics, which are not my field, will likely tell a bit about the process and probably already has. The problem with this group is that even with Odontochelys, we still don't know where the hell they came from.
To compare to other reptiles, we have limbed snakes that betray their true location within the squamates- snuggled in with monitors and mosasaurs and not near Amphisbaenia. We know where the eureptilian tree shakes out, more or less, as we do with lissamphibia (though it does look like caecillians are more close to microsaurs, an ancient amphibian group. While we are on that topic, amphibian is a hideous waste basket term much like reptile. The amphibians today may be old, but they aren't the same thing as ones from the Devonian. If we are using that logic, then pretty much every tetrapod is an amphibian. Lissamphibia may be the most similar to that group, but that doesn't mean they are the same.
So what becomes of our turtley pals? Well, they aren't getting their due credit as a truely ancient survivor that is likely one of, if not the, oldest relatively unchanged tetrapod group on the planet. It saddens me to some extent that they are so callously lumped in with lizards under the generic "reptile" umbrella when birds are so much closer to being true reptiles than testudines are.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Prayer Doesn't Have a Prayer.
Today I seemed to have hit a hotspot with someone I knew. The topic of prayer was brought up and I simply provided this reference. I was innundated, in reply, with two stories. One of these stories involved a body part healing itself (and we're not talking regrowing amputated limbs or something) and the other was a third hand story about soldiers in Africa not attacking when poised to do just that. The conclusion that was reached by this zealotrous individual was that prayer in both cases was, without doubt, the cause of the favorable outcome.
I responded, as I tend to, with a volley of savage arguements. I was not rude, I was not offensive. Well, I guess I was offensive, because said individuals wife 'unfriended' me on Facebook. I guess when cornered, the best option is to hold your hands over your ears and run away. Once again, I can use one of my favorite terms: Intellectual Cowardace. If you believe in something without any doubt, there is clearly a reason...but in light of the arguements provided, it looks like those reasons aren't enough to even try to defend.
My first move, which is an obvious one to those that know me, was to attack the analogical evidence provided as an absolute proof. Analogical evidence is not the same as empirical evidence. A comprehensive study conducted over a decade holds far more ground than a statement like "I got better because I prayed". Personal stories are a nice addition to empirical evidence and should be taken at face value. Personal stories, as I pointed out, have zero repeatability ot confirmability. If our society were to believe, as this type of person does with this kind of thing, I promise we would have alot of good ol' witch burnings going on to this day. Remember, it is belief like this that is the sole cause of the dark ages, procrastinating the forward progession of thought and society for hundreds of years. It's different, they'll say, because it's the word of their God. Well fuck right off and show me why it's right.
Anyways, back to the topic. It is intellectually irresponsible to say "I prayed and therefore it worked" with any certainty when you have zero point of reference for what would or could have happened if you didn't pray in the first place. Also, this could have been a "one-of" coincidental outcome in the first place (though people such as this believe god remains hidden by using coincidence, I'd again ask them to qualify this in a proper way). Repeatability comes into play here: If the exact same situation were to happen over dozens of trials, with and without prayer, would the same outcome happen? I think most certainly yes, but the test would be an elegant demonstration of the block headedness of various individuals. Without these trials, there is absolutely no way of knowing for sure, so it is completely unreasonable and unfair to say with such certainty that it is the direct cause of you the outcome. I would suggest they are discrete, mutually exclusive events UNTIL demonstrated to have a connection.
One thing prayer is good for is my dear friend the placebo effect. If you think something will work, even if it's a sugar pill, it will likely have some effect similar to what it is supposed to have, at least for a while. Pharmaceutical companies compensate and allow for this in their tests the world over. So thinking prayer will help will automatically have an impact. It is interested and rather amusing to point out that in the abovementioned test, the group that was prayed for but not told about it did the worst, statistically speaking, for survivability and health. Purely a coincidence, but there is little way to reconcile this if you don't believe in coincidence...unless you want to play the classic religion card of cherry picking what you want to apply and what you don't, which is hypocritical at best.
Speaking from a purely theological perspective, why is this person so certain that they prayer even worked? Assuming there is a god and that he meets the criteria that is assumed by these people, why does the apparently success of a prayer automatically mean it was a success? What makes these people so certain that their god, with a horrible track record for not granting prayer requests, not only acknowledged their prayer but intervened and helped. What is to say the god didn't completely ignore the prayer and help anyways, thus rendering the prayer completely useless. How can it be demonstrated that the healing, for example, wasn't just healing with no supernatural interference? There is simply no way of objectively testing the above, so it is assinine to assume things. Though, to be fair, this group of people has a rich and rather prideful history of stacking assumptions upon assumption.
After all these completely reasonable arguements, the reaction was to flee like a coward. I do not understand these people, they are so very, very irresponible with their minds.
I responded, as I tend to, with a volley of savage arguements. I was not rude, I was not offensive. Well, I guess I was offensive, because said individuals wife 'unfriended' me on Facebook. I guess when cornered, the best option is to hold your hands over your ears and run away. Once again, I can use one of my favorite terms: Intellectual Cowardace. If you believe in something without any doubt, there is clearly a reason...but in light of the arguements provided, it looks like those reasons aren't enough to even try to defend.
My first move, which is an obvious one to those that know me, was to attack the analogical evidence provided as an absolute proof. Analogical evidence is not the same as empirical evidence. A comprehensive study conducted over a decade holds far more ground than a statement like "I got better because I prayed". Personal stories are a nice addition to empirical evidence and should be taken at face value. Personal stories, as I pointed out, have zero repeatability ot confirmability. If our society were to believe, as this type of person does with this kind of thing, I promise we would have alot of good ol' witch burnings going on to this day. Remember, it is belief like this that is the sole cause of the dark ages, procrastinating the forward progession of thought and society for hundreds of years. It's different, they'll say, because it's the word of their God. Well fuck right off and show me why it's right.
Anyways, back to the topic. It is intellectually irresponsible to say "I prayed and therefore it worked" with any certainty when you have zero point of reference for what would or could have happened if you didn't pray in the first place. Also, this could have been a "one-of" coincidental outcome in the first place (though people such as this believe god remains hidden by using coincidence, I'd again ask them to qualify this in a proper way). Repeatability comes into play here: If the exact same situation were to happen over dozens of trials, with and without prayer, would the same outcome happen? I think most certainly yes, but the test would be an elegant demonstration of the block headedness of various individuals. Without these trials, there is absolutely no way of knowing for sure, so it is completely unreasonable and unfair to say with such certainty that it is the direct cause of you the outcome. I would suggest they are discrete, mutually exclusive events UNTIL demonstrated to have a connection.
One thing prayer is good for is my dear friend the placebo effect. If you think something will work, even if it's a sugar pill, it will likely have some effect similar to what it is supposed to have, at least for a while. Pharmaceutical companies compensate and allow for this in their tests the world over. So thinking prayer will help will automatically have an impact. It is interested and rather amusing to point out that in the abovementioned test, the group that was prayed for but not told about it did the worst, statistically speaking, for survivability and health. Purely a coincidence, but there is little way to reconcile this if you don't believe in coincidence...unless you want to play the classic religion card of cherry picking what you want to apply and what you don't, which is hypocritical at best.
Speaking from a purely theological perspective, why is this person so certain that they prayer even worked? Assuming there is a god and that he meets the criteria that is assumed by these people, why does the apparently success of a prayer automatically mean it was a success? What makes these people so certain that their god, with a horrible track record for not granting prayer requests, not only acknowledged their prayer but intervened and helped. What is to say the god didn't completely ignore the prayer and help anyways, thus rendering the prayer completely useless. How can it be demonstrated that the healing, for example, wasn't just healing with no supernatural interference? There is simply no way of objectively testing the above, so it is assinine to assume things. Though, to be fair, this group of people has a rich and rather prideful history of stacking assumptions upon assumption.
After all these completely reasonable arguements, the reaction was to flee like a coward. I do not understand these people, they are so very, very irresponible with their minds.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
It is time to fumigate the vaginae
I am watching a show called "Paranormal State". This show is so fucking stupid, "testing" groundbreaking techniques like strobe lights increasing a psychics abilities or ordering a spirit to leave the house. I am furious with how stupid people are.
Lets just back up a second here. The title of this post may seem outrageously inappropriate and misplaced. However, let me assure you, it's not. The topic here is something called Hysteria. Hyster, as a prefix, means vagina. In olden days, they would cure hysteria by fumigating the vagina, sadly most hysteria in these women couldn't be cured and the fumigation killed them. So I suggest that we fumigate the vagina of Ryan Buell and ESPECIALLY of Chip Coffee, their son of a bitch psychic that needs to STOP.
I am a psychic too, here's the technique: make a general statement like "I am sensing that someone is unhappy". If anyone affected by their "haunting" says they are upset, then he's right. If nobody speaks up, it's clearly the spirit channelling through him. You continue on this way, undemonstratably, until you reach the terminus of things and have to finally say "Well this spirit is pissed off and here is a generic reason". This reason usually is that someone is infringing on their house. Everyone flips out and uses their instruments that have never once been demonstrated to be linked to something that has never once been demonstrated to actually exist. In other words, if there is a temperature shift, it is like a fucking draft. Grow the fuck up and stop being hysterical. Honestly people feed off each others stupidity until it becomes a form of mass hysteria.
FUCK FUCK FUCK I want to slam my head into a wall Pachycephalosaur style. This isn't the only vaginal fumigation that needs to occur. Anyone who speaks in tongues, sees demons, believes in ANYTHING that has nonobservable evidence (cryptozoologists, the ball is in your court now). I will admit that cryptozoologists DO have their purpose: Looking for now extinct species to confirm they exist, or searching for animals like Okapi johnstoni. Okay, I will not diverge from the nonscience anymore I promise.
I find it appropriate how the word nonscience looks and especially sounds so much like nonsense. I have personally observed people singing to Jesus about Jesus (narcisistic gods are a definate, but that's another post) with their hands over their heads and then, out of nowhere, some person flips out and runs around rubbing his head. Okay, I can kind of see this behaviour being appropriate if you are 5 and getting your first power wheels. THESE ARE FULLY GROWN ADULTS.
Here is a hot tip, Ryan Buell and especially the cast of "Ghost Hunters": Using various instruments ending with the suffix meter doesn't make it science, it makes you retarded. Holding an Electrometer over a clock radio and observing the spike doesn't mean that you are seeing a ghost communicate with you.
Speaking of which, ghost communication (and God communication, for that matter). If they are so desperate to communicate for whatever reason, WHAT BETTER TIME THAN WHEN PEOPLE ARE THERE TO FUCKING RECORD IT. It's like my post about repeatability in your claim- yes, I understand that animals and etc won't preform at will. Maybe your ghost is shy! Well, how about you don't shoot the episode and then leave. How about you live in the damn house and wait for something to happen? How about that, you sensationalist pricks?
Also, and this is a major pet peeve of mine: If you have an idea, it is NOT a theory. It is a hypothesis at best, but in the case of the topic discussed it is usually stupid as shit. This is the reason why people say "Evolution is just a theory so its not for sure".
If only my skull and spine were built for ramming.
Hysteria folks, this is ALL hysteria. Mass hysteria, singular hysteria it doesn't matter. They are all a bunch of vaginae and they all need to be fumigated. The case that most of the fumigated vaginae end up on the short end of the life stick, in this case, is awesome. So we see that vaginal fumigation needs to happen again to quell this mass outbreak of hysteria.
Lets just back up a second here. The title of this post may seem outrageously inappropriate and misplaced. However, let me assure you, it's not. The topic here is something called Hysteria. Hyster, as a prefix, means vagina. In olden days, they would cure hysteria by fumigating the vagina, sadly most hysteria in these women couldn't be cured and the fumigation killed them. So I suggest that we fumigate the vagina of Ryan Buell and ESPECIALLY of Chip Coffee, their son of a bitch psychic that needs to STOP.
I am a psychic too, here's the technique: make a general statement like "I am sensing that someone is unhappy". If anyone affected by their "haunting" says they are upset, then he's right. If nobody speaks up, it's clearly the spirit channelling through him. You continue on this way, undemonstratably, until you reach the terminus of things and have to finally say "Well this spirit is pissed off and here is a generic reason". This reason usually is that someone is infringing on their house. Everyone flips out and uses their instruments that have never once been demonstrated to be linked to something that has never once been demonstrated to actually exist. In other words, if there is a temperature shift, it is like a fucking draft. Grow the fuck up and stop being hysterical. Honestly people feed off each others stupidity until it becomes a form of mass hysteria.
FUCK FUCK FUCK I want to slam my head into a wall Pachycephalosaur style. This isn't the only vaginal fumigation that needs to occur. Anyone who speaks in tongues, sees demons, believes in ANYTHING that has nonobservable evidence (cryptozoologists, the ball is in your court now). I will admit that cryptozoologists DO have their purpose: Looking for now extinct species to confirm they exist, or searching for animals like Okapi johnstoni. Okay, I will not diverge from the nonscience anymore I promise.
I find it appropriate how the word nonscience looks and especially sounds so much like nonsense. I have personally observed people singing to Jesus about Jesus (narcisistic gods are a definate, but that's another post) with their hands over their heads and then, out of nowhere, some person flips out and runs around rubbing his head. Okay, I can kind of see this behaviour being appropriate if you are 5 and getting your first power wheels. THESE ARE FULLY GROWN ADULTS.
Here is a hot tip, Ryan Buell and especially the cast of "Ghost Hunters": Using various instruments ending with the suffix meter doesn't make it science, it makes you retarded. Holding an Electrometer over a clock radio and observing the spike doesn't mean that you are seeing a ghost communicate with you.
Speaking of which, ghost communication (and God communication, for that matter). If they are so desperate to communicate for whatever reason, WHAT BETTER TIME THAN WHEN PEOPLE ARE THERE TO FUCKING RECORD IT. It's like my post about repeatability in your claim- yes, I understand that animals and etc won't preform at will. Maybe your ghost is shy! Well, how about you don't shoot the episode and then leave. How about you live in the damn house and wait for something to happen? How about that, you sensationalist pricks?
Also, and this is a major pet peeve of mine: If you have an idea, it is NOT a theory. It is a hypothesis at best, but in the case of the topic discussed it is usually stupid as shit. This is the reason why people say "Evolution is just a theory so its not for sure".
If only my skull and spine were built for ramming.
Hysteria folks, this is ALL hysteria. Mass hysteria, singular hysteria it doesn't matter. They are all a bunch of vaginae and they all need to be fumigated. The case that most of the fumigated vaginae end up on the short end of the life stick, in this case, is awesome. So we see that vaginal fumigation needs to happen again to quell this mass outbreak of hysteria.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Climate Change: Please shut the fuck up
Everyone is flipping out about climate change. From rednecks claiming "you retard global warming can't happen" to hippies claiming "no but our emissions are killing our babies", everyone is really starting to piss me off with this. In light of the emergency climate change bullshit summit, and on the heels of a relatively recent polar bear conference, I have come to one conclusion:
THE WORLD NEEDS TO CALM THE FUCK DOWN
I know writing that in all capitals is pretty much the last thing I should do to get everyone to stop freaking out, but it seems that it's all I can do to get the attention of people. After all, I don't have the millions of dollars that producers had to churn out "The Day After Tomorrow", which successfully sensationalized an otherwise mundane change in the Earths climate.
Here is a smidge of info a common simpleton wouldn't know: The climate has changed in the past and it will change again in the future. Just be glad we don't have to deal with the bullshit from a supercontinent like Pangaea or Rodinia. I am willing to say, flat out, that climate change is happening. I am not qualified to make a call one way or the other about carbon dioxide emissions OTHER THAN the observed greenhouse effect from carbon dioxide. No, I don't mean a runaway stupid effect, I mean a casual effect that does happen. So really I am on the fence about this subject- Yes it is happening but no I don't give a rats ass, as its not a catastrophe (well, it is for my contemporaries) in the long term. By long term I do mean millions of years AT LEAST. With that scale in mind, obviously this climate shift will be a drop in the bucket.
So, what do we stand to lose from this climate change? Well, obviously the ecologists will lose their love child the polar bears. Good riddance. It's not like the polar bear brings anything specifically unique or even moderately interesting to the world. Hell, if they bite it, it won't be long before grizzlies start moving in on their territory. Actually, it as already happening- there are, as far as I know, two instances of hybridization between the two great Ursa species and definate sightings of grizzlies infringing on the territory of polar bears.
Other than some hyperspecialized species, the amphibians will take a big hit. Lissamphibia is a pretty sturdy group though, I'm pretty sure they will make it as a whole, but less adaptable members or those unfortunate enough to have chosen an unstable region, won't make it. I'm sure some reptiles will bite it, same with some hyperspecialized mammals. One recurring theme here is that if you hyperspecialize, and therefore become a super success in a particular niche environment, you are pretty much fucked in the long run. I've harped on it before, just ask Platybelodon. Generalists will continue to survive, animals that live off a single food source will continue to fail (that means you, Ailuropoda) in these scenarios. By the way, I do like to place blame on an animal for its evolutionary background- not because I feel it's correct, but because I like to heap scorn upon things.
Realistically what will happen out of all this is that global cycles will be more extreme. So the highs and lows of temperature will likely be worse and storms will probably be more violent. However, there are exceptions- I'm positive that in certain areas some volatile weather will simmer down a bit.
Overall, I do have one suggestion to everyone: WAIT AND SEE. If it's not one catastrophe it's another and personally I'm sick of it. Can we all just relax and observe instead of predict, based on virtually nothing, and end up with our foot in our mouth? By our, I do mean humanity as a whole excluding me because I actually have unlocked the secret to breathing through my nose.
THE WORLD NEEDS TO CALM THE FUCK DOWN
I know writing that in all capitals is pretty much the last thing I should do to get everyone to stop freaking out, but it seems that it's all I can do to get the attention of people. After all, I don't have the millions of dollars that producers had to churn out "The Day After Tomorrow", which successfully sensationalized an otherwise mundane change in the Earths climate.
Here is a smidge of info a common simpleton wouldn't know: The climate has changed in the past and it will change again in the future. Just be glad we don't have to deal with the bullshit from a supercontinent like Pangaea or Rodinia. I am willing to say, flat out, that climate change is happening. I am not qualified to make a call one way or the other about carbon dioxide emissions OTHER THAN the observed greenhouse effect from carbon dioxide. No, I don't mean a runaway stupid effect, I mean a casual effect that does happen. So really I am on the fence about this subject- Yes it is happening but no I don't give a rats ass, as its not a catastrophe (well, it is for my contemporaries) in the long term. By long term I do mean millions of years AT LEAST. With that scale in mind, obviously this climate shift will be a drop in the bucket.
So, what do we stand to lose from this climate change? Well, obviously the ecologists will lose their love child the polar bears. Good riddance. It's not like the polar bear brings anything specifically unique or even moderately interesting to the world. Hell, if they bite it, it won't be long before grizzlies start moving in on their territory. Actually, it as already happening- there are, as far as I know, two instances of hybridization between the two great Ursa species and definate sightings of grizzlies infringing on the territory of polar bears.
Other than some hyperspecialized species, the amphibians will take a big hit. Lissamphibia is a pretty sturdy group though, I'm pretty sure they will make it as a whole, but less adaptable members or those unfortunate enough to have chosen an unstable region, won't make it. I'm sure some reptiles will bite it, same with some hyperspecialized mammals. One recurring theme here is that if you hyperspecialize, and therefore become a super success in a particular niche environment, you are pretty much fucked in the long run. I've harped on it before, just ask Platybelodon. Generalists will continue to survive, animals that live off a single food source will continue to fail (that means you, Ailuropoda) in these scenarios. By the way, I do like to place blame on an animal for its evolutionary background- not because I feel it's correct, but because I like to heap scorn upon things.
Realistically what will happen out of all this is that global cycles will be more extreme. So the highs and lows of temperature will likely be worse and storms will probably be more violent. However, there are exceptions- I'm positive that in certain areas some volatile weather will simmer down a bit.
Overall, I do have one suggestion to everyone: WAIT AND SEE. If it's not one catastrophe it's another and personally I'm sick of it. Can we all just relax and observe instead of predict, based on virtually nothing, and end up with our foot in our mouth? By our, I do mean humanity as a whole excluding me because I actually have unlocked the secret to breathing through my nose.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Homo: Know your rights.
Your gut reaction, I'm sure, is to assume I am talking about a homosexual and his rights to a legal union. If you want to know, I find that they selfishly want a legal union called a marriage when a legally binding union is reasonable and does the same fucking thing to an atheist like me, which is a commitment to the person, unless you live in the states and disreguard all prenups, lawyers and stuff, but that's an aside. Anyways, homosexuals: the culture that supports marriage as a tradition pretty much has it on good authority that you guys are really, super gay and are bad, so why not be rational and just accept your "new age" trendy "high fashion" salon lifestyles as a union? God fucking damn it it's just semantics and besides that, I have NO FUCKING CLUE IN MY HEAD as to why a gay human being would decide to be a christian or any of its subdivisions or other faiths (but all claim to be absolute truth, strange eh?) that decisively go against your lifestyle.
Anyways, the meat of this post: Homo sapiens. To them, my letter would read:
"Dear Homos,
Way to thanklessly disreguard your heritage.
sincerely,
Homo erectus and Homo habilis.
P.S. Fuck all you later Homos, you all owe it to habilis anyways."
For reals, lets rap. Assuming you are a person who agrees with fossils and evolution (note I don't say believe, since it's not something to believe in it is just fucking there, accept it or not), do you have any idea the exploitations of all our ancestors? My guess is no. Bet your ass that our deep ancestors exploited the hell out of anything they got their hairy palms on. Infact, bet your ass that what archaeologists stupidly seperate as "Cro Magnon" exploited environments and resources like no other "species" til "modern man" (fuck I hate archy and their no race and then cultural shit and ambiguity on species in later times with cro stupid magnon).
Can we please stop trying to save environments and species that we put at risk and act like it's going to do much in the long run?
We got to where we are as a species via our ancestors exploiting things. We abused every resource and with every abused resource we grew stronger. The most adaptable species around definately exploited humans as a resource or for protection. I do, of course, mean Llamas, Dromedary and to some extent bactrian Camels, Rats, Mice, Rabbits, Deer, Red Kangaroo, Horses, Cattle, Goats, Sheep, Dogs, Cats...any invasive insect...I won't go on, the list is long. Anyways, certain animals have taken advantage of our loving nature, like dogs, or taken huge advantage of the extinctions we've caused in antiquity and moved on up, like the red kangaroo. There are also those that have taken advantage of a more invasive and exploitive existince around us, like mice.
So, is it reasonable to keep exploiting?
Of course, idiot. If you are a vegan, you might want to remove yourself from the drum circle and understand that you were likely drinking milk as a small, small child and you should probably stop being a self righteous prick and have a slice of tasty cheese. If you are a vegetarian, stop being a pussy and eat a damn burger that isn't made of peppers and lentils, or whatever it is you make them out of. If you are a pesko vegetarian, stop avoiding our culture and main source of animal protein, which is tasty land vertebrates- though I am not saying oceanic foodsources are bad, I infact love sushi and all seafood, but a good burger has never hurt anyone. Except those people that developed Mad Cow...but your odds are better of being awesome for eating meat than they are for getting some disease, so have at 'er. I once knew a weight lifter than came in last every competition. Big shock she was a vegetarian. As far as I know, studies show that a developing human brain needs animal meat, and it is pretty much beyond contestation that muscle growth needs some red meat. The common denominator: there is no substitute for meat and red meat happens to be the best. How do we get that? BEEF, unless we are trying to be different or experimental and eat a dog or a horse or a shrimp or a human or something.
Evolutionarily, it is well within our rights to keep exploiting our resources til our population spills over, dies off alot, and then meet some sort of over/under equilibrium. Rabbits in Canada do it, why shouldn't we? I'm okay with that, the overpopulations are mostly Chinese and Indian, so they are well away from me and my exploitive North American culture. Hey, that means I'm culturally a step up on the peasantry, which includes everyone but Europe and N.A.. Cool.
We need to stop giving a shit about super specialized polar bears, who made the evolutionary mistake of hyperspecializing. Prehistory shows us that they are idiots. We already will be a serious extinction factor, but that's a good thing. We are demolishing our competition at the cost of sustainability, natural selection, balance and....
Okay so fuck off. How's that? I am not suggesting we purge the environment of all competition, but I am saying flat out that if we, at this point in our species success, play by the same rules that other species play, we will kill most anything we need to expand our success. Morality be damned, it's a human construct: we need sustainability. Unfortunately, that probably means exploiting the Gnu for a tasty burger or removing the unproductive (by our terms) habitats that are the home of the bongo and friends. If animal groups want to survive on the long term, they need to adapt. Hell, insects in north america have adapted to all kinds of pesticides and continue to thrive and I have seen mice outsmart traps invented just a decade ago. Bat populations don't seem to care, infact rooves can be a roost for them!!! Anyways, I beseech all species to "nut up or shut up"...or become zombies, that is acceptable as well.
Despite all this hooblah about humans basically having full rights to bleed the planet dry and other animals being less good at that and therefore suffering, we are creating many niches that genera like Aedes and Culex LOVE. Beyond them, house cats, dogs, any farm animal and pet that has success in and around people is enjoying the success of adapting to humanity. So some species learn to live, others to die. Nobody is shedding tears over animals that died 540MYA. So, if we want our species to live, who gives a shit about polar bears that die cause they can't handle a bit of heat or peregrin falcons that die cause they can't live with a bit (okay, alot) of DDT in their thinning eggshells? Well, I for one, do not and I'm going to tell you why: If number of species declines it probably means we are more likely approaching a mass extinction. Just look at the end Cretaceous or Permian, which I am told was ripe for the pickings of a mass extinction event based on an ever shallowing pool of diversity that were ever increasing in the exploitation of environments (see: hadrosaurs, man were they great in their day). I would love for a "day" of evolutuonary reckoning to occur, but it just won't happen.
Ants, when considering their societies, literally dominate the areas they colonize. There isn't much that finds success in the insect world in the immediate area of a colony, and for good reasons- the ants outcompete everything and don't give a shit whose loss it is. One rule of nature seems to be to grab what you can, when you can and if you can't grab enough, you're probably being outcompeted.
On the botany side of things, for contrast, grass has colonized everything from polar regions to the ocean (only angiosperm I know of to do this, by the way). Nobody cries about them because they feed everything, but they more than dominate the plant world. So what is a person to do? Outlaw their success and stop them? But that would cause troubles for countless grass devouring species. Is that really all that different from human beings making certain species that can exploit our lifestyles, evolutionarily speaking?
In conclusion: Don't be a pussy, eat some red meat and like doing it. It is your right as a Homo.
Anyways, the meat of this post: Homo sapiens. To them, my letter would read:
"Dear Homos,
Way to thanklessly disreguard your heritage.
sincerely,
Homo erectus and Homo habilis.
P.S. Fuck all you later Homos, you all owe it to habilis anyways."
For reals, lets rap. Assuming you are a person who agrees with fossils and evolution (note I don't say believe, since it's not something to believe in it is just fucking there, accept it or not), do you have any idea the exploitations of all our ancestors? My guess is no. Bet your ass that our deep ancestors exploited the hell out of anything they got their hairy palms on. Infact, bet your ass that what archaeologists stupidly seperate as "Cro Magnon" exploited environments and resources like no other "species" til "modern man" (fuck I hate archy and their no race and then cultural shit and ambiguity on species in later times with cro stupid magnon).
Can we please stop trying to save environments and species that we put at risk and act like it's going to do much in the long run?
We got to where we are as a species via our ancestors exploiting things. We abused every resource and with every abused resource we grew stronger. The most adaptable species around definately exploited humans as a resource or for protection. I do, of course, mean Llamas, Dromedary and to some extent bactrian Camels, Rats, Mice, Rabbits, Deer, Red Kangaroo, Horses, Cattle, Goats, Sheep, Dogs, Cats...any invasive insect...I won't go on, the list is long. Anyways, certain animals have taken advantage of our loving nature, like dogs, or taken huge advantage of the extinctions we've caused in antiquity and moved on up, like the red kangaroo. There are also those that have taken advantage of a more invasive and exploitive existince around us, like mice.
So, is it reasonable to keep exploiting?
Of course, idiot. If you are a vegan, you might want to remove yourself from the drum circle and understand that you were likely drinking milk as a small, small child and you should probably stop being a self righteous prick and have a slice of tasty cheese. If you are a vegetarian, stop being a pussy and eat a damn burger that isn't made of peppers and lentils, or whatever it is you make them out of. If you are a pesko vegetarian, stop avoiding our culture and main source of animal protein, which is tasty land vertebrates- though I am not saying oceanic foodsources are bad, I infact love sushi and all seafood, but a good burger has never hurt anyone. Except those people that developed Mad Cow...but your odds are better of being awesome for eating meat than they are for getting some disease, so have at 'er. I once knew a weight lifter than came in last every competition. Big shock she was a vegetarian. As far as I know, studies show that a developing human brain needs animal meat, and it is pretty much beyond contestation that muscle growth needs some red meat. The common denominator: there is no substitute for meat and red meat happens to be the best. How do we get that? BEEF, unless we are trying to be different or experimental and eat a dog or a horse or a shrimp or a human or something.
Evolutionarily, it is well within our rights to keep exploiting our resources til our population spills over, dies off alot, and then meet some sort of over/under equilibrium. Rabbits in Canada do it, why shouldn't we? I'm okay with that, the overpopulations are mostly Chinese and Indian, so they are well away from me and my exploitive North American culture. Hey, that means I'm culturally a step up on the peasantry, which includes everyone but Europe and N.A.. Cool.
We need to stop giving a shit about super specialized polar bears, who made the evolutionary mistake of hyperspecializing. Prehistory shows us that they are idiots. We already will be a serious extinction factor, but that's a good thing. We are demolishing our competition at the cost of sustainability, natural selection, balance and....
Okay so fuck off. How's that? I am not suggesting we purge the environment of all competition, but I am saying flat out that if we, at this point in our species success, play by the same rules that other species play, we will kill most anything we need to expand our success. Morality be damned, it's a human construct: we need sustainability. Unfortunately, that probably means exploiting the Gnu for a tasty burger or removing the unproductive (by our terms) habitats that are the home of the bongo and friends. If animal groups want to survive on the long term, they need to adapt. Hell, insects in north america have adapted to all kinds of pesticides and continue to thrive and I have seen mice outsmart traps invented just a decade ago. Bat populations don't seem to care, infact rooves can be a roost for them!!! Anyways, I beseech all species to "nut up or shut up"...or become zombies, that is acceptable as well.
Despite all this hooblah about humans basically having full rights to bleed the planet dry and other animals being less good at that and therefore suffering, we are creating many niches that genera like Aedes and Culex LOVE. Beyond them, house cats, dogs, any farm animal and pet that has success in and around people is enjoying the success of adapting to humanity. So some species learn to live, others to die. Nobody is shedding tears over animals that died 540MYA. So, if we want our species to live, who gives a shit about polar bears that die cause they can't handle a bit of heat or peregrin falcons that die cause they can't live with a bit (okay, alot) of DDT in their thinning eggshells? Well, I for one, do not and I'm going to tell you why: If number of species declines it probably means we are more likely approaching a mass extinction. Just look at the end Cretaceous or Permian, which I am told was ripe for the pickings of a mass extinction event based on an ever shallowing pool of diversity that were ever increasing in the exploitation of environments (see: hadrosaurs, man were they great in their day). I would love for a "day" of evolutuonary reckoning to occur, but it just won't happen.
Ants, when considering their societies, literally dominate the areas they colonize. There isn't much that finds success in the insect world in the immediate area of a colony, and for good reasons- the ants outcompete everything and don't give a shit whose loss it is. One rule of nature seems to be to grab what you can, when you can and if you can't grab enough, you're probably being outcompeted.
On the botany side of things, for contrast, grass has colonized everything from polar regions to the ocean (only angiosperm I know of to do this, by the way). Nobody cries about them because they feed everything, but they more than dominate the plant world. So what is a person to do? Outlaw their success and stop them? But that would cause troubles for countless grass devouring species. Is that really all that different from human beings making certain species that can exploit our lifestyles, evolutionarily speaking?
In conclusion: Don't be a pussy, eat some red meat and like doing it. It is your right as a Homo.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Repeatability in your claims, please.
I recently spoke with someone that made an outlandish claim. I won't say what this claim is, but lets just say it is basically suggesting that fairies do exist and that they have seen them first hand.
Naturally, I jumped to the conclusion that it was bullshit. I then took a step back and thought "If this person is so sure, maybe I should check it out for myself." So, in a display of fairness, I asked how I could find myself some fairies. They then suggested that fairies do not show up on request- which is fair, many animals don't do this either. The solution, obviously, is for me to put myself in a set of circumstances similar or identical to those the person experienced fairies in, thusly maximizing my chances of seeing a fairy. The person then said "Oh, you don't want to do that." That's pretty convenient, but I asked how I could do it anyways. Of course, it ended with a "if you look for it you will find it" sentiment, but what is it that I am trying to do- find what they are claiming exists. So in order to find it, I need to look. I am looking, so therefore I should have found it even when I am not provided with any sort of method to find it? That is outlandish and quite childish, logically speaking.
It seems that there is always a roadblock in demonstrating the undemonstratable and that is something called belief. This is EXACLTY why the materials and methods section exists in papers- if someone disagrees or wants confirmation for themselves, they can replicate the experiment and get similar or identical data. So please, if you are claiming something exists, please be able to demonstrate it exists by way of producing a methodology for repetition or at least a source that provides a method to repeat it. It really don't have to be that complex- if you want a higher chance of seeing a great white shark, you go to the southern tip of South Africa at the right time of year and chum all over the water- or you wait for one to jump out at you while hunting a seal. A very simple example.
Please, please, please.....stop the madness and back yourself up!
Naturally, I jumped to the conclusion that it was bullshit. I then took a step back and thought "If this person is so sure, maybe I should check it out for myself." So, in a display of fairness, I asked how I could find myself some fairies. They then suggested that fairies do not show up on request- which is fair, many animals don't do this either. The solution, obviously, is for me to put myself in a set of circumstances similar or identical to those the person experienced fairies in, thusly maximizing my chances of seeing a fairy. The person then said "Oh, you don't want to do that." That's pretty convenient, but I asked how I could do it anyways. Of course, it ended with a "if you look for it you will find it" sentiment, but what is it that I am trying to do- find what they are claiming exists. So in order to find it, I need to look. I am looking, so therefore I should have found it even when I am not provided with any sort of method to find it? That is outlandish and quite childish, logically speaking.
It seems that there is always a roadblock in demonstrating the undemonstratable and that is something called belief. This is EXACLTY why the materials and methods section exists in papers- if someone disagrees or wants confirmation for themselves, they can replicate the experiment and get similar or identical data. So please, if you are claiming something exists, please be able to demonstrate it exists by way of producing a methodology for repetition or at least a source that provides a method to repeat it. It really don't have to be that complex- if you want a higher chance of seeing a great white shark, you go to the southern tip of South Africa at the right time of year and chum all over the water- or you wait for one to jump out at you while hunting a seal. A very simple example.
Please, please, please.....stop the madness and back yourself up!
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Earth hates you and indeed all life
If the Earth were somehow sentient or at least capable of intentional mallace, I'd say that it most certainly would hate life. I'm sure someone will say to me "But Earth is IDEAL for life". Well I'd question that- is it really? Sure, life adapting to the Earth and it's ways have made it as ideal as possible for life on this planet, but that creates the illusion of a most hospitable planet. I'm not saying that Earth is totally unwelcome to life, but I am saying that its not this wonderous piece of perfect that people seem to think it is. In fact, without Algae and in evolution of Chlorophyll/Chloroplasts or, even further, the evolution of Lignen(crucial step in the evolution of plants from algae-like ancesters) the Earth will still be a quite unlivable by most animal life that's to that lovely stable molecule known as Carbon Dioxide, which the Earth spews out wholesale, especially when it was tectonically less stable in antiquity.
Now, onto the point: Why the Earth isn't so fantastic. Well, lets start with the wobble in the Earth's axis, causing seasonality. Seasonality means two things, generally speaking. A winter/summer cycle or a dry/wet cycle. I'm sure anyone reading this has seen all the documentaries of great migrations of Gnu looking for food in the dry season, or amphibians or fish having to go dormant and encase themselves in mud just to survive. Hell, even the mighty Hippopotamus has to deal with concentration in what is left of rivers in the dry season. So, that's a huge pain in the ass...but during the migrations back to the wet feeding grounds, the gnu have to cross outrageously swelling rivers, leaving them prey to drowning and animals that have adapted to take care of them as they struggle (crocs). So we see a recapitulation of the theme I mentioned in the previous chapter: animals, in this case crocodiles, evolving to take advantage of the ass pain that is seasonality. As for the warm/cold cycle, it should be noted that there are animals that have evolved to take advantage of this by huge migrations. These animals are the millions of caribou, but there are also animals that have evolved to take advantge of them, draining up to 1 liter of blood from them PER DAY. These would be dipterans, natures most annoying animals.
Seasonality is a whore, but it creates specialization just to take advantage or survive in these niches. A poster child of this would be polar bears, but many amphibians are a good example of this. If you hyperspecialize, you'll fall prey to an environmental shift, just ask Platybelodon. So seasonality is a harsh mistress- not only does it inconvenience or cause wholesale death, but it creates hyperspecialization which leaves animals vulnerable on the long term to the ever shifting environments on our planet. If you want long term and widespread success, do as many small rodents and birds do- generalize, generalize, generalize. It means you may get outcompeted in one microenvironment, but in the long term you will usually be the winner. When taken to its extremes, ice ages contribute to wholesale killoffs despite what hippies will tell you about it being man and not 60 below fucking zero that killed off many species.
Tectonics is the second ass pain demonstrating that the planet is a real bitch. The end-Permian extinction is a pretty good example of this; pangaea set the stage for the most nasty dieoff the planet has ever seen. Long term tectonic activity can be devastating to entire groups. Once again though, environments that seem exceptionally unhospitable are made their own by some pioneering animals; in this case, Pogonophorans at geothermal vents. They take advantage of these ephemeral habitats, using wide range broadcast spawning to fluke out and move to the next environment. This reminds me of another example of a ephemeral habitat that makes a barren desert of the oceans depths flourish with life- a whale carcass. Once again, animals take advantage of these habitats that are otherwise very, very harsh. In fact, even terrestrial deserts are made their home by Camels and Oryx, even some amphibians can survive in these environments for decades at a time.
Even thinking of things that are ubiquitous in nature that are exploited wholesale by animals is the reactive and potentially deadly molecule known as Oxygen. How life evolved to exploit this is beyond me, especially since it is a waste product to any photosynthesizers. In fact, photosynthesizers make entire environments for other organisms- forests. I could go on forever about how the sheer adaptability of life has made this planet into something that seems really good for life.
One last comment is volatile environments that select for generalization- mountains and low nutrient mountain streams. Lichens, mosses and even forests spring up in these rocky wastelands, which allows for entire ecosystems to flourish. In fact, the largest extant amphibian on the planet lives in high oxygen, low nutrient streams by having a low metabolism and eating anything it can fit in its mouth that looks like a fish.
In conclusion I'll just point out, again, that life actually makes this planet liveable. It was likely extremophiles that first got the ball rolling. I am a little skeptical of the warm tropical water origins of life, though it is reasonable to include this as a hypothesis. I am more in favor of an oxygen rich cold-water origin of life, or an extremophile ocean vent origin for life. It seems that the slow start to life is all the comparison needed to show that this planet really doesn't like life. Once it got started though, it was terraformed quite rapidly and life began exploiting this planet. It should be noted that I'm not comparing this planet to Jupiter, Saturn or even Venus. Those planets would kill almost any life faster than we'd know what hit us. Early Earth and the slow rise of life, as well as the violent tectonic ways of this planet, definately show that this place isn't ideal for life, it just simply works.
Now, onto the point: Why the Earth isn't so fantastic. Well, lets start with the wobble in the Earth's axis, causing seasonality. Seasonality means two things, generally speaking. A winter/summer cycle or a dry/wet cycle. I'm sure anyone reading this has seen all the documentaries of great migrations of Gnu looking for food in the dry season, or amphibians or fish having to go dormant and encase themselves in mud just to survive. Hell, even the mighty Hippopotamus has to deal with concentration in what is left of rivers in the dry season. So, that's a huge pain in the ass...but during the migrations back to the wet feeding grounds, the gnu have to cross outrageously swelling rivers, leaving them prey to drowning and animals that have adapted to take care of them as they struggle (crocs). So we see a recapitulation of the theme I mentioned in the previous chapter: animals, in this case crocodiles, evolving to take advantage of the ass pain that is seasonality. As for the warm/cold cycle, it should be noted that there are animals that have evolved to take advantage of this by huge migrations. These animals are the millions of caribou, but there are also animals that have evolved to take advantge of them, draining up to 1 liter of blood from them PER DAY. These would be dipterans, natures most annoying animals.
Seasonality is a whore, but it creates specialization just to take advantage or survive in these niches. A poster child of this would be polar bears, but many amphibians are a good example of this. If you hyperspecialize, you'll fall prey to an environmental shift, just ask Platybelodon. So seasonality is a harsh mistress- not only does it inconvenience or cause wholesale death, but it creates hyperspecialization which leaves animals vulnerable on the long term to the ever shifting environments on our planet. If you want long term and widespread success, do as many small rodents and birds do- generalize, generalize, generalize. It means you may get outcompeted in one microenvironment, but in the long term you will usually be the winner. When taken to its extremes, ice ages contribute to wholesale killoffs despite what hippies will tell you about it being man and not 60 below fucking zero that killed off many species.
Tectonics is the second ass pain demonstrating that the planet is a real bitch. The end-Permian extinction is a pretty good example of this; pangaea set the stage for the most nasty dieoff the planet has ever seen. Long term tectonic activity can be devastating to entire groups. Once again though, environments that seem exceptionally unhospitable are made their own by some pioneering animals; in this case, Pogonophorans at geothermal vents. They take advantage of these ephemeral habitats, using wide range broadcast spawning to fluke out and move to the next environment. This reminds me of another example of a ephemeral habitat that makes a barren desert of the oceans depths flourish with life- a whale carcass. Once again, animals take advantage of these habitats that are otherwise very, very harsh. In fact, even terrestrial deserts are made their home by Camels and Oryx, even some amphibians can survive in these environments for decades at a time.
Even thinking of things that are ubiquitous in nature that are exploited wholesale by animals is the reactive and potentially deadly molecule known as Oxygen. How life evolved to exploit this is beyond me, especially since it is a waste product to any photosynthesizers. In fact, photosynthesizers make entire environments for other organisms- forests. I could go on forever about how the sheer adaptability of life has made this planet into something that seems really good for life.
One last comment is volatile environments that select for generalization- mountains and low nutrient mountain streams. Lichens, mosses and even forests spring up in these rocky wastelands, which allows for entire ecosystems to flourish. In fact, the largest extant amphibian on the planet lives in high oxygen, low nutrient streams by having a low metabolism and eating anything it can fit in its mouth that looks like a fish.
In conclusion I'll just point out, again, that life actually makes this planet liveable. It was likely extremophiles that first got the ball rolling. I am a little skeptical of the warm tropical water origins of life, though it is reasonable to include this as a hypothesis. I am more in favor of an oxygen rich cold-water origin of life, or an extremophile ocean vent origin for life. It seems that the slow start to life is all the comparison needed to show that this planet really doesn't like life. Once it got started though, it was terraformed quite rapidly and life began exploiting this planet. It should be noted that I'm not comparing this planet to Jupiter, Saturn or even Venus. Those planets would kill almost any life faster than we'd know what hit us. Early Earth and the slow rise of life, as well as the violent tectonic ways of this planet, definately show that this place isn't ideal for life, it just simply works.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Creationists: Please Play by the Rules.
I'm getting very tired of the creation debate. Creationists often outright claim that Atheists are saying "things happened at random just because". Well, there was a process to the multiple ideas of life arising. In my esteemed and rather unhumble opinion, "just because" would most certainly encompass a creator. What motivation would a creator have for making life? It's all speculation as to why a creator would make anything. If someone can prove he has reasonable motives for making anything beyond "just because", please inform me.
Looking for a purpose to creation is retarded. It is impossible to imply correctly a purpose for anything without knowing first what it actually is. Nobody knows how creation happened for sure or the extent of it, so suggesting a purpose for it is nothing short of pure speculation.
I really get pissed off when creationists use the dodge of "well it's spiritual not scientific". Newflash: It becomes a scientific proposal when you actively propose countering ideas to current hypothesis and it becomes the business of any scientifically minded human being when that idea is invasively imposed on a community that continues to reject it. So, you have two errors going on, scientifically speaking: You can't hide behind faith if you are imposing it in a scientific way and you can't claim it's a reasonable counter to anything if it's not accepted and is constantly beat down as an idea. Stop hiding behind "how do you know" and "prove it". You are making the claim that there is a creator, please provide evidence.
It is a classic defense of faith to make a positive claim and then regress to a passive "prove your view". If you are making the initial claim, namely that a creator exists and did anything, you are responsible for providing evidence. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence; you cannot say "you can't disprove anything". The way it works is that if you cannot back up your claims for the existence of your idea, then you are wrong. Stop debating like pussies and stop trying to fit yourself into a community with rules when they are consistently broken by you.
Evolution debates ALWAYS regress into a creation debate. Evolution is NOT the same as creation. It's a cognitive regression to move from an evolution debate, where the average creationist gets landslided, to move into creation. Debate one or the other and stop using the lack of knowledge in one to disprove another. That is cowardly.
Let me now take a moment to point out that the creation of life is pretty much a stupid debate. Short of time travel, which I assure you is impossible unless time is infact a malleable and not conceptual entity, finding out how our discrete form of life was created is impossible. The truely amazing part in all this is that the closest we can get is by studying fossils and using the powers of comparative anatomy, as well as other scientific processes. However, there is a large portion of creationists that simply reject fossils or seem to discount them entirely!
The group that discounts fossils can be referred to as stupids, but for the purposes of this diatribe I am going to call them YEC's, or Young Earth Creationists. Many, many of these people simply don't understand what they are debating against. Even more of them are finally willing to admit that microevolution occurs, but won't admit to macro. The missing element here, of course, is time. One million years is a long, long time. Depending on the creature, that can be tens of thousands of generations on average. Thinking the Earth was created as the bible says is a foolish thing to do in a dogmatic way; it has been mistranslated and your creator may not be the creator, so says Genesis. The only way this idea can even come close to being legitimized is by rejecting tons of scientific concepts, such as radiometric dating. I won't get into that at this time, since I could go on for hours.
This makes me really want to do an entry about dogma.
Looking for a purpose to creation is retarded. It is impossible to imply correctly a purpose for anything without knowing first what it actually is. Nobody knows how creation happened for sure or the extent of it, so suggesting a purpose for it is nothing short of pure speculation.
I really get pissed off when creationists use the dodge of "well it's spiritual not scientific". Newflash: It becomes a scientific proposal when you actively propose countering ideas to current hypothesis and it becomes the business of any scientifically minded human being when that idea is invasively imposed on a community that continues to reject it. So, you have two errors going on, scientifically speaking: You can't hide behind faith if you are imposing it in a scientific way and you can't claim it's a reasonable counter to anything if it's not accepted and is constantly beat down as an idea. Stop hiding behind "how do you know" and "prove it". You are making the claim that there is a creator, please provide evidence.
It is a classic defense of faith to make a positive claim and then regress to a passive "prove your view". If you are making the initial claim, namely that a creator exists and did anything, you are responsible for providing evidence. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence; you cannot say "you can't disprove anything". The way it works is that if you cannot back up your claims for the existence of your idea, then you are wrong. Stop debating like pussies and stop trying to fit yourself into a community with rules when they are consistently broken by you.
Evolution debates ALWAYS regress into a creation debate. Evolution is NOT the same as creation. It's a cognitive regression to move from an evolution debate, where the average creationist gets landslided, to move into creation. Debate one or the other and stop using the lack of knowledge in one to disprove another. That is cowardly.
Let me now take a moment to point out that the creation of life is pretty much a stupid debate. Short of time travel, which I assure you is impossible unless time is infact a malleable and not conceptual entity, finding out how our discrete form of life was created is impossible. The truely amazing part in all this is that the closest we can get is by studying fossils and using the powers of comparative anatomy, as well as other scientific processes. However, there is a large portion of creationists that simply reject fossils or seem to discount them entirely!
The group that discounts fossils can be referred to as stupids, but for the purposes of this diatribe I am going to call them YEC's, or Young Earth Creationists. Many, many of these people simply don't understand what they are debating against. Even more of them are finally willing to admit that microevolution occurs, but won't admit to macro. The missing element here, of course, is time. One million years is a long, long time. Depending on the creature, that can be tens of thousands of generations on average. Thinking the Earth was created as the bible says is a foolish thing to do in a dogmatic way; it has been mistranslated and your creator may not be the creator, so says Genesis. The only way this idea can even come close to being legitimized is by rejecting tons of scientific concepts, such as radiometric dating. I won't get into that at this time, since I could go on for hours.
This makes me really want to do an entry about dogma.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Architeuthis, how I missed thee
I've been a fan of mollusks for several years now. I'm not talking about the Monoplacophran, Aplacophoran or Polyplacophoran (though admittedly, Chitons do look badass), lazy slobs that lay around all day munching on crap or algae. Hell, the majority of the gastropods are kind of boring as well. The primary exception to the last sentence, would of course be the nudibranchs (see here as well), but others do exist outside the nudibranchs. As for the bivalves, who doesn't love the reproductive habits of the foul tasting Unionids? For the most part, Scaphopods are not terrible because of their lovely captacula, and I must say that the extinct intermediate group the Rostroconchs are a real treat as well. Really I'm just singling out the outstanding Cephalopds, masters of everything spineless. That's not to say that they are cowards, they just don't have any backbone.
Anyways, an article slipped by me recently that left me somewhat displeased with my own effort to keep up to date. After seeing this gem a while back, I've really been intrigued to see how the Japanese (or at least researchers in the Sea of Japan) plan to move on to the next phase- catching a live specimen. Suffice to say, wrangling a small specimen (25 feet) like the one in the above photogallery requires alot of skill, patience, power and a delicate touch.
Well, it turns out that it has been done. A live animal has been caught and photographed up close, but it died of its injuries in the battle to get it on board (literally, they are strong by oh so fragile, especially out of water). I know the first photo looks fake, but lets all just remember how some people cast doubt on the Colossal squid in the Sea of Ross even being real, but it certainly is. They do have a rather plasticy look to them, don't they?
I also somehow missed the photos of a live sperm whale with the remains of a giant squid in its mouth!! They confirmed this by actually collecting the tentacles strewn off this sample as the whale swam around like an idiot with its food in its mouth.
Well anyways, I guess that's it for my rambling about giant squid. I really hope that live samples are caught and raised in captivity so that I can see them. For all you who think it's cruel to have animals, especially large and intelligent ones like this, in captivity, you are absolutely correct. Does my desire to see them in person (and eat them in some occasions) outweigh their "lower quality of life"? You bet. Speaking of which, their "lowered quality of life" really isn't so bad- no predators while growing, all the free food you can eat and of course the low stress that goes along with it.
Anyways, an article slipped by me recently that left me somewhat displeased with my own effort to keep up to date. After seeing this gem a while back, I've really been intrigued to see how the Japanese (or at least researchers in the Sea of Japan) plan to move on to the next phase- catching a live specimen. Suffice to say, wrangling a small specimen (25 feet) like the one in the above photogallery requires alot of skill, patience, power and a delicate touch.
Well, it turns out that it has been done. A live animal has been caught and photographed up close, but it died of its injuries in the battle to get it on board (literally, they are strong by oh so fragile, especially out of water). I know the first photo looks fake, but lets all just remember how some people cast doubt on the Colossal squid in the Sea of Ross even being real, but it certainly is. They do have a rather plasticy look to them, don't they?
I also somehow missed the photos of a live sperm whale with the remains of a giant squid in its mouth!! They confirmed this by actually collecting the tentacles strewn off this sample as the whale swam around like an idiot with its food in its mouth.
Well anyways, I guess that's it for my rambling about giant squid. I really hope that live samples are caught and raised in captivity so that I can see them. For all you who think it's cruel to have animals, especially large and intelligent ones like this, in captivity, you are absolutely correct. Does my desire to see them in person (and eat them in some occasions) outweigh their "lower quality of life"? You bet. Speaking of which, their "lowered quality of life" really isn't so bad- no predators while growing, all the free food you can eat and of course the low stress that goes along with it.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Agnostic or Atheist?
I've been asked many times why I "selected" to become Atheist and further to that, why I am so stubborn in my lack of belief. It's a rather complex question, so I guess the logical place to start would be the question of Agnosticism.
I view Agnostics as people who are intellectually unwilling or unable to make a definitive call. People will support them by saying they are open minded and use arguements usually converging along the lines of "How do you know there ISN'T A GOD". I think this is a good time to point out that I think Dawkins is a total asshole and I don't typically follow his every idea like some idiots do, but how do we know there isn't a flying spaghetti monster?
I'd like to elaborate on the aforementioned a smidge before moving on. I am a man of science. Science is NOT an opposing view to religion, it is a process. If you play by the rules, you get fair treatment and can be rejected or accepted by the community. Pretty simple, but my process is very cut throat and exceptionally black and white. You either play by the rules or you get the fuck out and if there is observable evidence, a judgement call can be made on the nature of that observation. So, to take an idea like a God which is as malleable as potters clay and then impose absolute truth ideals on it based on nothing more than analogical evidence and it becomes what is very clearly a violation of the rules, keeping in mind that analogical evidence can be a fantastic support for observable evidence if the observable evidence does indeed exist. As a parting shot for this paragraph I'll point out that you can indeed observe a Bible or Quran, but the stories contained within it are all purely analogical and therefore at face value are worthless to base a world view on. I won't even touch on the inherant hypocritical behaviours of religious folk or the clear mistakes and contradictions within the Bible and other religious storybooks, slashing it's credibility to almost zero.
So, it comes down to the question of whether or not I am willing to permit, as a possibility, something that is admittedly unproveable by the community supporting it. Hell, it doesn't even have to be a proof, but SOMETHING more observable than a feeling or unconfirmable voice in your head (By the way, if you experience that, please get it checked). I, for one, am not willing to let abstract ideas violate my world view for the simple reason that I can't observe them. If I can observe something, it is very likely real and therefore subject to a hypothesis on the nature of it. Please note at this time that I am not blindly following science as a community- I think crap like theoretical physics and astrobiology really needs to take a step back and realize they are basing entire ideas on other hypothesized ideas as if there is some shred of evidence behind it; it basically dumbs down to elaboration of unproven ideas. That is something that sounds very familiar, but I won't spoonfeed you and tell you what it is that it is reminisent of because it's really obvious. The bottom line here is that I subscribe to a black and white view of observation. It is within that observation that interpretation is allowed. Interpretation without a proper, grounding observation is scienticially irresponsible. So I really didn't "select" to become atheist. Through fair observation I have come to the conclusion that there is really no reasonable supporting evidence for a God and that means saying "well what if" has no place either.
It is true that science does base alot of its workings on prediction and that is, infact, a great confirmation for a working hypothesis. To predict that there is a god is completely and totally fair, but you need to back it up. It's a very simple thing to do: Demonstrate to me that your God exists using more than analogical evidence and demonstrate that He has the properties that you claim he has. As further example to this, I could predict that a flying shark exists. If, after 2000 years or more of searching, study and observing there is not a shred of evidence for it, it's likely the hypothesis has been beaten down. In the case of 2000 years, it's definately overkill.
Dawkins suggested that everyone is inherantly atheist- monotheistic cultures just inherantly believe in one more god than I do and obviously polytheistic cultures believe in more than one more god than I do. Agnostics aren't just "leaving the door open", infact I have yet to meet one that hasn't already selected a god that they are leaving the door open for. For example, every North American agnostic I have met leaves the door open for Jesus and likewise I imagine that an agnostic having Indian upbringing will leave the door open for their myriad of gods. If someone reading this is infact an agnostic that leaves the door open to "all gods", I'd be interested in talking to you about how and why you are wrong- there is no way that you take something like Napi or Thor with the same credibility as Jesus or whatever deity you prefer.
So what if agnostics are favoring a certain God though? Well, for one it could be said that agnostics are infact not employing a fair trial- to lean towards an atheistic existence but holding one (or more) god in higher esteem than any other god considering the same amount of evidence presented for each is most certainly not fair. Leaving the door open in that way suggests there is some semblance of belief or at the very least a free pass granted on behalf of the view holder. STOP GIVING FAITH A FREE PASS and you will open yourself to a world of ruthless scorn for faith that can only be enjoyed by a rational human being.
In conclusion I will say that agnostics need to shit or get off the pot. Either there is a god and you are adhering to the definition of faith (belief without evidence) or there simply is not. There are two ways of looking at the world: "I'll believe it when I see it" and "Believe it and you'll see it". Two ways of life work fine for various people, true or not, but walking that lines means you are unwilling to commit to your faith or lack thereof and that makes you a complete pussy.
I view Agnostics as people who are intellectually unwilling or unable to make a definitive call. People will support them by saying they are open minded and use arguements usually converging along the lines of "How do you know there ISN'T A GOD". I think this is a good time to point out that I think Dawkins is a total asshole and I don't typically follow his every idea like some idiots do, but how do we know there isn't a flying spaghetti monster?
I'd like to elaborate on the aforementioned a smidge before moving on. I am a man of science. Science is NOT an opposing view to religion, it is a process. If you play by the rules, you get fair treatment and can be rejected or accepted by the community. Pretty simple, but my process is very cut throat and exceptionally black and white. You either play by the rules or you get the fuck out and if there is observable evidence, a judgement call can be made on the nature of that observation. So, to take an idea like a God which is as malleable as potters clay and then impose absolute truth ideals on it based on nothing more than analogical evidence and it becomes what is very clearly a violation of the rules, keeping in mind that analogical evidence can be a fantastic support for observable evidence if the observable evidence does indeed exist. As a parting shot for this paragraph I'll point out that you can indeed observe a Bible or Quran, but the stories contained within it are all purely analogical and therefore at face value are worthless to base a world view on. I won't even touch on the inherant hypocritical behaviours of religious folk or the clear mistakes and contradictions within the Bible and other religious storybooks, slashing it's credibility to almost zero.
So, it comes down to the question of whether or not I am willing to permit, as a possibility, something that is admittedly unproveable by the community supporting it. Hell, it doesn't even have to be a proof, but SOMETHING more observable than a feeling or unconfirmable voice in your head (By the way, if you experience that, please get it checked). I, for one, am not willing to let abstract ideas violate my world view for the simple reason that I can't observe them. If I can observe something, it is very likely real and therefore subject to a hypothesis on the nature of it. Please note at this time that I am not blindly following science as a community- I think crap like theoretical physics and astrobiology really needs to take a step back and realize they are basing entire ideas on other hypothesized ideas as if there is some shred of evidence behind it; it basically dumbs down to elaboration of unproven ideas. That is something that sounds very familiar, but I won't spoonfeed you and tell you what it is that it is reminisent of because it's really obvious. The bottom line here is that I subscribe to a black and white view of observation. It is within that observation that interpretation is allowed. Interpretation without a proper, grounding observation is scienticially irresponsible. So I really didn't "select" to become atheist. Through fair observation I have come to the conclusion that there is really no reasonable supporting evidence for a God and that means saying "well what if" has no place either.
It is true that science does base alot of its workings on prediction and that is, infact, a great confirmation for a working hypothesis. To predict that there is a god is completely and totally fair, but you need to back it up. It's a very simple thing to do: Demonstrate to me that your God exists using more than analogical evidence and demonstrate that He has the properties that you claim he has. As further example to this, I could predict that a flying shark exists. If, after 2000 years or more of searching, study and observing there is not a shred of evidence for it, it's likely the hypothesis has been beaten down. In the case of 2000 years, it's definately overkill.
Dawkins suggested that everyone is inherantly atheist- monotheistic cultures just inherantly believe in one more god than I do and obviously polytheistic cultures believe in more than one more god than I do. Agnostics aren't just "leaving the door open", infact I have yet to meet one that hasn't already selected a god that they are leaving the door open for. For example, every North American agnostic I have met leaves the door open for Jesus and likewise I imagine that an agnostic having Indian upbringing will leave the door open for their myriad of gods. If someone reading this is infact an agnostic that leaves the door open to "all gods", I'd be interested in talking to you about how and why you are wrong- there is no way that you take something like Napi or Thor with the same credibility as Jesus or whatever deity you prefer.
So what if agnostics are favoring a certain God though? Well, for one it could be said that agnostics are infact not employing a fair trial- to lean towards an atheistic existence but holding one (or more) god in higher esteem than any other god considering the same amount of evidence presented for each is most certainly not fair. Leaving the door open in that way suggests there is some semblance of belief or at the very least a free pass granted on behalf of the view holder. STOP GIVING FAITH A FREE PASS and you will open yourself to a world of ruthless scorn for faith that can only be enjoyed by a rational human being.
In conclusion I will say that agnostics need to shit or get off the pot. Either there is a god and you are adhering to the definition of faith (belief without evidence) or there simply is not. There are two ways of looking at the world: "I'll believe it when I see it" and "Believe it and you'll see it". Two ways of life work fine for various people, true or not, but walking that lines means you are unwilling to commit to your faith or lack thereof and that makes you a complete pussy.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Ida, I think you've had enough
Well, well, well. Looks like the "swine flu" of primates has been outted as a fraud. Turns out, lemurs aren't people and they sure as hell weren't even close 47 million years ago, though you wouldn't know it from the original press release.
I said it from the start, though you wouldn't know it looking at this blog, but Ida (aka. Darwinius masillae) was taken by the media in a frenzy of stupidity, jumping the gun and rushed conclusions and turned into a missing link. Now, I'm all for a good transitional form, but if you are going to call something that you best back it up. It turns out that anyone who flipped out about Ida was incorrect (See: most people without a palaeontological or related background).
Seriously though, Palaeo is basically a discipline of comparative anatomy. So, to just call something a human ancestor based on it being a simian is kind of foolish. I can't say for sure why it was originally hailed as a 'missing link', but what I can say for sure is that due care wasn't taken before calling the heralds. To be fair, this should have been fairly obvious to any primate worker.
So to call everyone who flipped out an idiot is a little bit unfair; however, those in the know typically are more reserved about these things. Speaking of reserved and near as I can tell, (palaeo)anthropology is just about the most anally retentive field on this side of archaeology, so it really makes sense to cool the afterburners before declaring things one way or the other. This field is so politically charged that it really is foolish and rather embarassing to people who legitimately do this kind of work that people would flip out so readily- people like the bible bangers down in the states are very keen to pick apart any mistake made by the process of science and then declare that science is wrong on all fronts (but then be the first in line to get a vaccination, as typical hypocrites would indeed do) and then go immediately to deities, creation and blah blah blah.
Anyways, I digress. The whole point here is that I dislike media whores whoring actual science, and this includes H1N1, which appears to be rather milder and with a lower death rate than people keep claiming. I base this, of course, on heresay and personal communications from various people more in the know than I am...but I credit that with more than I would any news source until I see some real publication from a credible source. Anyways, the truely tragic thing is that the stupids will continue to harp on Ida, especially the creationists, even in light of the recent publication showing it really has no business in direct hominid ancestry.
In related news, the "earliest ape" has been outted as a Strepsirrhine liar as well:
Seriously lemurs, get the fuck out of my family tree.
Seriously folks, if you want something with some credibility as a very early ancestory animal of man, look no further than Purgatorius or Carpolestes, though at this point it really falls under the category of potential common ancestry for both man and lemur. That's the lovely part about evolution and palaeo- the further back you go, the more basal the finds tend to be.
I said it from the start, though you wouldn't know it looking at this blog, but Ida (aka. Darwinius masillae) was taken by the media in a frenzy of stupidity, jumping the gun and rushed conclusions and turned into a missing link. Now, I'm all for a good transitional form, but if you are going to call something that you best back it up. It turns out that anyone who flipped out about Ida was incorrect (See: most people without a palaeontological or related background).
Seriously though, Palaeo is basically a discipline of comparative anatomy. So, to just call something a human ancestor based on it being a simian is kind of foolish. I can't say for sure why it was originally hailed as a 'missing link', but what I can say for sure is that due care wasn't taken before calling the heralds. To be fair, this should have been fairly obvious to any primate worker.
So to call everyone who flipped out an idiot is a little bit unfair; however, those in the know typically are more reserved about these things. Speaking of reserved and near as I can tell, (palaeo)anthropology is just about the most anally retentive field on this side of archaeology, so it really makes sense to cool the afterburners before declaring things one way or the other. This field is so politically charged that it really is foolish and rather embarassing to people who legitimately do this kind of work that people would flip out so readily- people like the bible bangers down in the states are very keen to pick apart any mistake made by the process of science and then declare that science is wrong on all fronts (but then be the first in line to get a vaccination, as typical hypocrites would indeed do) and then go immediately to deities, creation and blah blah blah.
Anyways, I digress. The whole point here is that I dislike media whores whoring actual science, and this includes H1N1, which appears to be rather milder and with a lower death rate than people keep claiming. I base this, of course, on heresay and personal communications from various people more in the know than I am...but I credit that with more than I would any news source until I see some real publication from a credible source. Anyways, the truely tragic thing is that the stupids will continue to harp on Ida, especially the creationists, even in light of the recent publication showing it really has no business in direct hominid ancestry.
In related news, the "earliest ape" has been outted as a Strepsirrhine liar as well:
Seriously lemurs, get the fuck out of my family tree.
Seriously folks, if you want something with some credibility as a very early ancestory animal of man, look no further than Purgatorius or Carpolestes, though at this point it really falls under the category of potential common ancestry for both man and lemur. That's the lovely part about evolution and palaeo- the further back you go, the more basal the finds tend to be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)