Lets talk for a moment about creationism. Now, you can call this and that a nail in the coffin, but at one point the theory with more pieces of evidence than any other theory (if you are a retard, there is a difference between hypothesis and theory) becomes a coffin made of nails, stuffed to the gills, so to speak, with evidence. Just as an aside: As we SHOULD recall, a theory holds a ton more water than a hypothesis. An example of a hypothesis is creationism- no real evidence (yet) backing an idea that has been proposed.
One thing harped on by creation over and over is a missing link. Tiktaalik, Eusthenopteron, Archaeopteryx and Australopithecus are all missing links that have fallen prey to Scientific naming. What I mean by this is quite simple. Once you give a proper name to a species in the fossil record it creates two more gaps. The fossil record cannot record every single animal ever. So, a time to strike comes, burying the opposition and forever ruining that argument once and for all. My proposal is the following: Australopithecus sediba, a smoking gun that is exactly where it needs to be morphologically and chronologically to be a perfect missing link between ape-like hominoids and hominids, should not be named. It should be called a missing link and not assigned a proper specific epithet. Of course, it already has, but that should be rescinded and stripped. This animal should be called THE human missing link. In one fell swoop you would demolish a pivotal creationist crutch of "show me a missing link" (which we do, but they are babies in need of spoon feeding) and basically sucker punch them with their highly touted soul-bearing original-sin garabge Humanity.
It's a sad day when this has to be suggested. You know, with a seamless fossil record, you would actually have to call things transitional. In a cascading series of skeletons from point A to B, the 50% mark on the line between them must be called transitional- you cannot assign a species name to that if you are not a douche bag. A perfect 50/50 split, like our nice hominid based on 2 complete skeletons (not fragmentary shit), would have to be transitional. You could even have put these two in the genus Homo
...that's how close it is.
Count on arky/anthro to FUCK things up again.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Science shocks again.
Everyone seems to be loving this
Wow, big shock, small predators in the cretaceous were scavengers too! Honestly, the fact this this is even news is beyond me. The amount of tooth-marked bone I've seen in my short career is quite enough to make this not an issue. OH WOW, some broken teeth were found associated that match some teeth marks! Mundane, expected, who cares. Predators do as predators are.
Racism: Turns out I'm right to call differences. As if my two readers didn't already know it.
Anyways, this isn't impressive because once again I'm correct, but it's impressive because of the implications. I know I'm waaaay behind the ball on this, and that's my fault, for not giving a shit about bacteria or genetics. However, the fact that gene swapping can apparently happen between unrelated and un-mating bacteria is pretty impressive.
Holy shit science fucked up, again, this proves jesus
Don't flip out cause a 2 meter varanid was found in a populated area. It hardly comes to the ground and apparently sticks to the trees. What I find most impressive about this is that it is a frugivore. All the other varanids, including its close relative the komodo, had better be calling it fruity.
You'd think this is the coolest of news this month, but it's not.
Yet another nail in the coffin. By now, the creationist coffin has to be MADE of nails. Does a 'missing link' get any better? Half the experts want it in the genus Homo, half in Australopithecus, yet it has to land somewhere. The traits support it as a total transition form, at a predicted time for it (2MYA) which is a time only known from fragments til now and sought after as the time that ape turned into man, so to speak.
No matter what happens, this fellow and his equally complete mommy from near Johannesburg, South Africa, will need a genus, thusly conveniently creating yet another gap instead of rightfully filling one.
Now for the BIG BIG news
Metazoans: Turns out, Oxygen isn't our crutch after all.
Okay, so it's a crutch for all but like 1 or 2 species so far. Either way, the fact that anoxic real estate is inhabited metazoans and not just bacteria is MASSIVE. Imagine the implications for the history of the Earth!!!!!!
Okay, I know it's a lame post but get off my jock, I'm sure the 2 readers can deal with it.
Wow, big shock, small predators in the cretaceous were scavengers too! Honestly, the fact this this is even news is beyond me. The amount of tooth-marked bone I've seen in my short career is quite enough to make this not an issue. OH WOW, some broken teeth were found associated that match some teeth marks! Mundane, expected, who cares. Predators do as predators are.
Racism: Turns out I'm right to call differences. As if my two readers didn't already know it.
Anyways, this isn't impressive because once again I'm correct, but it's impressive because of the implications. I know I'm waaaay behind the ball on this, and that's my fault, for not giving a shit about bacteria or genetics. However, the fact that gene swapping can apparently happen between unrelated and un-mating bacteria is pretty impressive.
Holy shit science fucked up, again, this proves jesus
Don't flip out cause a 2 meter varanid was found in a populated area. It hardly comes to the ground and apparently sticks to the trees. What I find most impressive about this is that it is a frugivore. All the other varanids, including its close relative the komodo, had better be calling it fruity.
You'd think this is the coolest of news this month, but it's not.
Yet another nail in the coffin. By now, the creationist coffin has to be MADE of nails. Does a 'missing link' get any better? Half the experts want it in the genus Homo, half in Australopithecus, yet it has to land somewhere. The traits support it as a total transition form, at a predicted time for it (2MYA) which is a time only known from fragments til now and sought after as the time that ape turned into man, so to speak.
No matter what happens, this fellow and his equally complete mommy from near Johannesburg, South Africa, will need a genus, thusly conveniently creating yet another gap instead of rightfully filling one.
Now for the BIG BIG news
Metazoans: Turns out, Oxygen isn't our crutch after all.
Okay, so it's a crutch for all but like 1 or 2 species so far. Either way, the fact that anoxic real estate is inhabited metazoans and not just bacteria is MASSIVE. Imagine the implications for the history of the Earth!!!!!!
Okay, I know it's a lame post but get off my jock, I'm sure the 2 readers can deal with it.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Sorry Arkys but race DOES exist.
Firstly I wanna comment on something about some archaeologists I've met. Some of them are quite incredible and awesome. Great scientists. Others, namely many that fester with an undergrad degree at a blockbuster hoping someone hires them for the 'incredible' insights need to fuck off. YOU CANNOT PARTICIPATE PROPERLY IN TRUE SCIENCE WITH AN ARTS DEGREE. Digging through a dead cultures trash is no more a science than taking a shit on a flower and watching the effects, at least not the way your artsy interpretations work. Seriously, a single flake found at a site tells me the following: Someone made a tool, at least in part, in this spot, some time ago. What it tells them: The exact layout of the camp of an unknown tribe, complete with butchering area, size of camp, number of occupants and tents and duration of stay. When you point out that it doesn't tell you that reasonably, they rage on you and call you a faggot. Yes, logic is the "faggot" here. Fuck you, pseudoscience art fuckstains.
Yeah, you can tell I'm not too pleased with these gems of people, which is why I saved it for a particularly bad day...to facilitate my rage.
Anyways, one thing this oh-so-educated group pipes about is how race doesn't exist. Now, logically, the Bush-men of Africa have been shown to GENETICALLY be the most plesiomorphic group on the planet. I guess genetics matter for not when you have a blanket principle. That sounds like another group I rip on a lot...interesting. Let me hit you all with some fact: if a 3 year old can make the observation, odds are it exists.
Now I know, once again, it may come off as racist for me to say "black people have larger lips, curly hair and tons more melanin than whitey". Well, yeah, it's technically a stereotype. Stereotypes are based on one key thing though and that thing is observation. You don't hear about a ton of asian people flying through the air at will on wings of gold because they don't do it. If they did, I bet it would be racist to say that. I am rambling; lets get to the point. There are differences between the races. It's not like a species level thing, or even a subspecies thing. This is something called phenotypic plasticity. We see it in all sorts of other animals and it can very frequently be an allele thing.
I will give you a non human example.
CLICK
CLICK
CLICK
Crested geckos, Rhacodactylus ciliatus. Currently spamming the pet trade for breeding like Giraffes (see: can't be stopped) and for being amazingly docile without the need for heat or UV (but that's another blog, how much I hate herpetoculturists). You will note the vibrant color differences in these geckos- however, what is more subtle, is the orientation of the crests (vertical or horizontal), size of the crests, size of the gecko itself and many other subtle character traits that someone that bred them, such as myself, would recognize. These are referred to as "morphs" in the Herpetoculture community and in my opinion they aren't really that dissimilar from race. The one true difference is that race in humanity reflects isolated populations breeding for generations expressing different phenotypes and the reptiles are isolated populations being (irresponsibly) inbred and selectively bred to rapidly express different phenotypes. Hey, what do you know, when I write it that way they sound the same with one being rapid and the other being slower.
If race doesn't exist, why do we cast blacks to be president in the movie 2012 or most movies with a president in them these days? Why do we bother casting a black kid to be the offspring of a black in a movie? Oh, right, Archaeologists would argue vehemently that it's a cultural construct and that culture makes movies. Last I checked, Archaeologists basically study ancient cultures....so would it not make sense to apply cultural constructs to your research? OF FUCKING COURSE IT WOULD YOU BLOODY HYPOCRITES!
I defy them to provide me 2 people with pure ancestry from Japan who have given birth to someone with blonde hair and blue eyes or black skin with curly hair (instead of the Japanese norm, straight). It isn't going to happen. Do you know why it isn't going to happen? Certain genes either aren't functioning or are completely removed from certain populations; failing that, they lack ability to express themselves due to our friend genetics. The moment they show me two people with ancestry from Kenya producing a child that is Maori, or any cross-race combination like that, I will drop my standpoint and bend over for them. Til then, the evidence is strongly in my court.
So to sum it up,
Points for Steve: Genetics, observation a 3 year old could make, logic
Points for Arky: Hypocrisy
Total Score: 3 to -1. Good job assholes, no wonder everyone with half a brain fucking hates you.
Yeah, you can tell I'm not too pleased with these gems of people, which is why I saved it for a particularly bad day...to facilitate my rage.
Anyways, one thing this oh-so-educated group pipes about is how race doesn't exist. Now, logically, the Bush-men of Africa have been shown to GENETICALLY be the most plesiomorphic group on the planet. I guess genetics matter for not when you have a blanket principle. That sounds like another group I rip on a lot...interesting. Let me hit you all with some fact: if a 3 year old can make the observation, odds are it exists.
Now I know, once again, it may come off as racist for me to say "black people have larger lips, curly hair and tons more melanin than whitey". Well, yeah, it's technically a stereotype. Stereotypes are based on one key thing though and that thing is observation. You don't hear about a ton of asian people flying through the air at will on wings of gold because they don't do it. If they did, I bet it would be racist to say that. I am rambling; lets get to the point. There are differences between the races. It's not like a species level thing, or even a subspecies thing. This is something called phenotypic plasticity. We see it in all sorts of other animals and it can very frequently be an allele thing.
I will give you a non human example.
CLICK
CLICK
CLICK
Crested geckos, Rhacodactylus ciliatus. Currently spamming the pet trade for breeding like Giraffes (see: can't be stopped) and for being amazingly docile without the need for heat or UV (but that's another blog, how much I hate herpetoculturists). You will note the vibrant color differences in these geckos- however, what is more subtle, is the orientation of the crests (vertical or horizontal), size of the crests, size of the gecko itself and many other subtle character traits that someone that bred them, such as myself, would recognize. These are referred to as "morphs" in the Herpetoculture community and in my opinion they aren't really that dissimilar from race. The one true difference is that race in humanity reflects isolated populations breeding for generations expressing different phenotypes and the reptiles are isolated populations being (irresponsibly) inbred and selectively bred to rapidly express different phenotypes. Hey, what do you know, when I write it that way they sound the same with one being rapid and the other being slower.
If race doesn't exist, why do we cast blacks to be president in the movie 2012 or most movies with a president in them these days? Why do we bother casting a black kid to be the offspring of a black in a movie? Oh, right, Archaeologists would argue vehemently that it's a cultural construct and that culture makes movies. Last I checked, Archaeologists basically study ancient cultures....so would it not make sense to apply cultural constructs to your research? OF FUCKING COURSE IT WOULD YOU BLOODY HYPOCRITES!
I defy them to provide me 2 people with pure ancestry from Japan who have given birth to someone with blonde hair and blue eyes or black skin with curly hair (instead of the Japanese norm, straight). It isn't going to happen. Do you know why it isn't going to happen? Certain genes either aren't functioning or are completely removed from certain populations; failing that, they lack ability to express themselves due to our friend genetics. The moment they show me two people with ancestry from Kenya producing a child that is Maori, or any cross-race combination like that, I will drop my standpoint and bend over for them. Til then, the evidence is strongly in my court.
So to sum it up,
Points for Steve: Genetics, observation a 3 year old could make, logic
Points for Arky: Hypocrisy
Total Score: 3 to -1. Good job assholes, no wonder everyone with half a brain fucking hates you.
Friday, March 5, 2010
A note to the Culturally Impaired.
I'm sure someone is going to call me racist for this, but I will qualify the term "Culturally Impaired" and then you too will be educated like me. Culturally Impaired is a term I made up a number of years ago. It doesn't refer to a culture being impaired compared to another one or imply inferiority of one way of life over any other. What I would say is the best descriptor for it is the following:
"A person or people who find themselves in another culture for an extended period of time (ie the rest of their life) and refuse to learn the language, culture, way of life or even common basic manners to allow for better functioning within the culture they are in."
Now it should be pointed out that I'm not saying they should assimilate; Jews can have their Chanukah, people can Kwanza it up for all I care and they can eat all their ethnic foods and whatnot til they explode. I am not asking them to change, I would just like for them to function. I suppose the best way to talk about what this term means is to give an example.
Every year the street I currently live on has a block party. Everyone comes, it's like 5 bucks to register and it's a good time. Everyone comes...except, that is, the two asian families. The parents are shut-ins, closing their blinds and even crying to the city the day of the event as if it's some big shock to them. I don't understand what is so difficult about coming out and enjoying a beer and a burger with people you live next to and see on the regular. These people, I would say, are culturally impaired. They shun friendliness and instead drive their car like it's a god damn bike. They cut people off in the supermarket as if they are still living in Shanghai and act like total pricks.
The above example highlights a classic case of cultural impairment. Why, then, was the word impaired chosen over the word "retraded" or "cocksmithery"? Simple. A drunk driver is pretty out of it and is said to be impaired. He is an inconvenience or perhaps a danger to all those around him and is unable to function at driving in much the same way that the culturally impaired are unable to function in our culture. It's kind of like a zombie being referred to as the living impaired- they are a great problem, inconvenience and danger to those who are not living impaired. So the impaired affect themselves and those around them in a negative way....hence, Culturally Impaired.
I do not understand these people. Move to Canada from where ever, you are more than welcome. When you start shunning yourself like some fuck rag and treating others like pieces of shit or whatever, that's where I have an issue. I guess this makes me look like a total asshole, not being flexible to their way of life. That simply isn't the case though- I just want functionality, not assimilation. Their kids don't have a problem in our schools becoming human (or somewhat human, as per gang members and other toolbags who think high school is serious business). I don't know what's so hard about learning a basic understanding of the dominant language of your country and figure out that people wanna punch you in the breast for cutting them off while piloting your shopping cart. I would personally dislike being unable to communicate and being hated in the place I CHOSE to move to. If you wanna be hear so badly that you move you should probably try to function. FUNCTION FUNCTION FUNCTION. I didn't say that word enough yet.
Man these people piss me off. Just for reference, it can happen to all people- whites included. A nice example of what TO do would be my neighbors. Moved over from Germany with their little kids and learned the language and culture, but still speak German at home and have all their traditions in tact. They are lovely people, well liked and function quite well in this society. In fact, I'd be sad if they had to leave for any reason. Was that so hard for them to do? I don't think so.
So, a note to any culturally impaired who can actually read this (See: None): LEARN HOW TO LIVE IN THE COUNTRY YOU ARE IN OR GET THE FUCK OUT. We want you here, but only if you aren't going to be a prickly son of a bitch shut in.
"A person or people who find themselves in another culture for an extended period of time (ie the rest of their life) and refuse to learn the language, culture, way of life or even common basic manners to allow for better functioning within the culture they are in."
Now it should be pointed out that I'm not saying they should assimilate; Jews can have their Chanukah, people can Kwanza it up for all I care and they can eat all their ethnic foods and whatnot til they explode. I am not asking them to change, I would just like for them to function. I suppose the best way to talk about what this term means is to give an example.
Every year the street I currently live on has a block party. Everyone comes, it's like 5 bucks to register and it's a good time. Everyone comes...except, that is, the two asian families. The parents are shut-ins, closing their blinds and even crying to the city the day of the event as if it's some big shock to them. I don't understand what is so difficult about coming out and enjoying a beer and a burger with people you live next to and see on the regular. These people, I would say, are culturally impaired. They shun friendliness and instead drive their car like it's a god damn bike. They cut people off in the supermarket as if they are still living in Shanghai and act like total pricks.
The above example highlights a classic case of cultural impairment. Why, then, was the word impaired chosen over the word "retraded" or "cocksmithery"? Simple. A drunk driver is pretty out of it and is said to be impaired. He is an inconvenience or perhaps a danger to all those around him and is unable to function at driving in much the same way that the culturally impaired are unable to function in our culture. It's kind of like a zombie being referred to as the living impaired- they are a great problem, inconvenience and danger to those who are not living impaired. So the impaired affect themselves and those around them in a negative way....hence, Culturally Impaired.
I do not understand these people. Move to Canada from where ever, you are more than welcome. When you start shunning yourself like some fuck rag and treating others like pieces of shit or whatever, that's where I have an issue. I guess this makes me look like a total asshole, not being flexible to their way of life. That simply isn't the case though- I just want functionality, not assimilation. Their kids don't have a problem in our schools becoming human (or somewhat human, as per gang members and other toolbags who think high school is serious business). I don't know what's so hard about learning a basic understanding of the dominant language of your country and figure out that people wanna punch you in the breast for cutting them off while piloting your shopping cart. I would personally dislike being unable to communicate and being hated in the place I CHOSE to move to. If you wanna be hear so badly that you move you should probably try to function. FUNCTION FUNCTION FUNCTION. I didn't say that word enough yet.
Man these people piss me off. Just for reference, it can happen to all people- whites included. A nice example of what TO do would be my neighbors. Moved over from Germany with their little kids and learned the language and culture, but still speak German at home and have all their traditions in tact. They are lovely people, well liked and function quite well in this society. In fact, I'd be sad if they had to leave for any reason. Was that so hard for them to do? I don't think so.
So, a note to any culturally impaired who can actually read this (See: None): LEARN HOW TO LIVE IN THE COUNTRY YOU ARE IN OR GET THE FUCK OUT. We want you here, but only if you aren't going to be a prickly son of a bitch shut in.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
open minded herd culling is harder than I thought.
I know I'm a prickly fuck on the internet, especially when it comes to cut throat application of the Scientific Method and black and white thinking that would make a horny penguin feel jealous. In 2010 I've been on hiatus from this lovely little site, partly because I don't owe anyone an update and don't really give a rats ass. Partly, also, because I've been trying to tone down the flames and open up the mind.
It has been a challenge. With a totally open mind, you succumb to absolute buffoonery like believing that unicorns exist or existed at some point based solely on the extraordinary tusk of the male (and sometimes female) Narwhal. If you close your mind right down, you end up like me in November/December of '09, which pretty much without saying, means you are right more often than you are wrong but you don't take risks or have much fun beyond flaming internet randoms from shitstorms like POF.com.
I believe I have come to a happy medium -and I obviously don't mean a "psychic". I will maintain my position of non belief in anything. Belief on the whole means an unfair interpretation of the world and a rather childish or naive view of "truth". While I cannot assert truth, since I'm not a philosopher, what I can do is assert observation. From there it is completely reasonable to make reasonable claims upon the nature of these observations. I will, however much I desire it, do my best to prevent the absolute mental dismantling of those willing to believe, whole heartedly and without any accountability, things that have zero firm evidence in their favor.
So where, specifically, does that leave me on the spectrum? Well, I'm still a total prick and I will still continue to disillusion silly adults and uneducated children. That being said, some things of this nature are legitimately fun. Santa, for example, is not something I would ruin for a five year old. It's best to let them catch their parents putting out gifts and have them ruin their own shit, same as I did to myself. Ghost hunting is FUN. What it isn't is appropriate science, as I've demonstrated in past blogs. It's fun to go into an old building and get spooked. I suppose that makes me a hypocrite because if there is no belief then there is no reason to be scared, even a bit.
I think the line shall be drawn at the truly outrageous or the just plain intellectually harmful. For example, Jesus or Voodoo. I do still maintain that Zombies CAN exist and may very well do just that. Just ask Prion disease and Corticeps fungus, such things may well be possible. Yes, I know I'm a tool, but I am a fully justified and prudent tool.
It has been a challenge. With a totally open mind, you succumb to absolute buffoonery like believing that unicorns exist or existed at some point based solely on the extraordinary tusk of the male (and sometimes female) Narwhal. If you close your mind right down, you end up like me in November/December of '09, which pretty much without saying, means you are right more often than you are wrong but you don't take risks or have much fun beyond flaming internet randoms from shitstorms like POF.com.
I believe I have come to a happy medium -and I obviously don't mean a "psychic". I will maintain my position of non belief in anything. Belief on the whole means an unfair interpretation of the world and a rather childish or naive view of "truth". While I cannot assert truth, since I'm not a philosopher, what I can do is assert observation. From there it is completely reasonable to make reasonable claims upon the nature of these observations. I will, however much I desire it, do my best to prevent the absolute mental dismantling of those willing to believe, whole heartedly and without any accountability, things that have zero firm evidence in their favor.
So where, specifically, does that leave me on the spectrum? Well, I'm still a total prick and I will still continue to disillusion silly adults and uneducated children. That being said, some things of this nature are legitimately fun. Santa, for example, is not something I would ruin for a five year old. It's best to let them catch their parents putting out gifts and have them ruin their own shit, same as I did to myself. Ghost hunting is FUN. What it isn't is appropriate science, as I've demonstrated in past blogs. It's fun to go into an old building and get spooked. I suppose that makes me a hypocrite because if there is no belief then there is no reason to be scared, even a bit.
I think the line shall be drawn at the truly outrageous or the just plain intellectually harmful. For example, Jesus or Voodoo. I do still maintain that Zombies CAN exist and may very well do just that. Just ask Prion disease and Corticeps fungus, such things may well be possible. Yes, I know I'm a tool, but I am a fully justified and prudent tool.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
The case of the venomous dinosaur.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)