With Robot Animals dukin' it out!!
Watch here.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Monday, January 5, 2009
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Friday, January 2, 2009
Ken Miller, Creationist Killer.
Ken Miller has made a guest post over at Carl Zimmer's blog, The Loom. It is a step by step dismantling of creationist whining that Miller misrepresented Behe in court. Absolutely Devastating for Intelligent Design.
Read it here.
Part Two can be found here.
Read it here.
Part Two can be found here.
Jonathan Wells: Dishonest and Unashamed
I just read this post over at the Talk.Origins Google Group. Apparently Jonathan Wells has misquoted a scientist, and now that scientist is responding.
"We all know that creationists (and I would count Wells in that group) frequently make use of quote mines. They also make use of citation mines -- references to scientific papers that don't support the arguments they're making.
I mention this because Jonathan Wells has resorted to a citation mine of a publication of mine.
Here: http://www.discovery.org/a/8101
The citation is reference 5, and here's the context:
"So some cases of geographic distribution -- the study of which modern biologists call “biogeography” -- may be due to migration, while others may be due to the splitting of a formerly large, widespread population into small, isolated populations by changes in climate or geology -- which modern biologists call “vicariance.”4
Darwin argued that all modern distributions of species could be explained by these two possibilities. Yet there are many cases of geographic distribution for which neither the center-of-origin-followed-by-migration nor the widespread-population-fragmented-by-barriers explanation seems to work.
One example is the worldwide distribution of flightless birds, or “ratites.” These include ostriches in Africa, rheas in South America, emus and cassowaries in Australia, and kiwis in New Zealand. Since the birds are flightless, explanations based on migration over vast oceanic distances are implausible. After continental drift was discovered in the twentieth century, it was thought that the various populations might have separated with the landmasses. But ostriches and kiwis are much too recent; the continents had already drifted apart when these species originated. So neither migration nor vicariance explain ratite biogeography, which remains controversial.5"
But if Wells had actually read the reference he used, he would have noticed that one of its lessons is that migration is a better explanation for ratite biogeography than vicariance, and is made more plausible because we posit a late and multiple evolution of flightlessness.
(Wells' reference is to Harshman, J., E. L. Braun, M. J. Braun, C. J. Huddleston, R. C. K. Bowie, J. L. Chojnowski, S. J. Hackett, K.-L. Han, R. T. Kimball, B. D. Marks, K. J. Miglia, W. S. Moore, S. Reddy, F. H. Sheldon, D. W. Steadman, S. J. Steppan, C. C. Witt, and T. Yuri. 2008. Phylogenomic evidence for multiple losses of flight in ratite birds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105:13462-12467.)
I won't go into any of the other major problems with Wells' use of sources, here and elsewhere. One example should suffice, and it hurts my brain to read too much of his article."
Read the original post here.
"We all know that creationists (and I would count Wells in that group) frequently make use of quote mines. They also make use of citation mines -- references to scientific papers that don't support the arguments they're making.
I mention this because Jonathan Wells has resorted to a citation mine of a publication of mine.
Here: http://www.discovery.org/a/8101
The citation is reference 5, and here's the context:
"So some cases of geographic distribution -- the study of which modern biologists call “biogeography” -- may be due to migration, while others may be due to the splitting of a formerly large, widespread population into small, isolated populations by changes in climate or geology -- which modern biologists call “vicariance.”4
Darwin argued that all modern distributions of species could be explained by these two possibilities. Yet there are many cases of geographic distribution for which neither the center-of-origin-followed-by-migration nor the widespread-population-fragmented-by-barriers explanation seems to work.
One example is the worldwide distribution of flightless birds, or “ratites.” These include ostriches in Africa, rheas in South America, emus and cassowaries in Australia, and kiwis in New Zealand. Since the birds are flightless, explanations based on migration over vast oceanic distances are implausible. After continental drift was discovered in the twentieth century, it was thought that the various populations might have separated with the landmasses. But ostriches and kiwis are much too recent; the continents had already drifted apart when these species originated. So neither migration nor vicariance explain ratite biogeography, which remains controversial.5"
But if Wells had actually read the reference he used, he would have noticed that one of its lessons is that migration is a better explanation for ratite biogeography than vicariance, and is made more plausible because we posit a late and multiple evolution of flightlessness.
(Wells' reference is to Harshman, J., E. L. Braun, M. J. Braun, C. J. Huddleston, R. C. K. Bowie, J. L. Chojnowski, S. J. Hackett, K.-L. Han, R. T. Kimball, B. D. Marks, K. J. Miglia, W. S. Moore, S. Reddy, F. H. Sheldon, D. W. Steadman, S. J. Steppan, C. C. Witt, and T. Yuri. 2008. Phylogenomic evidence for multiple losses of flight in ratite birds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105:13462-12467.)
I won't go into any of the other major problems with Wells' use of sources, here and elsewhere. One example should suffice, and it hurts my brain to read too much of his article."
Read the original post here.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Transitional Spider Fossil
Via ScienceDaily:
...The research focuses on fossil animals called Attercopus fimbriunguis. While modern spiders make silk threads with modified appendages called spinnerets, the fossil animals wove broad sheets of silk from spigots on plates attached to the underside of their bodies. Unlike spiders, they had long tails.
The research findings by Paul Selden, the Gulf-Hedberg Distinguished Professor of Invertebrate Paleontology in the Department of Geology at KU, and William Shear, the Trinkle Professor of Biology at Hampden-Sydney College, were published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Selden and Shear first discovered the fossils almost 20 years ago. At that time the specimens were thought to be the oldest spider fossils known, dating back to the Devonian Period, about 380 million years ago. Unearthed in upstate New York, the fossils were among the first animals to live on land in North America.
New finds near the same location, in Gilboa, N.Y., caused the paleontologists to reinterpret their original findings. The new fossils included silk-spinning organs, called spigots, arranged on the edges of broad plates making up the undersides of the animals. The researchers identified parts of a long, jointed tail not found in any previously known spider, but common among some of the spiders’ more primitive relatives.
“We think these ‘tailed spiders’ represent an entirely new kind of animal, not known before from living or fossil examples.” Shear said. “They were more primitive than spiders in many ways, and may be spider ancestors.” Besides having tails and spinning silk from broad plates, the animals also seem to lack poison glands.
Selden added, “This new information also allows us to reinterpret other fossils once thought to be spiders, and this evidence suggests these Uraraneida, or pre-spiders, existed for more than 100 million years, living alongside real spiders, which evolved later.”
The paleontologists think that Attercopus developed silk-spinning spigots in order to line burrows, make homing trails and possibly to subdue prey, but were not capable of making webs because of the limited mobility of the spigots. True spiders may have arisen when the genetic information for certain appendages was “turned back on” and the spigots moved onto them. The appendages became the modern spiders’ spinnerets, which can move freely and create patterned webs.
...The research focuses on fossil animals called Attercopus fimbriunguis. While modern spiders make silk threads with modified appendages called spinnerets, the fossil animals wove broad sheets of silk from spigots on plates attached to the underside of their bodies. Unlike spiders, they had long tails.
The research findings by Paul Selden, the Gulf-Hedberg Distinguished Professor of Invertebrate Paleontology in the Department of Geology at KU, and William Shear, the Trinkle Professor of Biology at Hampden-Sydney College, were published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Selden and Shear first discovered the fossils almost 20 years ago. At that time the specimens were thought to be the oldest spider fossils known, dating back to the Devonian Period, about 380 million years ago. Unearthed in upstate New York, the fossils were among the first animals to live on land in North America.
New finds near the same location, in Gilboa, N.Y., caused the paleontologists to reinterpret their original findings. The new fossils included silk-spinning organs, called spigots, arranged on the edges of broad plates making up the undersides of the animals. The researchers identified parts of a long, jointed tail not found in any previously known spider, but common among some of the spiders’ more primitive relatives.
“We think these ‘tailed spiders’ represent an entirely new kind of animal, not known before from living or fossil examples.” Shear said. “They were more primitive than spiders in many ways, and may be spider ancestors.” Besides having tails and spinning silk from broad plates, the animals also seem to lack poison glands.
Selden added, “This new information also allows us to reinterpret other fossils once thought to be spiders, and this evidence suggests these Uraraneida, or pre-spiders, existed for more than 100 million years, living alongside real spiders, which evolved later.”
The paleontologists think that Attercopus developed silk-spinning spigots in order to line burrows, make homing trails and possibly to subdue prey, but were not capable of making webs because of the limited mobility of the spigots. True spiders may have arisen when the genetic information for certain appendages was “turned back on” and the spigots moved onto them. The appendages became the modern spiders’ spinnerets, which can move freely and create patterned webs.
The Month in Review
Happy New Year!!
So many interesting things happened this month that I thought it would be helpful to link to some of the better things I wrote about [in case anybody missed anything]:
More Support for a Cold Origin of Life
The Origin of Life is Harder than I thought
More Origin of Life Research
My Plans to Write a Book
Ex-Apologist did a Series on Debunking Irreducible Complexity
Scientific American came out with Kick-Ass Issue all about Evolution
Enjoy!
So many interesting things happened this month that I thought it would be helpful to link to some of the better things I wrote about [in case anybody missed anything]:
More Support for a Cold Origin of Life
The Origin of Life is Harder than I thought
More Origin of Life Research
My Plans to Write a Book
Ex-Apologist did a Series on Debunking Irreducible Complexity
Scientific American came out with Kick-Ass Issue all about Evolution
Enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)