Diania cactiformis
John Harshman
the Chengjiang. Diania cactiformis is completely covered, body and
"legs", with spiky plates. A phylogenetic analysis suggests that
lobopods are paraphyletic with respect to arthropods, with Diania being
the sister group of Arthropoda. Maybe. Regardless, it's the most
interesting armored lobopod yet. I don't have easy access to the full
paper, but here's the abstract:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7335/full/nature09704.html
And here's Jerry Coyne's blog entry:
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/two-weird-fossils/
Steven Bornfeld
Interesting--thanks for posting!
Could you suggest a source for non-specialists on the process of
phylogenetic analysis (phylogenetics for dummies?)
I note the authors' use of the term "arthropodization" and
"arthrodization" as referring to sclerotization and not to joint
formation, which I'd assumed was the usual meaning of the term.
Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
John Harshman
> On 3/3/2011 10:46 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>> Last week's Nature describes a new and very cool armored lobopod from
>> the Chengjiang. Diania cactiformis is completely covered, body and
>> "legs", with spiky plates. A phylogenetic analysis suggests that
>> lobopods are paraphyletic with respect to arthropods, with Diania being
>> the sister group of Arthropoda. Maybe. Regardless, it's the most
>> interesting armored lobopod yet. I don't have easy access to the full
>> paper, but here's the abstract:
>>
>> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7335/full/nature09704.html
>>
>> And here's Jerry Coyne's blog entry:
>>
>> http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/two-weird-fossils/
>>
>
>
> Interesting--thanks for posting!
> Could you suggest a source for non-specialists on the process of
> phylogenetic analysis (phylogenetics for dummies?)
I'm afraid not. There probably is one somewhere, but I don't know about it.
> I note the authors' use of the term "arthropodization" and
> "arthrodization" as referring to sclerotization and not to joint
> formation, which I'd assumed was the usual meaning of the term.
Is there a difference? Can't have a joint without two sclerotized parts
to form it. I can't see the actual paper so I can't form an opinion on
the evidence of joints.
Nashton
Very nice. Another species that went extinct. Surely, evolutionists will
jump on it proclaiming that it is phylogenetic to such and such a
species, because they cannot interpret anything without the narrow
vision of their beloved ToE, amplifying even more their confirmation bias.
And why is it that quantum physics, chemistry and the medical sciences
don't have sites such as:
medicine.org or why nuclearphysicsistrue.dyndns.org? Why do
evolutionists have to engage in a constant barrage of what seems to be
propaganda for their religious cause?
Was that a question Johnny?
RAM
Why is it that you are such a anti-biological science activist. Is it
because it cuts into your rigid religious beliefs about your deity's
special creation of you. You seem very exercised by science and like
the faux Christian you are, you attempt to demean those who have more
knowledge by far than you about biology. A person with an applied
knowledge of physiology is not a scientist.
Arrogant ignorance seems to be your strong suit. A suggestion. Maybe
you should admit (or pray for forgiveness) to being the anti-
biological science activist that you deny being in order to overcome
an obvious compulsive disorder.
Nashton
> On Mar 3, 2:17 pm, Nashton<n...@no.ca> wrote:
>> On 03/03/11 11:46 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>>
>>> Last week's Nature describes a new and very cool armored lobopod from
>>> the Chengjiang. Diania cactiformis is completely covered, body and
>>> "legs", with spiky plates. A phylogenetic analysis suggests that
>>> lobopods are paraphyletic with respect to arthropods, with Diania being
>>> the sister group of Arthropoda. Maybe. Regardless, it's the most
>>> interesting armored lobopod yet. I don't have easy access to the full
>>> paper, but here's the abstract:
>>
>>> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7335/full/nature09704.html
>>
>>> And here's Jerry Coyne's blog entry:
>>
>>> http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/two-weird-fossils/
>>
>> Very nice. Another species that went extinct. Surely, evolutionists will
>> jump on it proclaiming that it is phylogenetic to such and such a
>> species, because they cannot interpret anything without the narrow
>> vision of their beloved ToE, amplifying even more their confirmation bias.
>>
>> And why is it that quantum physics, chemistry and the medical sciences
>> don't have sites such as:
>>
>> medicine.org or why nuclearphysicsistrue.dyndns.org? Why do
>> evolutionists have to engage in a constant barrage of what seems to be
>> propaganda for their religious cause?
>>
>> Was that a question Johnny?
>
> Why is it that you are such a anti-biological science activist.
Why is it that you are such a pro evolutionist activist? We are, after
all, in an ng whose sole purpose is to promulgate the ToE?
Is it
> because it cuts into your rigid religious beliefs about your deity's
> special creation of you.
Is it because you can't accept he existence of a God and Creator?
You seem very exercised by science and like
> the faux Christian you are, you attempt to demean those who have more
> knowledge by far than you about biology.
You seem very exercised in evolution (LOL) You attempt to demean those
who have more knowledge than you in philosophical issues and
Christianity and theism, in general.
A person with an applied
> knowledge of physiology is not a scientist.
A person that just posts to a propaganda ng is not indicative of a deep
thinker.
>
> Arrogant ignorance seems to be your strong suit.
Arrogant ignorance of a divergent world view seems to be your credo.
A suggestion. Maybe
> you should admit (or pray for forgiveness) to being the anti-
> biological science activist that you deny being in order to overcome
> an obvious compulsive disorder.
Here's a suggestion for you: Pray and pray *hard* for forgiveness and
seek help in order to overcome your obvious OCD.
Thanks
Moron.
>
John S. Wilkins
> Steven Bornfeld wrote:
> > On 3/3/2011 10:46 AM, John Harshman wrote:
> >> Last week's Nature describes a new and very cool armored lobopod from
> >> the Chengjiang. Diania cactiformis is completely covered, body and
> >> "legs", with spiky plates. A phylogenetic analysis suggests that
> >> lobopods are paraphyletic with respect to arthropods, with Diania being
> >> the sister group of Arthropoda. Maybe. Regardless, it's the most
> >> interesting armored lobopod yet. I don't have easy access to the full
> >> paper, but here's the abstract:
> >>
> >> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7335/full/nature09704.html
> >>
> >> And here's Jerry Coyne's blog entry:
> >>
> >> http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/two-weird-fossils/
> >>
> >
> >
> > Interesting--thanks for posting!
> > Could you suggest a source for non-specialists on the process of
> > phylogenetic analysis (phylogenetics for dummies?)
>
> I'm afraid not. There probably is one somewhere, but I don't know about it.
http://www.archive.org/details/principlesmethod00broo
http://www.archive.org/details/compleatcladistp00wile
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Class/NAWBIS/Modules/Phylogenetics/phylo2.ht
ml
>
> > I note the authors' use of the term "arthropodization" and
> > "arthrodization" as referring to sclerotization and not to joint
> > formation, which I'd assumed was the usual meaning of the term.
>
> Is there a difference? Can't have a joint without two sclerotized parts
> to form it. I can't see the actual paper so I can't form an opinion on
> the evidence of joints.
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
jillery
> On 03/03/11 11:46 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>
> > Last week's Nature describes a new and very cool armored lobopod from
> > the Chengjiang. Diania cactiformis is completely covered, body and
> > "legs", with spiky plates. A phylogenetic analysis suggests that
> > lobopods are paraphyletic with respect to arthropods, with Diania being
> > the sister group of Arthropoda. Maybe. Regardless, it's the most
> > interesting armored lobopod yet. I don't have easy access to the full
> > paper, but here's the abstract:
>
> >http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7335/full/nature09704.html
>
> > And here's Jerry Coyne's blog entry:
>
> >http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/two-weird-fossils/
>
> Very nice. Another species that went extinct. Surely, evolutionists will
> jump on it proclaiming that it is phylogenetic to such and such a
> species, because they cannot interpret anything without the narrow
> vision of their beloved ToE, amplifying even more their confirmation bias.
And don't you just hate it when they do that. Feel free to interpret
anything within your narrow vision whenever you feel yourself
capable.
RAM
> Is it
>
> > because it cuts into your rigid religious beliefs about your deity's
> > special creation of you.
>
> Is it because you can't accept he existence of a God and Creator?
>
I'm indifferent to gods and magical creators.
> You seem very exercised by science and like
>
> > the faux Christian you are, you attempt to demean those who have more
> > knowledge by far than you about biology.
>
> You seem very exercised in evolution (LOL)
Not really.
> You attempt to demean those
> who have more knowledge than you in philosophical issues and
> Christianity and theism, in general.
I doubt that you have the knowledge you claim. It has never been
demonstrated.
It is also orthogonal to my remarks about your demeaning comments.
>
> A person with an applied
>
> > knowledge of physiology is not a scientist.
>
> A person that just posts to a propaganda ng is not indicative of a deep
> thinker.
It is only propaganda to a rigid religious activist who has a shallow
view of creationist political and educational efforts to force
nonsense non-science into the classroom.
>
>
>
> > Arrogant ignorance seems to be your strong suit.
>
> Arrogant ignorance of a divergent world view seems to be your credo.
No I am better informed about varied weltanschauungs than you. I have
professional training in the area. Your creationist views are not the
dominant ones. While highly popular and publicly proclaimed and
pushed as the dominant view they are actually a minority of Christians
who share the fundamentalist anti-science idiocy you promote on TO.
Did you know that?
>
> A suggestion. Maybe
>
> > you should admit (or pray for forgiveness) to being the anti-
> > biological science activist that you deny being in order to overcome
> > an obvious compulsive disorder.
>
> Here's a suggestion for you: Pray and pray *hard* for forgiveness and
> seek help in order to overcome your obvious OCD.
I see no need to pray for your projections about me.
>
> Thanks
>
> Moron.
I like your new name.
>
>
>
>
John Harshman
> On Mar 3, 3:17 pm, Nashton <n...@no.ca> wrote:
>> On 03/03/11 11:46 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>>
>>> Last week's Nature describes a new and very cool armored lobopod from
>>> the Chengjiang. Diania cactiformis is completely covered, body and
>>> "legs", with spiky plates. A phylogenetic analysis suggests that
>>> lobopods are paraphyletic with respect to arthropods, with Diania being
>>> the sister group of Arthropoda. Maybe. Regardless, it's the most
>>> interesting armored lobopod yet. I don't have easy access to the full
>>> paper, but here's the abstract:
>>> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7335/full/nature09704.html
>>> And here's Jerry Coyne's blog entry:
>>> http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/two-weird-fossils/
>> Very nice. Another species that went extinct. Surely, evolutionists will
>> jump on it proclaiming that it is phylogenetic to such and such a
>> species, because they cannot interpret anything without the narrow
>> vision of their beloved ToE, amplifying even more their confirmation bias.
>
>
> And don't you just hate it when they do that. Feel free to interpret
> anything within your narrow vision whenever you feel yourself
> capable.
Actually, I'd be interested in Nashton's views on Diania. What is his
explanation? Why don't we find them around these days? Why only in the
Cambrian?
John Harshman
> On 03/03/11 11:46 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>> Last week's Nature describes a new and very cool armored lobopod from
>> the Chengjiang. Diania cactiformis is completely covered, body and
>> "legs", with spiky plates. A phylogenetic analysis suggests that
>> lobopods are paraphyletic with respect to arthropods, with Diania being
>> the sister group of Arthropoda. Maybe. Regardless, it's the most
>> interesting armored lobopod yet. I don't have easy access to the full
>> paper, but here's the abstract:
>>
>> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7335/full/nature09704.html
>>
>> And here's Jerry Coyne's blog entry:
>>
>> http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/two-weird-fossils/
>>
>
> Very nice. Another species that went extinct. Surely, evolutionists will
> jump on it proclaiming that it is phylogenetic to such and such a
> species, because they cannot interpret anything without the narrow
> vision of their beloved ToE, amplifying even more their confirmation bias.
If you find a flaw in the analysis, be sure to point it out.
> And why is it that quantum physics, chemistry and the medical sciences
> don't have sites such as:
>
> medicine.org or why nuclearphysicsistrue.dyndns.org? Why do
> evolutionists have to engage in a constant barrage of what seems to be
> propaganda for their religious cause?
Because other sciences generally don't have religious fundamentalists
constantly attacking them, trying to teach their religions in physics,
etc. classes, and so on. If a significant number of creationist were
geocentrists or flat-earthers, I'm sure the physicists would start
generating similar sites.
> Was that a question Johnny?
No. It was two questions.
gdgu...@gmail.com
>
> > Last week's Nature describes a new and very cool armored lobopod from
> > the Chengjiang. Diania cactiformis is completely covered, body and
> > "legs", with spiky plates. A phylogenetic analysis suggests that
> > lobopods are paraphyletic with respect to arthropods, with Diania being
> > the sister group of Arthropoda. Maybe. Regardless, it's the most
> > interesting armored lobopod yet. I don't have easy access to the full
> > paper, but here's the abstract:
>
> >http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7335/full/nature09704.html
>
> > And here's Jerry Coyne's blog entry:
>
> >http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/two-weird-fossils/
>
> Very nice. Another species that went extinct. Surely, evolutionists will
> jump on it proclaiming that it is phylogenetic to such and such a
> species, because they cannot interpret anything without the narrow
> vision of their beloved ToE, amplifying even more their confirmation bias.
It sounds to me like John is quite excited about this creature, the
way many scientists tend to be about new discoveries. Far from narrow,
they are delighted to tease out the details, the interesting
structures, the relationships between species.
> And why is it that quantum physics, chemistry and the medical sciences
> don't have sites such as:
>
> medicine.org or why nuclearphysicsistrue.dyndns.org? Why do
> evolutionists have to engage in a constant barrage of what seems to be
> propaganda for their religious cause?
Why is it that I can leave my garbage can outdoors, but I need to keep
my money in a bank?
Too obscure? Try this then:
Creationists do not (yet) spend as much time attacking other sciences
as they do biology. This is partly a matter of publicity, many
scientific disciplines contradict a literal reading of Genesis. But
for now Biology takes the brunt of it. And even though the vast
majority of biologists don't bother to argue a central and well-
documented principle of their field, a few feel the need to put up a
defense against such attacks.
Greg Guarino
Greg Guarino
Nashton
I have no views on yet another insignificant fossil of an extinct species.
It only becomes significant when the confirmation bias from the belief
that the ToE has any credence that is renewed and amplified. In that
case, it takes on new life as a member of some imaginary clade.
Why are so many resources wasted on this? Are there not cures for
diseases that need to be elucidated? Can we not use the money to send
pre-treated tents to regions in the world plagued with malaria?
OTOH, what a cool looking animal.
John Harshman
This is one unfortunate characteristic of creationists: a complete lack
of curiosity about the natural world. Sad.
RAM
Let's state what it really is - "religiously inspired willful
ignorance." Sad and morally so.
Randy C
Creationists try to pretend that the only evidence for evolution comes
from fossils. That allows them to claim that fossils are incorrectly
dated and are arbitrarily assigned to extinct animals. For example,
there was a recent claim that Neanderthals all had rickets and that
explains their different appearance from modern humans. They can also
falsely claim that the fossil record is filled with fakes, e.g.
Piltdown Man.
But of course fossils are just a very small part of the overwhelming
evidence for evolution. As Richard Dawkins said:
"If every fossil were magicked away, the comparitive study of modern
organisms, of how their patterns of resemblances, especially of their
genetic sequences, are distributed among species, and of how species
are distributed among continents and islands, would still demonstrate,
beyond all sane doubt, that our history os evolutionary, and that all
living creatures are cousins. Fossils are a bonus."
Boikat
Nice package of meaningless babble. Did you have some sort of point
to make, besides your willful ignorance?
>
> Why are so many resources wasted on this?
It's only a waste to those who are suffering from terminal willful
ignorance and stupdity.
> Are there not cures for
> diseases that need to be elucidated?
When you feel the need to try to appear intelligent by using "big
words", you should look up the definition of the "big word", first.
> Can we not use the money to send
> pre-treated tents to regions in the world plagued with malaria?
I'm sure they would accept you generous donation.
>
> OTOH, what a cool looking animal.
There's a minor piece of irony.
Boikat
alextangent
Because sending prayers and tents doesn't work against malaria. Wars
and mass migration are a major issue. Then there's increasing parasite
drug resistance and fly insecticide resistance caused by no less than
your old enemy evolution. To eradicate malaria will take science and
political will; the money is already in place through WHO and the
efforts of the Gates foundation.
chris thompson
As long as malaria has reservoirs in wild populations, I sincerely
doubt we'll ever eradicate it. Smallpox was relatively easy, since
humans were pretty much the only vectors. Same with polio, although
IIRC there was paranoia in some African nations when rumors started
flying that the vaccine also contained some drug that would make them
sterile. That supposedly set things back a few years, as did the war
in Sudan. The last seems to be getting back on track somewhat:
http://www.polioeradication.org/tabid/408/iid/95/Default.aspx
Chris
David Fritzinger
it is known that mosquito netting that has been treated with
insecticides is an effective preventative against malaria. In fact,
the Republican House is cutting funding for the US to help supply this
sort of netting to some African countries that have severe malaria
problems.
alextangent
True, I was over hasty with my comment. The increasing resistance to
treatments for both fly and parasite is a direct result of evolution
is my main point.
chris thompson
OK I have a silly question. Was this thing a marine organism? The
article does not say, as far as I could tell (if you want a pdf of the
entire thing, email to cthompson at bmcc dot cuny dot edu*). Wikipedia
does not say explicitly, but does say some authors speculate that
lobopods fed on sponges. It also says they seem to be most closely
related to velvet worms, which are exclusively terrestrial.
Chris
*Advice sought: Is that legal? Ethical? If not, I won't send out
copies.
chris thompson
Mass resistance to pesticides comes with mass applications. That's why
resistance to DDT appeared so quickly in _Anopheles_ (or part of the
reason anyway). But pesticides applied to window sills and mosquito
nets affects such a tiny portion of the mosquito population that
resistant individuals are still likely to breed with non-resistant
individuals (assuming, of course, there is not some genetic preference
to bite humans instead of monkeys). Resistance to pesticides appears
much more rapidly when you carpet-bomb a few million hectares with the
stuff.
Chris
John Harshman
> On Mar 3, 10:46 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Last week's Nature describes a new and very cool armored lobopod from
>> the Chengjiang. Diania cactiformis is completely covered, body and
>> "legs", with spiky plates. A phylogenetic analysis suggests that
>> lobopods are paraphyletic with respect to arthropods, with Diania being
>> the sister group of Arthropoda. Maybe. Regardless, it's the most
>> interesting armored lobopod yet. I don't have easy access to the full
>> paper, but here's the abstract:
>>
>> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7335/full/nature09704.html
>>
>> And here's Jerry Coyne's blog entry:
>>
>> http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/two-weird-fossils/
>
> OK I have a silly question. Was this thing a marine organism?
Yes indeed. All the Chengjiang fauna is marine.
I wouldn't say it's more closely related to velvet worms, necessarily.
It's more similar to them than to anything living, but that isn't the
same thing. In fact if the paper is right, it's more closely related to
arthropods than to velvet worms.
> The
> article does not say, as far as I could tell (if you want a pdf of the
> entire thing, email to cthompson at bmcc dot cuny dot edu*). Wikipedia
> does not say explicitly, but does say some authors speculate that
> lobopods fed on sponges. It also says they seem to be most closely
> related to velvet worms, which are exclusively terrestrial.
>
> Chris
>
> *Advice sought: Is that legal? Ethical? If not, I won't send out
> copies.
As far as I know it's legal. And it's ethical too. Nature wants $32 for
a copy -- now, that's not ethical.
Arkalen
recall animal life didn't start coming on land until the Silurian/early
Devonian. So any macroscopic Cambrian animal would definitely be living
in water.
pnyikos
> Nashton wrote:
> > On 3/3/11 6:15 PM, John Harshman wrote:
> >> jillery wrote:
> >>> On Mar 3, 3:17 pm, Nashton <n...@no.ca> wrote:
> >>>> On 03/03/11 11:46 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>
> >>>>> Last week's Nature describes a new and very cool armored lobopod from
> >>>>> the Chengjiang. Diania cactiformis is completely covered, body and
> >>>>> "legs", with spiky plates. A phylogenetic analysis suggests that
> >>>>> lobopods are paraphyletic with respect to arthropods, with Diania
> >>>>> being
> >>>>> the sister group of Arthropoda.
The sister group among known taxa. It would be sheer madness to EVER
proclaim it the absolute confirmed sister group. That concept is
even more chancy than calling it the direct ancestor, if you stop to
think about it.
> >>>>> Maybe. Regardless, it's the most
> >>>>> interesting armored lobopod yet. I don't have easy access to the full
> >>>>> paper, but here's the abstract:
> >>>>>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7335/full/nature09704.html
> >>>>> And here's Jerry Coyne's blog entry:
> >>>>>http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/two-weird-fossils/
> >>>> Very nice. Another species that went extinct. Surely, evolutionists
> >>>> will
> >>>> jump on it proclaiming that it is phylogenetic to such and such a
> >>>> species, because they cannot interpret anything without the narrow
> >>>> vision of their beloved ToE, amplifying even more their confirmation
> >>>> bias.
I like to know where phenomena fit into the grand scheme of things. I
have had a passion for paleontology since the age of seven, and
evolution makes the whole setup easier to understand and organize into
a structured whole. A pity Nashton can't see that.
> >>> And don't you just hate it when they do that. Feel free to interpret
> >>> anything within your narrow vision whenever you feel yourself
> >>> capable.
>
> >> Actually, I'd be interested in Nashton's views on Diania. What is his
> >> explanation? Why don't we find them around these days? Why only in the
> >> Cambrian?
>
> > I have no views on yet another insignificant fossil of an extinct species.
>
> This is one unfortunate characteristic of creationists: a complete lack
> of curiosity about the natural world.
Don't be so quick to judge them all on the basis of this disappointing
reaction.
> Sad.
That it is, but it is not confined to creationists.
I've run into atheists with the same lack of curiosity. Some of them
love to pontificate on how religion is a holdover from a primitive
past when people didn't know the true causes of things, and how the
only reason it is still around is that people need a daddy-figure in
heaven, or something similar.
They seem to get all their information from atheists like Dawkins, and
can regurgitate that, but aren't the least bit interested in
information about our cosmos that doesn't seem to promote atheism.
I do believe there are lots of people like that posting to
talk.origins: people whose only interest in talk.origins seems to be
that creationism is one of the places where Christianity is most
vulnerable, and so by striking a blow against creationism they are
thereby striking a blow against Christianity.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> On 3/3/11 6:15 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > jillery wrote:
> >> On Mar 3, 3:17 pm, Nashton <n...@no.ca> wrote:
> >>> On 03/03/11 11:46 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>
> >>>> Last week's Nature describes a new and very cool armored lobopod from
> >>>> the Chengjiang. Diania cactiformis is completely covered, body and
> >>>> "legs", with spiky plates. A phylogenetic analysis suggests that
> >>>> lobopods are paraphyletic with respect to arthropods, with Diania being
> >>>> the sister group of Arthropoda. Maybe. Regardless, it's the most
> >>>> interesting armored lobopod yet. I don't have easy access to the full
> >>>> paper, but here's the abstract:
> >>>>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7335/full/nature09704.html
> >>>> And here's Jerry Coyne's blog entry:
> >>>>http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/two-weird-fossils/
> >>> Very nice. Another species that went extinct. Surely, evolutionists will
> >>> jump on it proclaiming that it is phylogenetic to such and such a
> >>> species, because they cannot interpret anything without the narrow
> >>> vision of their beloved ToE, amplifying even more their confirmation
> >>> bias.
See my comments on this in my reply to Harshman.
> >> And don't you just hate it when they do that. Feel free to interpret
> >> anything within your narrow vision whenever you feel yourself
> >> capable.
>
> > Actually, I'd be interested in Nashton's views on Diania. What is his
> > explanation? Why don't we find them around these days? Why only in the
> > Cambrian?
>
> I have no views on yet another insignificant fossil of an extinct species.
I concur with John Harshman in his assessment of what it says about
you, but not where all creationists are concerned.
> It only becomes significant when the confirmation bias from the belief
> that the ToE has any credence that is renewed and amplified. In that
> case, it takes on new life as a member of some imaginary clade.
>
> Why are so many resources wasted on this? Are there not cures for
> diseases that need to be elucidated? Can we not use the money to send
> pre-treated tents to regions in the world plagued with malaria?
What money? The money to dig up fossils and to report on them? Do
you think that is worse than spending billions on professional sports?
> OTOH, what a cool looking animal.
But one which would never become known to us, were no salaries
provided for the paleontologists working on it.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
The standard disclaimer is that I am writing purely on my own and not
representing the organization whose name appears in my work address.
pnyikos
If that is true, why are the overwhelming majority of "evolutionists"
in talk.origins uninterested in paleontology, except as something to
beat creationists over the head with?
If even one-tenth of all participants in talk.origins were to take a
spin once a month in sci.bio.paleontology, that newsgroup wouldn't be
on the brink of extinction today.
By the way, I am reading this in s.b.p., not talk.origins. In the
last three months (i.e. since when I resumed posting to s.b.p. and
t.o. after a decade of absence) only John Harshman and myself have
shown a real interest in saving this newsgroup.
> Creationists try to pretend that the only evidence for evolution comes
> from fossils. That allows them to claim that fossils are incorrectly
> dated and are arbitrarily assigned to extinct animals. For example,
> there was a recent claim that Neanderthals all had rickets and that
> explains their different appearance from modern humans. They can also
> falsely claim that the fossil record is filled with fakes, e.g.
> Piltdown Man.
>
> But of course fossils are just a very small part of the overwhelming
> evidence for evolution. As Richard Dawkins said:
>
> "If every fossil were magicked away, the comparitive study of modern
> organisms, of how their patterns of resemblances, especially of their
> genetic sequences, are distributed among species, and of how species
> are distributed among continents and islands, would still demonstrate,
> beyond all sane doubt, that our history os evolutionary, and that all
> living creatures are cousins. Fossils are a bonus."- Hide quoted text -
I'm sorry, but I disagree. This quote just gives the talk.origins
crowd an excuse not to interest themselves in paleontology.
pnyikos
But the onychophorans from the Cambrian were marine,weren't they,
John?
> > Chris
>
> > *Advice sought: Is that legal? Ethical? If not, I won't send out
> > copies.
>
> As far as I know it's legal. And it's ethical too. Nature wants $32 for
> a copy -- now, that's not ethical
I'll say. I'm teaching abstract algebra out of a classic text that is
about half a century old. I do have to update it here and there, but
on the undergraduate level that's not so hard to do. The plus is that
it costs my students about one fifth of the cost of the current texts
on the same subject.
I do a similar thing in my topology courses, both undergraduate and
graduate. The students appreciate it.
It's a real racket how calculus textbooks, for instance, get new
editions ever five years or less, and the changes are just gravy--I
could teach calculus just as well out of a 20 year old textbook. It's
all done to kill the market for used textbooks.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
The standard disclaimer is that I am writing purely on my own and not
Walter Bushell
<f11cea7f-d842-48ce...@q40g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
David Fritzinger <dfri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> While I hate to say anything that would even remotely support Nashton,
> it is known that mosquito netting that has been treated with
> insecticides is an effective preventative against malaria. In fact,
> the Republican House is cutting funding for the US to help supply this
> sort of netting to some African countries that have severe malaria
> problems.
And, with global warming malaria will expand its area. OTOH, we need to
reduce the population. OTGH, using malaria to reduce the USAian
population does not strike me as skillful means.
--
The Chinese pretend their goods are good and we pretend our money
is good, or is it the reverse?
John Harshman
> crowd an excuse not to interest themselves in paleontology.
I agree completely with Dawkins. Of course paleontologists may disagree.
I suspect that most evolutionary biologists think the best evidence
comes from their particular subdiscipline. But Dawkins and I are right
nevertheless.
(This makes an interesting contrast with the common creationist claim
that most scientists know that their own discipline offers no evidence
for evolution but are confident that some other field has the evidence.)
John Harshman
> On Mar 4, 10:39 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Nashton wrote:
>>> On 3/3/11 6:15 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> jillery wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 3, 3:17 pm, Nashton <n...@no.ca> wrote:
>>>>>> On 03/03/11 11:46 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>> Last week's Nature describes a new and very cool armored lobopod from
>>>>>>> the Chengjiang. Diania cactiformis is completely covered, body and
>>>>>>> "legs", with spiky plates. A phylogenetic analysis suggests that
>>>>>>> lobopods are paraphyletic with respect to arthropods, with Diania
>>>>>>> being
>>>>>>> the sister group of Arthropoda.
>
> The sister group among known taxa. It would be sheer madness to EVER
> proclaim it the absolute confirmed sister group. That concept is
> even more chancy than calling it the direct ancestor, if you stop to
> think about it.
I agree. Unknown taxa are always implicitly excluded. It's odd that you
even think you need to bring it up.
How many creationists do you know of with a real interest in
paleontology? I can think of Kurt Wise, but he's a real oddball in the
bunch.
>> Sad.
>
> That it is, but it is not confined to creationists.
>
> I've run into atheists with the same lack of curiosity. Some of them
> love to pontificate on how religion is a holdover from a primitive
> past when people didn't know the true causes of things, and how the
> only reason it is still around is that people need a daddy-figure in
> heaven, or something similar.
>
> They seem to get all their information from atheists like Dawkins, and
> can regurgitate that, but aren't the least bit interested in
> information about our cosmos that doesn't seem to promote atheism.
>
> I do believe there are lots of people like that posting to
> talk.origins: people whose only interest in talk.origins seems to be
> that creationism is one of the places where Christianity is most
> vulnerable, and so by striking a blow against creationism they are
> thereby striking a blow against Christianity.
I have no idea how you are able to reach that conclusion.
John Harshman
There are no Cambrian onychophorans. There are lobopods that resemble
onychophorans in many ways, but that's because living onychophorans have
many primitive features. And not a single Cambrian lobopod belongs to
the onychophoran crown group. You're probably thinking of Aysheaia. It
looks quite onychophoran, but in the same way that Triassic archosaurs
often look quite a bit like crocodiles.
Nashton
Patronizing as usual, eh Johny?
You're sadly mistaken. The fact that I don't see fossils or living
beings under the light of the ToE does not mean that I am not curious
about the physical/natural world, not that convincing you or any other
individual of my interest or lack thereof is important. Just pointing
out that the discussions carried out in here are not about evolution,
but about proselytizing creationist to the religion of atheism and
deriding those who don't agree with the particular world view of of the
people that happen to be in the majority in this forum.
No two creationists are alike, neither are any other individuals with
similar convictions. Pigeonholing me is not very becoming, shame on you.
Nashton
Who said anything about prayers? And why would that hurt? Do you have a
problem with empathy? I can tell you that I personally sent money via
my church in order to purchase and expedite tents. What have you done
lately?
Wars
> and mass migration are a major issue. Then there's increasing parasite
> drug resistance and fly insecticide resistance caused by no less than
> your old enemy evolution.
My enemy? My only enemy is arrogance and pride.
To eradicate malaria will take science and
> political will;
No kidding.
the money is already in place through WHO and the
> efforts of the Gates foundation.
So there's enough money to buy a tent for every child in malaria
infested regions? Enough money to do the research necessary to start to
begin making a dent? Pulease! Are there people in place to administer
the program? This is where the wonderful work of missionaries is so vital.
But you're so blinded by your personal hatred of Christianity, that you
can't tell the forest for the trees.
Nashton
> While I hate to say anything that would even remotely support Nashton,
> it is known that mosquito netting that has been treated with
> insecticides is an effective preventative against malaria. In fact,
> the Republican House is cutting funding for the US to help supply this
> sort of netting to some
I'm honored that you have such an opinion about me.
I see you're not advertising that you live in Hawaii any more.
That's a start, but there's much work to be done.
Nashton
> Nashton wrote:
>> On 03/03/11 11:46 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>>> Last week's Nature describes a new and very cool armored lobopod from
>>> the Chengjiang. Diania cactiformis is completely covered, body and
>>> "legs", with spiky plates. A phylogenetic analysis suggests that
>>> lobopods are paraphyletic with respect to arthropods, with Diania being
>>> the sister group of Arthropoda. Maybe. Regardless, it's the most
>>> interesting armored lobopod yet. I don't have easy access to the full
>>> paper, but here's the abstract:
>>>
>>> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7335/full/nature09704.html
>>>
>>> And here's Jerry Coyne's blog entry:
>>>
>>> http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/two-weird-fossils/
>>>
>>
>> Very nice. Another species that went extinct. Surely, evolutionists
>> will jump on it proclaiming that it is phylogenetic to such and such a
>> species, because they cannot interpret anything without the narrow
>> vision of their beloved ToE, amplifying even more their confirmation
>> bias.
>
>
>> And why is it that quantum physics, chemistry and the medical sciences
>> don't have sites such as:
>>
>> medicine.org or why nuclearphysicsistrue.dyndns.org? Why do
>> evolutionists have to engage in a constant barrage of what seems to be
>> propaganda for their religious cause?
>
> constantly attacking them, trying to teach their religions in physics,
> etc. classes, and so on.
But science shouldn't have an army of propagandists. It ought to speak
for itself. You wouldn't be willfully ignorant of the clash of world
views that is occurring in society and reflected on this forum now,
would you?
If a significant number of creationist were
> geocentrists or flat-earthers, I'm sure the physicists would start
> generating similar sites.
I beg to differ.
>
>> Was that a question Johnny?
>
> No. It was two questions.
>
Nashton
> On Mar 3, 3:17 pm, Nashton<n...@no.ca> wrote:
>> On 03/03/11 11:46 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>>
>>> Last week's Nature describes a new and very cool armored lobopod from
>>> the Chengjiang. Diania cactiformis is completely covered, body and
>>> "legs", with spiky plates. A phylogenetic analysis suggests that
>>> lobopods are paraphyletic with respect to arthropods, with Diania being
>>> the sister group of Arthropoda. Maybe. Regardless, it's the most
>>> interesting armored lobopod yet. I don't have easy access to the full
>>> paper, but here's the abstract:
>>
>>> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7335/full/nature09704.html
>>
>>> And here's Jerry Coyne's blog entry:
>>
>>> http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/two-weird-fossils/
>>
>> Very nice. Another species that went extinct. Surely, evolutionists will
>> jump on it proclaiming that it is phylogenetic to such and such a
>> species, because they cannot interpret anything without the narrow
>> vision of their beloved ToE, amplifying even more their confirmation bias.
>
> way many scientists tend to be about new discoveries. Far from narrow,
> they are delighted to tease out the details, the interesting
> structures, the relationships between species.
>
>> And why is it that quantum physics, chemistry and the medical sciences
>> don't have sites such as:
>>
>> medicine.org or why nuclearphysicsistrue.dyndns.org? Why do
>> evolutionists have to engage in a constant barrage of what seems to be
>> propaganda for their religious cause?
>
> my money in a bank?
>
> Too obscure? Try this then:
>
> Creationists do not (yet) spend as much time attacking other sciences
> as they do biology.
Is this a prediction or do you have inside information you would like to
share?
This is partly a matter of publicity, many
> scientific disciplines contradict a literal reading of Genesis.
I wouldn't expect them to.
But
> for now Biology takes the brunt of it. And even though the vast
> majority of biologists don't bother to argue a central and well-
> documented principle of their field, a few feel the need to put up a
> defense against such attacks.
You can't talking about Dawkins, an eminent biologist who has made it
his life's purpose to discredit Christianity and anything remotely
related to religion?
>
> Greg Guarino
>
> Greg Guarino
>
--
John Harshman
Science, being inanimate, can't speak for itself. Scientists have to
speak for it. And so we do. Others are free to present their opinions
too. Talk.origins wouldn't exist if there were no anti-science,
creationist movement. Creationism isn't science; it's a mixture of
religion and politics, and as such a purely scientific response would be
ineffective.
>> If a significant number of creationist were
>> geocentrists or flat-earthers, I'm sure the physicists would start
>> generating similar sites.
>
> I beg to differ.
Differ all you like.
Mike Lyle
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>On Mar 4, 6:29 am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
[...]
>>
>> Why are so many resources wasted on this? Are there not cures for
>> diseases that need to be elucidated? Can we not use the money to send
>> pre-treated tents to regions in the world plagued with malaria?
>
>What money? The money to dig up fossils and to report on them? Do
>you think that is worse than spending billions on professional sports?
You can do an awful lot of fossil-hunting for the cost of a single
major football game.
>
>> OTOH, what a cool looking animal.
>
>But one which would never become known to us, were no salaries
>provided for the paleontologists working on it.
--
Mike.
Boikat
The only reason there is a need for people to defend the ToE is
because of the *religious* gfod-smacked propagandists.
> It ought to speak
> for itself.
It does, however, the god-smacked religious propagandists are the ones
spreading misinformation, requiring a like response.
> You wouldn't be willfully ignorant of the clash of world
> views that is occurring in society and reflected on this forum now,
> would you?
More irony.
>
> If a significant number of creationist were
>
> > geocentrists or flat-earthers, I'm sure the physicists would start
> > generating similar sites.
>
> I beg to differ.
But, then again, you're a mindless twit.
Boikat
Steven Bornfeld
> John Harshman<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> Steven Bornfeld wrote:
>>> On 3/3/2011 10:46 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> Last week's Nature describes a new and very cool armored lobopod from
>>>> the Chengjiang. Diania cactiformis is completely covered, body and
>>>> "legs", with spiky plates. A phylogenetic analysis suggests that
>>>> lobopods are paraphyletic with respect to arthropods, with Diania being
>>>> the sister group of Arthropoda. Maybe. Regardless, it's the most
>>>> interesting armored lobopod yet. I don't have easy access to the full
>>>> paper, but here's the abstract:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7335/full/nature09704.html
>>>>
>>>> And here's Jerry Coyne's blog entry:
>>>>
>>>> http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/two-weird-fossils/
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Could you suggest a source for non-specialists on the process of
>>> phylogenetic analysis (phylogenetics for dummies?)
>>
>> I'm afraid not. There probably is one somewhere, but I don't know about it.
>
> http://www.archive.org/details/principlesmethod00broo
>
> http://www.archive.org/details/compleatcladistp00wile
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Class/NAWBIS/Modules/Phylogenetics/phylo2.ht
> ml
Thanks--very helpful!
Steve
>>
>>> I note the authors' use of the term "arthropodization" and
>>> "arthrodization" as referring to sclerotization and not to joint
>>> formation, which I'd assumed was the usual meaning of the term.
>>
>> Is there a difference? Can't have a joint without two sclerotized parts
>> to form it. I can't see the actual paper so I can't form an opinion on
>> the evidence of joints.
>
>
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
Steven Bornfeld
> Steven Bornfeld wrote:
>> On 3/3/2011 10:46 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>>> Last week's Nature describes a new and very cool armored lobopod from
>>> the Chengjiang. Diania cactiformis is completely covered, body and
>>> "legs", with spiky plates. A phylogenetic analysis suggests that
>>> lobopods are paraphyletic with respect to arthropods, with Diania being
>>> the sister group of Arthropoda. Maybe. Regardless, it's the most
>>> interesting armored lobopod yet. I don't have easy access to the full
>>> paper, but here's the abstract:
>>>
>>> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7335/full/nature09704.html
>>>
>>> And here's Jerry Coyne's blog entry:
>>>
>>> http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/two-weird-fossils/
>>>
>>
>>
>> Interesting--thanks for posting!
>> Could you suggest a source for non-specialists on the process of
>> phylogenetic analysis (phylogenetics for dummies?)
>
> I'm afraid not. There probably is one somewhere, but I don't know about it.
>
>> "arthrodization" as referring to sclerotization and not to joint
>> formation, which I'd assumed was the usual meaning of the term.
>
> Is there a difference? Can't have a joint without two sclerotized parts
> to form it. I can't see the actual paper so I can't form an opinion on
> the evidence of joints.
>
I can't imagine you could have "arthrodization" without
"sclerotization", but you certainly could have sclerosis without joint
formation.
Steve
Steven Bornfeld
(cross-posting to talk.origins removed)
Peter--
I'm a relative newcomer here, so tell me if I'm out of line. It seems
that there is no reason to argue real issues in talk.origins, unless one
wants to argue, or argue the Scopes trial again, or perhaps that one's
blood pressure is too low.
I likewise don't think hoping to engage warm bodies in the attempt to
resuscitate sci.bio.paleontology is likely to work in the long run.
I say this as a battle-scarred usenet pugilist who is going all soft
and fuzzy--not because I've seen the light and converted, but because of
my perception of the political futility engagement with the flat-earth
society is likely to have. (In my case the fighting has generally been
more with the alternative health crowd, which perhaps unsurprisingly has
the same quasi-religious overlay many of these Creationist
(sorry--"intelligent design") folks live by.
In any case, I'm pretty stretched-thin on various fora, newsgroups,
mailing lists, etc., and I may find it hard to contribute much to the
legitimate discussions here, but I'll try. I have to observe though
that usenet is rapidly decaying everywhere, and though there are still
some active and useful groups, most have been overrun by the same kind
of spam and trollery you see here.
Best,
Steve
> Don't be so quick to judge them all on the basis of this disappointing
> reaction.
>
>> Sad.
>
> That it is, but it is not confined to creationists.
>
> I've run into atheists with the same lack of curiosity. Some of them
> love to pontificate on how religion is a holdover from a primitive
> past when people didn't know the true causes of things, and how the
> only reason it is still around is that people need a daddy-figure in
> heaven, or something similar.
>
> They seem to get all their information from atheists like Dawkins, and
> can regurgitate that, but aren't the least bit interested in
> information about our cosmos that doesn't seem to promote atheism.
>
> I do believe there are lots of people like that posting to
> talk.origins: people whose only interest in talk.origins seems to be
> that creationism is one of the places where Christianity is most
> vulnerable, and so by striking a blow against creationism they are
> thereby striking a blow against Christianity.
>
> Peter Nyikos
>
gdgu...@gmail.com
I hope it is not an accurate prediction. But if creationists were able
to prevent the teaching of standard biology, I do think they would be
emboldened to take on other subjects as well. YECs would disapprove of
standard geology, astronomy (how big, how old?) and even chemistry
(where does petroleum come from?) for starters.
> This is partly a matter of publicity, many
>
> > scientific disciplines contradict a literal reading of Genesis.
>
> I wouldn't expect them to.
See above. No flood. 14 billion years. Oil from organisms that died
millions of years before the world was allegedly created. We've got at
least one person on this very group who believes the Earth to be the
center of the universe because the Bible tells him so. I think he's
right, by the way, at least about what the Bible says. There goes
physics.
> But
>
> > for now Biology takes the brunt of it. And even though the vast
> > majority of biologists don't bother to argue a central and well-
> > documented principle of their field, a few feel the need to put up a
> > defense against such attacks.
>
> You can't talking about Dawkins, an eminent biologist who has made it
> his life's purpose to discredit Christianity and anything remotely
> related to religion?
A typical and tiresome tactic; Don't argue the actual facts, find
someone on the "other side" who is sufficiently objectionable and
attack him instead.
I don't know much about Dawkins and had never even heard of him before
I started reading this group. Let's assume your characterization is
correct. So? What about the rest of the world of biology? There are
untold wonders yet to discover. They go about the business of teasing
them out, detail by detail, with little interest in rearguing nonsense
every time someone puts up a new web page.
Greg Guarino
Steven Bornfeld
Your lips whisper "yes, yes" but your eyes answer "no no no---no!"
S.
not that convincing you or any other
> individual of my interest or lack thereof is important. Just pointing
> out that the discussions carried out in here are not about evolution,
> but about proselytizing creationist to the religion of atheism and
> deriding those who don't agree with the particular world view of of the
> people that happen to be in the majority in this forum.
>
> No two creationists are alike, neither are any other individuals with
> similar convictions. Pigeonholing me is not very becoming, shame on you.
>
>
>
Steven Bornfeld
(snippage)
>
> And why is it that quantum physics, chemistry and the medical sciences
> don't have sites such as:
>
> medicine.org or why nuclearphysicsistrue.dyndns.org?
You mean, like:
http://www.quantum-physics.polytechnique.fr/en/
http://www.organic-chemistry.org/
http://www.inorganic-chemistry.net/
Steve
(I'm just sayin!)
Why do
> evolutionists have to engage in a constant barrage of what seems to be
> propaganda for their religious cause?
>
> Was that a question Johnny?
>
alextangent
Not boasted about it, that's for sure.
>
> Wars
>
> > and mass migration are a major issue. Then there's increasing parasite
> > drug resistance and fly insecticide resistance caused by no less than
> > your old enemy evolution.
>
> My enemy? My only enemy is arrogance and pride.
>
> To eradicate malaria will take science and
>
> > political will;
>
> No kidding.
>
> the money is already in place through WHO and the
>
> > efforts of the Gates foundation.
>
> So there's enough money to buy a tent for every child in malaria
> infested regions? Enough money to do the research necessary to start to
> begin making a dent? Pulease! Are there people in place to administer
> the program? This is where the wonderful work of missionaries is so vital.
>
> But you're so blinded by your personal hatred of Christianity, that you
> can't tell the forest for the trees.
I have admitted to my mistake. My dislike is of you.
David Fritzinger
wrote:
Yeah, there is. First, you have to actually get the scientific education
you believe you have...
Oh, and I do still live in Hawaii.
chris thompson
> >> Last week's Nature describes a new and very cool armored lobopod from
> >> the Chengjiang. Diania cactiformis is completely covered, body and
> >> "legs", with spiky plates. A phylogenetic analysis suggests that
> >> lobopods are paraphyletic with respect to arthropods, with Diania being
> >> the sister group of Arthropoda. Maybe. Regardless, it's the most
> >> interesting armored lobopod yet. I don't have easy access to the full
> >> paper, but here's the abstract:
>
> >>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7335/full/nature09704.html
>
> >> And here's Jerry Coyne's blog entry:
>
> >>http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/two-weird-fossils/
>
>
> Yes indeed. All the Chengjiang fauna is marine.
Thank goodness. Seeing that thing cruising around my back yard would
creep me out.
>
> I wouldn't say it's more closely related to velvet worms, necessarily.
> It's more similar to them than to anything living, but that isn't the
> same thing. In fact if the paper is right, it's more closely related to
> arthropods than to velvet worms.
Yes, I miswrote.
>
> > The
> > article does not say, as far as I could tell (if you want a pdf of the
> > entire thing, email to cthompson at bmcc dot cuny dot edu*). Wikipedia
> > does not say explicitly, but does say some authors speculate that
> > lobopods fed on sponges. It also says they seem to be most closely
> > related to velvet worms, which are exclusively terrestrial.
>
> > Chris
>
> > *Advice sought: Is that legal? Ethical? If not, I won't send out
> > copies.
>
> As far as I know it's legal. And it's ethical too. Nature wants $32 for
> a copy -- now, that's not ethical.
Elsevier is worse. But I agree with you.
Chris
paleobarbie
Marcus Ross too (on both accounts)
paleobarbie
As a paleontologist I also completely agree with Dawkins. I hosted a
party at my house last night for some postdocs who are working in
evolutionary genetics (but who despite that are lots of fun -- pals of
my paleo postdoc --- I'm still suffering!), and they were falling
about laughing about the types of things I told them creationists
focused on. Oh yes, your entire NIH funded research can be refuted by
Nebraska Man and Archaeoraptor. Not.
PB
Mike Lyle
<christi...@Brown.edu> wrote:
>On Mar 4, 11:42 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> pnyikos wrote:
[...]
>>
>> I agree completely with Dawkins. Of course paleontologists may disagree.
>> I suspect that most evolutionary biologists think the best evidence
>> comes from their particular subdiscipline. But Dawkins and I are right
>> nevertheless.
>>
>> (This makes an interesting contrast with the common creationist claim
>> that most scientists know that their own discipline offers no evidence
>> for evolution but are confident that some other field has the evidence.)
>
>As a paleontologist I also completely agree with Dawkins. I hosted a
>party at my house last night for some postdocs who are working in
>evolutionary genetics (but who despite that are lots of fun -- pals of
>my paleo postdoc --- I'm still suffering!), and they were falling
>about laughing about the types of things I told them creationists
>focused on. Oh yes, your entire NIH funded research can be refuted by
>Nebraska Man and Archaeoraptor. Not.
>
Creationism is only one of the hills you have to climb. The other day
I was talking to two people who *know* that scientists are lying to
the world about planetary warming to make Al Gore and others rich and
to bring about United Nations government of the world for some
unspecified evil purpose. They likewise *know* the Haiti earthquake
was caused by microwaves and things like that both shaking up, and
being bounced off, the ionosphere..."Huh?" "...talked to a shaman
about it, and he says the HAARP is doing even more in secret..." "But
why?" "...because Haiti has unpublicised mineral riches." These people
are both university-educated; and in prosaic unhysterical Britain
there may be a lot more of it about than one might expect.
--
Mike.
Steven Bornfeld
Ya know, Newton was an avid alchemist.
Steve
Mike Lyle
<bornfe...@dentaltwins.com> wrote:
>On 3/6/2011 5:38 PM, Mike Lyle wrote:
>> On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 16:35:36 -0800 (PST), paleobarbie
>> <christi...@Brown.edu> wrote:
[...]
>>> As a paleontologist I also completely agree with Dawkins. I hosted a
>>> party at my house last night for some postdocs who are working in
>>> evolutionary genetics (but who despite that are lots of fun -- pals of
>>> my paleo postdoc --- I'm still suffering!), and they were falling
>>> about laughing about the types of things I told them creationists
>>> focused on. Oh yes, your entire NIH funded research can be refuted by
>>> Nebraska Man and Archaeoraptor. Not.
>>>
>> Creationism is only one of the hills you have to climb. The other day
>> I was talking to two people who *know* that scientists are lying to
>> the world about planetary warming to make Al Gore and others rich and
>> to bring about United Nations government of the world for some
>> unspecified evil purpose. They likewise *know* the Haiti earthquake
>> was caused by microwaves and things like that both shaking up, and
>> being bounced off, the ionosphere..."Huh?" "...talked to a shaman
>> about it, and he says the HAARP is doing even more in secret..." "But
>> why?" "...because Haiti has unpublicised mineral riches." These people
>> are both university-educated; and in prosaic unhysterical Britain
>> there may be a lot more of it about than one might expect.
>>
>
>
>Ya know, Newton was an avid alchemist.
>
True: there was still a lot of it about. Were he among us today,
though, I suspect he wouldn't have been inclined to believe you could
cause an earthquake by bouncing microwaves off the ionosphere.
--
Mike.
Steven Bornfeld
> True: there was still a lot of it about. Were he among us today,
> though, I suspect he wouldn't have been inclined to believe you could
> cause an earthquake by bouncing microwaves off the ionosphere.
>
LOL--that's a new one on me!
Desertphile
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Last week's Nature describes a new and very cool armored lobopod from
> the Chengjiang. Diania cactiformis is completely covered, body and
> "legs", with spiky plates. A phylogenetic analysis suggests that
> lobopods are paraphyletic with respect to arthropods, with Diania being
> the sister group of Arthropoda. Maybe. Regardless, it's the most
> interesting armored lobopod yet. I don't have easy access to the full
> paper, but here's the abstract:
>
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7335/full/nature09704.html
>
> And here's Jerry Coyne's blog entry:
>
> http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/two-weird-fossils/
Way cool! I wish I had one. No, fuck that: I wish I were one.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Nashton
>>
>> You're sadly mistaken. The fact that I don't see fossils or living
>> beings under the light of the ToE does not mean that I am not curious
>> about the physical/natural world,
>
> Your lips whisper "yes, yes" but your eyes answer "no no no---no!"
>
> S.
>
>
Please don't interrupt when adults are discussing. Thanks.
Steven Bornfeld
> Please don't interrupt when adults are discussing. Thanks.
>
Well, I'll admit to you being HALF-right.
Steve
Mike Lyle
<bornfe...@dentaltwins.com> wrote:
>On 3/7/2011 6:25 PM, Mike Lyle wrote:
>> True: there was still a lot of it about. Were he among us today,
>> though, I suspect he wouldn't have been inclined to believe you could
>> cause an earthquake by bouncing microwaves off the ionosphere.
>>
>
>
> LOL--that's a new one on me!
>
Ah. I see you haven't made the acquaintance of any of the
aluminium-hat tribe. Drop in on a conference entitled something like
"Mind, Body, & Spirit", or "Natural Healing Energy for the New Age"
(you can probably guess the kind of thing) and get into conversations.
--
Mike.
Steven Bornfeld
> On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 19:44:14 -0500, Steven Bornfeld
> <bornfe...@dentaltwins.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/7/2011 6:25 PM, Mike Lyle wrote:
>>> True: there was still a lot of it about. Were he among us today,
>>> though, I suspect he wouldn't have been inclined to believe you could
>>> cause an earthquake by bouncing microwaves off the ionosphere.
>>>
>>
>>
>> LOL--that's a new one on me!
>>
> Ah. I see you haven't made the acquaintance of any of the
> aluminium-hat tribe. Drop in on a conference entitled something like
> (you can probably guess the kind of thing) and get into conversations.
Uggh. I deal enough with that tribe on the dental forums.
pnyikos
> >> On Mar 4, 10:38 am, RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Mar 4, 9:39 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>> Nashton wrote:
> >>>>> On 3/3/11 6:15 PM, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>> jillery wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Mar 3, 3:17 pm, Nashton <n...@no.ca> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Last week's Nature describes a new and very cool armored lobopod from
> >>>>>>>>> the Chengjiang. Diania cactiformis is completely covered, body and
> >>>>>>>>> "legs", with spiky plates. A phylogenetic analysis suggests that
> >>>>>>>>> lobopods are paraphyletic with respect to arthropods, with Diania
> >>>>>>>>> being
> >>>>>>>>> the sister group of Arthropoda. Maybe. Regardless, it's the most
> >>>>>>>>> interesting armored lobopod yet. I don't have easy access to the full
> >>>>>>>>> paper, but here's the abstract:
> >>>>>>>>>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7335/full/nature09704.html
> >>>>>>>>> And here's Jerry Coyne's blog entry:
> >>>>>>>>>http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/two-weird-fossils/
Creationists also, especially if they know it is possible for bones,
etc. to become incorporated in rocks from looking at clays in the
process of being converted into shale, etc. They would say that,
inasmuch as no rocks have ever been found with bones in them, that the
animals have been very recently produced according to various similar
designs, perhaps by some rookie angels working for God.
As for the atheists and the scientists-qua-scientists (which hat are
you wearing here?) the only real comeback they could make is that life
obviously evolved [or: the methodology of science dictates that it
evolved] on another planet and was brought to earth by aliens, or
maybe by human ancestors who came from another solar system and lost
contact with the ones back home.
> I suspect that most evolutionary biologists think the best evidence
> comes from their particular subdiscipline.
"evolutionary biologists"? Isn't that redundant? :-) [Keyword:
Dozhansky.] :-)
> But Dawkins and I are right
> nevertheless.
See above for why you are being overconfident here.
> (This makes an interesting contrast with the common creationist claim
> that most scientists know that their own discipline offers no evidence
> for evolution but are confident that some other field has the evidence.)
That's a new one on me. But then, I hardly ever interest myself in
what creationists are up to these days.
By the way, what is your discipline?
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
Are these people who post to talk.origins, or people in the big
outside world?
[Yeah, I keep surprising people by my ignorance of creationists. I
care a lot more about issues than about the people arguing them.]
Peter Nyikos
John Harshman
You are producing a weird hypothetical that's entirely different from
Dawkins' hypothetical and bears no relevance to it.
> As for the atheists and the scientists-qua-scientists (which hat are
> you wearing here?)
You may assume I'm wearing my scientist hat unless I'm talking
specifically about atheism. Though in fact a scientific epistemology
tends to lead to atheism if applied to the subject.
> the only real comeback they could make is that life
> obviously evolved [or: the methodology of science dictates that it
> evolved] on another planet and was brought to earth by aliens, or
> maybe by human ancestors who came from another solar system and lost
> contact with the ones back home.
And I suppose that scenario would indeed be the best one to propose in
the bizarre scenario you have concocted, in which fossils are obviously
possible but we see none. I repeat this has nothing to do with what
Dawkins was saying.
>> I suspect that most evolutionary biologists think the best evidence
>> comes from their particular subdiscipline.
>
> "evolutionary biologists"? Isn't that redundant? :-) [Keyword:
> Dozhansky.] :-)
I'm surprised you aren't familiar with the term. An evolutionary
biologist isn't one who believes in evolution, but one who works
directly with evolution: systematists, population geneticists,
paleobiologists, evo-devoers, and such. Many biologists do not commonly
consider evolutionary questions. You have to understand what Dobzhansky
meant by "makes sense".
>> But Dawkins and I are right
>> nevertheless.
>
> See above for why you are being overconfident here.
No, you are just seriously misinterpreting what Dawkins said, and what I
agree with.
>> (This makes an interesting contrast with the common creationist claim
>> that most scientists know that their own discipline offers no evidence
>> for evolution but are confident that some other field has the evidence.)
>
> That's a new one on me. But then, I hardly ever interest myself in
> what creationists are up to these days.
>
> By the way, what is your discipline?
I thought that would be obvious. I'm an evolutionary biologist,
specifically a systematist, specifically a theropod neontologist.
John Harshman
Has Wise published anything at all in a real journal in the last 20
years? All I can find is a couple of GSA abstracts and a bunch of
creationist apologetics.
> Marcus Ross too (on both accounts)
He appears to have published as recently as 2006 (collaborating with
David Fastovsky!).
paleobarbie
Ross's work on mosasaurs is actually quite respectable ---- until he
tries to use it to disprove evolution. Seriously, Marcus knows his
stuff --- ran rings around my grad students in a seminar. I have no
idea why he sticks to creationism (well, of course, apart from the
religious stuff), but at least I can respect him for his command of
the body of knowledge, even if he then chooses to ignore it.
PB
jillery
> On Mar 5, 5:59 am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>
> > On 3/3/11 6:13 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>
> > > Nashton wrote:
> > >> On 03/03/11 11:46 AM, John Harshman wrote:
> > >>> Last week's Nature describes a new and very cool armored lobopod from
> > >>> the Chengjiang. Diania cactiformis is completely covered, body and
> > >>> "legs", with spiky plates. A phylogenetic analysis suggests that
> > >>> lobopods are paraphyletic with respect to arthropods, with Diania being
> > >>> interesting armored lobopod yet. I don't have easy access to the full
> > >>> paper, but here's the abstract:
>
> > >>>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7335/full/nature09704.html
>
> > >>> And here's Jerry Coyne's blog entry:
>
> > >>>http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/two-weird-fossils/
>
> > >> Very nice. Another species that went extinct. Surely, evolutionists
> > >> will jump on it proclaiming that it is phylogenetic to such and such a
> > >> species, because they cannot interpret anything without the narrow
> > >> vision of their beloved ToE, amplifying even more their confirmation
> > >> bias.
>
>
> > >> And why is it that quantum physics, chemistry and the medical sciences
> > >> don't have sites such as:
>
> > >> evolutionists have to engage in a constant barrage of what seems to be
> > >> propaganda for their religious cause?
>
> > > constantly attacking them, trying to teach their religions in physics,
> > > etc. classes, and so on.
>
> > But science shouldn't have an army of propagandists.
>
> The only reason there is a need for people to defend the ToE is
> because of the *religious* gfod-smacked propagandists.
>
> > It ought to speak
> > for itself.
>
> It does, however, the god-smacked religious propagandists are the ones
> spreading misinformation, requiring a like response.
Umm, I certainly hope not :)
> > You wouldn't be willfully ignorant of the clash of world
> > views that is occurring in society and reflected on this forum now,
> > would you?
>
> More irony.
>
>
>
> > If a significant number of creationist were
>
> > > geocentrists or flat-earthers, I'm sure the physicists would start
> > > generating similar sites.
>
> > I beg to differ.
>
> But, then again, you're a mindless twit.
Hard to argue with that.
pnyikos
wrote:
> On 3/4/2011 9:17 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>
> (cross-posting to talk.origins removed)
>
> Peter--
>
> I'm a relative newcomer here, so tell me if I'm out of line. It seems
> that there is no reason to argue real issues in talk.origins, unless one
> wants to argue, or argue the Scopes trial again, or perhaps that one's
> blood pressure is too low.
There is one real issue that doesn't involve creationism, and that is
the beginning of life on earth. I subscribe to the theory, first
advanced scientifically by Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel, that life
on earth is the result of seeding the earth with microorganisms
deliberately sent here by a technological civilization. I've espoused
this theory in talk.origins since 1996, and so far no one has been
able to give a convincing argument against it.
> I likewise don't think hoping to engage warm bodies in the attempt to
> resuscitate sci.bio.paleontology is likely to work in the long run.
> I say this as a battle-scarred usenet pugilist who is going all soft
> and fuzzy--not because I've seen the light and converted, but because of
> my perception of the political futility engagement with the flat-earth
> society is likely to have. (In my case the fighting has generally been
> more with the alternative health crowd, which perhaps unsurprisingly has
> the same quasi-religious overlay many of these Creationist
> (sorry--"intelligent design") folks live by.
The two are very distinct. Crick himself implicitly espoused a modest
degree of intelligent design when he wrote:
The senders could well have developed wholly new strains of
microorganisms, specially designed to cope with prebiotic
conditions, though whether it would have been better to try to
combine all the desirable properties within one single type
of organism or to send many different organisms is not
completely clear.
--Nobel Laureate Francis Crick, _Life Itself_
Simon and Schuster, 1981
> In any case, I'm pretty stretched-thin on various fora, newsgroups,
> mailing lists, etc., and I may find it hard to contribute much to the
> legitimate discussions here, but I'll try. I have to observe though
> that usenet is rapidly decaying everywhere, and though there are still
> some active and useful groups, most have been overrun by the same kind
> of spam and trollery you see here.
>
> Best,
> Steve
Thank you for your kind, well-thought out words. Do you have any idea
why Usenet is decaying, while other much less well designed forums are
prospering? Is it that most people are afraid to let others know
their e-mail addresses and don't know how to construct phoney ones?
Peter Nyikos
Steven Bornfeld
> On Mar 5, 12:25 pm, Steven Bornfeld<bornfeldm...@dentaltwins.com>
> wrote:
>> On 3/4/2011 9:17 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>>
>> (cross-posting to talk.origins removed)
>>
>> Peter--
>>
>> I'm a relative newcomer here, so tell me if I'm out of line. It seems
>> that there is no reason to argue real issues in talk.origins, unless one
>> wants to argue, or argue the Scopes trial again, or perhaps that one's
>> blood pressure is too low.
>
> There is one real issue that doesn't involve creationism, and that is
> the beginning of life on earth. I subscribe to the theory, first
> advanced scientifically by Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel, that life
> on earth is the result of seeding the earth with microorganisms
> deliberately sent here by a technological civilization. I've espoused
> this theory in talk.origins since 1996, and so far no one has been
> able to give a convincing argument against it.
I'm not sure how he could have advanced this "theory" by any means of
the scientific method I've known. It's so speculative that I might be
giving it more credit than it is due by calling it a hypothesis.
Mind you, I have no problem with speculation, nor a religious concept
of creation. I only have a problem when it's presented as science. I
don't care how many Nobels Crick may have won.
I can appreciate Newton (after all) without subscribing to his alchemy.
>
>> I likewise don't think hoping to engage warm bodies in the attempt to
>> resuscitate sci.bio.paleontology is likely to work in the long run.
>> I say this as a battle-scarred usenet pugilist who is going all soft
>> and fuzzy--not because I've seen the light and converted, but because of
>> my perception of the political futility engagement with the flat-earth
>> society is likely to have. (In my case the fighting has generally been
>> more with the alternative health crowd, which perhaps unsurprisingly has
>> the same quasi-religious overlay many of these Creationist
>> (sorry--"intelligent design") folks live by.
>
> The two are very distinct. Crick himself implicitly espoused a modest
> degree of intelligent design when he wrote:
>
> The senders could well have developed wholly new strains of
> microorganisms, specially designed to cope with prebiotic
> conditions, though whether it would have been better to try to
> combine all the desirable properties within one single type
> of organism or to send many different organisms is not
> completely clear.
> --Nobel Laureate Francis Crick, _Life Itself_
> Simon and Schuster, 1981
Not completely clear? The operative words here are "could well have".
I hadn't read the Wiki article on Crick. He seems to have been a
rather eccentric and difficult man, as many great scientists are. It's
quite natural that people would be curious as to what the religious
views of scientists are. Most good scientists are able to not co-mingle
their religious views with the scientific rigor they practice in their
working hours.
>
>> In any case, I'm pretty stretched-thin on various fora, newsgroups,
>> mailing lists, etc., and I may find it hard to contribute much to the
>> legitimate discussions here, but I'll try. I have to observe though
>> that usenet is rapidly decaying everywhere, and though there are still
>> some active and useful groups, most have been overrun by the same kind
>> of spam and trollery you see here.
>>
>> Best,
>> Steve
>
> Thank you for your kind, well-thought out words. Do you have any idea
> why Usenet is decaying, while other much less well designed forums are
> prospering? Is it that most people are afraid to let others know
> their e-mail addresses and don't know how to construct phoney ones?
>
> Peter Nyikos
The most obvious cause is that at least in the U.S. many ISPs have
abandoned smtp service. If I had to depend on google for newsgroups, I
wouldn't be here either.
I'm using a free news server, eternalseptember.org, since Verizon quit
its news server a year or so ago.
The kids are all into facebook. It's got its place, but it's no
substitute IMO for usenet.
Steve
>
>>
>>
>>> Don't be so quick to judge them all on the basis of this disappointing
>>> reaction.
>>
>>>> Sad.
>>
>>> That it is, but it is not confined to creationists.
>>
>>> I've run into atheists with the same lack of curiosity. Some of them
>>> love to pontificate on how religion is a holdover from a primitive
>>> past when people didn't know the true causes of things, and how the
>>> only reason it is still around is that people need a daddy-figure in
>>> heaven, or something similar.
>>
>>> They seem to get all their information from atheists like Dawkins, and
>>> can regurgitate that, but aren't the least bit interested in
>>> information about our cosmos that doesn't seem to promote atheism.
>>
>>> I do believe there are lots of people like that posting to
>>> talk.origins: people whose only interest in talk.origins seems to be
>>> that creationism is one of the places where Christianity is most
>>> vulnerable, and so by striking a blow against creationism they are
>>> thereby striking a blow against Christianity.
>>
>>> Peter Nyikos
>>
>> --
>> Mark& Steven Bornfeld DDShttp://www.dentaltwins.com
>> Brooklyn, NY
>> 718-258-5001
>
--