The Science of Watchmen thread has bloated up abominably, and the topics have wandered far afield. It is now closed, but you can talk about whatever right here, instead.
I may have to think about retiring in 15 years or so, and I may just have to move to New Zealand. The trends are all going in the right direction.
There has been a sharp rise in the number of New Zealanders with no religious affiliation, new research shows.
In a study by the University, 40 per cent of respondents say they have no religious affiliation compared to 29 per cent 17 years ago.
Just over a third of New Zealanders describe themselves as religious.
Sounds so lovely. Of course, it’s not perfect yet:
Fifty-three per cent say they believe in God (although half of those say they have doubts), 20 per cent believe in some form of higher power and about third say they don’t believe or don’t know.
However, 60 per cent say they would prefer children to have religious education in state primary schools with strongest support for teaching about all faiths.
Get to it, Kiwis — you’ve got about a decade to improve those numbers. I’m sure you can do it.
I just have to say that if you’re worshipping a scrap of skin from an 800-year-old corpse, there is something wrong with you. Something sick, perverse, and warped.
The US Conference of Catholic Bishops has issued a stern warning (definitely including fingerwagging, with possibility of ruler rapping) against the heathen practice of Reiki.
To use Reiki is to operate “in the realm of superstition, the no-man’s-land that is neither faith nor science,” the bishops warned, urging Catholic healthcare institutions, retreats and chaplains to ditch the therapy, which originated in Japan in the 1800s.
No, stop! I’m twitching so badly, I think I’ve damaged something.
Maybe I need some healing at Lourdes…
Now this is effective birth control.
Abstinence suddenly looks much more appealing.
I noticed that, in this recent thread asking why you were all here, that many of you said it was for the community and for the smart commenters here. Nobody said it was for my irresistible physical beauty and scintillating and delicate charm…in fact, I got the distinct impression I could drop dead and you’d all keep chatting away happily. Well, then, I guess it’s time to update the Molly awards, since you all love each other so much. <sniffle>
The people have spoken, and they have selected the lovely and diplomatic raconteur, Sven DeMilo, as the recipient of the Molly for the month of February. Kudos! Speech! No, never mind, sit down again. You’re old news now.
Now you have to look back to the past month and pick another worthy recipient for the month of March — simply leave a comment here saying who was your recent favorite, and why. Special note: I’m going to have to specifically exclude the recent outcasts from Survivor: Pharyngula! from eligibility, because I happen to know most of you are incorrigible smart-asses who would love to prank the voting with a certain name.
A fish is a fish, right? They’re just a blur of aquatic beasties that most people distinguish by flavor, rather than morphology or descent. But fish are incredibly diverse, far more diverse than terrestrial vertebrates, and there are significant divisions within the group. Most people know of one big distinction, between the Chondrichthyes (fish with cartilaginous skeletons, like sharks and rays) and the Osteichthyes (fish with bony skeletons), but there’s another particularly interesting split within the Osteichthyes: the distinction between Sarcopterygians (the word means “fleshy fins”, and we call them lobe-finned fishes colloquially) and the Actinopterygians, the ray-finned fishes. The lobe-finned fishes most distinctive feature is the muscular and bony central core of their fins — extant forms are the coelacanth and lungfish. It is this lineage that led to us terrestrial tetrapods, but other than that successful invasion of the land, the sarcops were something of an aquatic failure, with only a few genera surviving. The ray-finned fishes, on the other hand, are a major success story, with more than 28,000 species today. To put that in context, there are only about 5,500 species of mammals.
The Sarcopterygii and the Actinopterygii must have begun diverging a long time ago, and a couple of questions of interest are a) when did the last common ancestor of both groups live, and b) what did it look like? We don’t have a good and specific answer yet, because Osteichthyes origins are lost far, far back in time, over 400 million years ago, but every new discovery edges us a little closer. What we now have is a well-preserved fossil of a fish that has been determined to be an early sarcopterygian, and it tells us that a) the last common ancestor had to have lived over 419 million years ago, the age of this fossil, and the divergence probably occurred deep in the Silurian, and b) this animal has a mosaic of primitive Osteichthyan features, which tells us that that last common ancestor may well have shared some of these elements. It is another transitional fossil that reveals much about the gradual separation of two great vertebrate groups.
And here it is:
That may be a bit disappointing at first — it looks like Silurian road-kill — but really, that’s a remarkable good and useful specimen. The animal was covered with thick bony scales, and the skull was built of thick bony plates, and so while it was squashed flat by pitiless geology, the pieces are all there, and it can be reassembled into a much more fishy state. This drawing may be more satisfying:
Now it looks like a kind of armored, spiky salmon with a thick muscular body (and yes, I too wonder about flavor, and would like to taste a slab of that). It’s definitely not a salmon, though — the bony structure is a curious set of compromises where some features are distinctly sarcopterygian, some look like they belong on a primitive actinopterygian, and others are unique or show affinities to characters of ancient extinct fishes, like rhipidistians. This is very cool. What we see here are relics of an ancient common osteichthyan ancestor, which are being honed into the specific characteristics of the Sarcopterygii. The analysis of the totality of the animal’s features, though, place it more in the lobe-finned than the ray-finned clade. That places it on a branch of the line leading to us…a very, very old branch, making this your many-times-great grand uncle, or cousin only a few million times removed. Now my curiosity about a taste-test is making me feel mildly cannibalistic.
When you look at that diagram, what should jump out at you is all the diversity in the Devonian, the so-called Age of Fishes, and the paucity of representative fossils from the Silurian…which is exactly where all the interesting branch points in the fish family tree are located. Once again, paleontology is a predictive science, and this tells us where to look for the next batch of exciting and informative fossils.
Zhu M, Zhao W, Jia L, Lu J, Qiao T, Qu Q (2009) The oldest articulated osteichthyan reveals mosaic gnathostome characters. Nature 458:469-474.
Richard Dawkins did it again, clearly stating his opinion of the Pope’s policy on birth control and AIDS prevention. One problem: he left out another possibility. The Pope could be evil.
I tend to favor a combination of all of the above.
I have received a communique from Richard Dawkins in which he protests that he was misquoted in the Telegraph. What he actually said was,
The Pope is either stupid, ignorant or wicked.
Much better.
You just can’t trust anything posted to the web today. Take, for instance, this story about Howard Ahmanson. In case you don’t know who he is, he is an extremely wealthy Californian who also happens to be one of those Christian Reconstructionists — a follower of R.J. Rushdoony, who thinks we ought to have a literal Christian theocracy — and is a major contributor to the Discovery Institute and other evangelical/fundamentalist causes. So I have to read this with a bit of skepticism.
WHY I REGISTERED DEMOCRAT>
By Howard AhmansonAbout six weeks ago, I, a known leader of the Religious Right in California, decided to reregister in the Democratic Party. Why did I do this?
Well, I think I was reading about the budget struggles and threatened purges in the Legislature, and I was getting more and more tired and disgusted of it, and I realized that, had I been a Republican assemblyman, I could have hardly escaped being purged myself. The Republican Party of the State of California seems to have decided to narrow itself down to one article of faith, which may be described as NTESEBREE: No Tax Shall Ever Be Raised Ever Ever. Now, I’m concerned about this constant tax ratcheting, but I don’t think this is the answer. The Democratic Party in California, however, is now so big and diverse and all-inclusive that it has ABSOLUTELY NO PRINCIPLES WHATSOEVER. The Hollywood and San Francisco establishments within the Party may hold to some pretty detestable principles, but the party as a whole? I have not changed any of my opinions. There is not a single right-wing opinion I hold that some section of the Democratic Party doesn’t support it. Opposed to “marriage equality” and freewheeling abortion rights? A lot of Democrats of color will agree. And also many of them will agree on the importance and social justice of vouchers and tax credits for non-government schools. Opposed to fiscal irresponsibility? A lot of Silicon Valley Democrats will probably agree. Opposed to “urban redevelopment” schemes that run small business and residents out of the way for the benefit of the politically important? Got a high view of property rights? Lots of Democrats, including Robert Cruickshank and Senate President Darrell Steinberg, agree with me to a considerable degree.
I describe myself as a “social conservative, an economic moderate,” and to a considerable extent a property libertarian. By “economic moderate” I mean that the philosophy of “starve the beast” has failed. The beast will feed welfare and pork and starve infrastructure. If we want to confront irresponsible spending, we have to confront it directly. We have to confront directly the issue of the role of government and what we want it to do and not do. And when we do want government to do something, we want it to have enough money to be able to do what it does pretty well (at least considering it’s a government), but we have to fight the mentality of entitlement. The whole mentality entitlement is dangerous. The nearest thing we have to entitlements are property rights, and they are to defined things that actually exist. And all other rights, in the end, depend on property rights; freedom of speech, religion, and press is freedom in a place, or it is nothing. I am not one to radically abolish all welfare programs, as I was in my wild youth – and Social Security and Medicare are welfare, whether you like it or not – but the attitude of entitlement, especially to resources that may not even clearly exist, makes it impossible to pursue any kind of a rational fiscal policy.
I may have made a rash move, in that it will be hard for me to find Democrats that I can actually support – there probably are some, though; social conservatives in the inner city, Democrats with an open mind to vouchers and tax credits and in other ways willing to confront the public sector union beast (I don’t consider private-sector unions, for the most part, a serious enemy nowadays), Democrats open to fiscal sanity, Democrats open to property rights rather than “urban redevelopment” social engineering schemes out of City Hall. And by the grace of God, there probably are some!
It’s not impossible that this is accurate — the Rev. Phelps was once a Democrat, too, and the Democratic Party does seem to have become rather amorphous — but jebus, this really ruins my morning.
I think the best thing for my sanity is that I should retire to my remote stronghold, Chateau L’Pieuvre, and disconnect from the net until 2 April. Or perhaps I shall simply torture a few students with an evil genetics exam instead. I know I am not going to read The Panda’s Thumb, that’s for sure.
