Tianyulong

I’m not going to say much about this since Ed Yong has an excellent write-up, but a new feathered dinosaur has been discovered, called Tianyulong. As you can see in this image of the fossil, it was bristling with a fuzz of thin fibers — proto-feathers.

i-ffe71f424a82783f5c04dd1cd196d8b5-tianyulong_sm.jpeg
(Click for larger image)
a, Main slab of the holotype (STMN 26-3). b, Broken slab. The scale bar in b refers also to a. c, Close-up of skull and mandible. d, Interpretive drawing of skull and mandible. e, Close-up of dentition. Abbreviations: a, angular; aof, antorbital fossa; ca, caudal vertebrae; cv, cervical vertebrae; d, dentary; dv, dorsal vertebrae; emf, external mandibular fenestra; en, external naris; f, femur; h, humerus; isc, ischium; j, jugal; l, lacrimal; m, maxilla; n, nasal; pd, predentary; pf, prefrontal; pm, premaxilla; po, postorbital; pub, pubis; q, quadrate; qj, quadratojugal; scaco, scapulocoracoid; sa, surangular; tf, tibia and fibula.

There are a couple of noteworthy features in this creature. One is apparent: feathers just didn’t bloom suddenly in evolution, but appeared in steps. This animal has ‘feathers’ that don’t branch like those of modern birds, but instead form more of a furry coat than a set of flat blades.

The other cool thing is that this is an ornithischian dinosaur; most of the other dinosaurs that have been discovered to have feathers were saurischian. What that means might be made more clear by this diagram:

Feathered-dinos.jpg

It implies that just maybe the last common ancestor of the saurischia and ornithischia were also covered with proto-feathers, which means that feathers may be a primitive state in this lineage.

Zheng X-T, You H-L, Xu X, Dong Z-M (2009) An Early Cretaceous heterodontosaurid dinosaur with filamentous integumentary structures. Nature 458:333-336.

Survivor: Pharyngula! Day Four.

Today we have to judge whether any of our contestants have met their immunity challenge. The challenge was this:

The challenge for the seven surviving candidates is to write a short comment, 200 words or less, that reveals that they actually understand why their attitudes and pattern of expression have so exasperated readers here, and explains what they will do to change their behavior in the future. This will be a tough one for this crowd, I’m sure. Let’s see if they can wake up enough to do some honest self-assessment.

The purpose of this challenge isn’t to force people to change or defend their ideas, of course, but to see whether they can honestly recognize why other people might find them so irritating that they are asking me to ban them. So your job in the comments here is to tell me who you think did the best job of actually being briefly self-aware.

Here are the attempts:

  • Africangenesis, who explains that far left progressives don’t like being shown to be shallow, destructive, and vindictive by someone who is more comfortable with himself.

  • John Kwok apologizes for name-dropping and talking about his high school…and then tells us that he should be talking about it. And then he tells us about his high school again and

    again and

    again and

    again and

    again. And makes a new threat.

  • Pete Rooke talks at length about beliefs. You tell me if he makes it, because I couldn’t read it all without nodding off.

  • Facilis has one that I missed first time through.

Vote for who you think meets the immunity challenge. Considering the quality of the entries, “None” is also a legitimate vote.

Preying upon the gullible

Do you feel like you don’t pray enough? Are you too busy working, or playing golf, or fornicating to actually take the time out to get down on your knees and praise the invisible man in the sky? Well, there is a service for you: Information Age Prayer. For the low, low price of $3.95 a month, they will run your prayer of choice through a voice synthesizer every day, and allow the computer to speak to god for you. Is a loved one sick? For only $9.95 per month, the computer will beg god to help them 5 times a day! Throw enough money at this service, and you can just skip church altogether, not waste any time with the holy muttering, and get all the benefits of piety, every single one. Sign up today!

(Lest you think this must be a humor site, the buttons to bill your credit card actually work, and go through paypal. If it’s a joke, it’s an evil one that might actually suck some money out of the pockets of the desperately stupid.)

ABC thinks we’re all morons

Who knows? Maybe they’re right. They’re planning a program for “Nightline” (which, I seem to recall, at least used to be a pretty good news program) which will probably get them some decent ratings.

They’re going to have a debate on the existence of Satan.

Yeah, you heard that right…on a so-called news program. But it gets worse! They have 4 people coming on to yell at each other.

On the “Satan exists!” side, they have Pastor Mark Driscoll, head of a megachurch in Seattle, and Annie Lobert, former prostitute and founder of a group called Hookers for Jesus. Sensationalism is already rearing its gaudy head, you can tell.

Even worse, the “Satan does not exist!” side is a joke. It consists of Bishop Carlton Pearson, who doesn’t accept the doctrine of hell but is a Christian, and…unbelievably…Deepak Chopra. Not an atheist or skeptic among them, just hardcore believers in woo vs. fluffy believers in woo.

Don’t tune in. It will be a complete waste of time.

This is not news

The media are all agog at the fact that the Creation “Museum” has an exhibit on natural selection. Whoop-te-doo, I say — anybody who has been following creationism at all knows that they happily trot out this claim all the time. We’ve got all kinds of concrete examples of observed evolutionary change in lizards and insects and birds and fish, so their argument has always been that they accept a small amount of change, but there are magical limits.

A new exhibit at the Answers in Genesis Creation Museum argues that natural selection — Darwin’s explanation for how species develop new traits over time — can coexist with the creationist assertion that all living things were created by God just a few thousand years ago.

“We wanted to show people that creationists believe in natural selection,” said Ken Ham, founder of the Christian ministry Answers in Genesis and frequent Darwin critic.

The exhibit might seem peculiar to many who have watched the decades-long battle between evolution scientists and creationists, who take the Bible’s Genesis account as literal truth.

No, it isn’t. This is old stuff and an elementary distortion of evolutionary theory that the creationists have been using for years. It’s the same as their old distinction between microevolution, which they say they accept while not understanding what it is, and macroevolution, which they say they reject while in a similar state of blind ignorance.

The newspapers are getting played for a chump. They even asked Eugenie Scott’s opinion of this “development”, and she flat out told them it was old news.

But the idea that creationists can accept natural selection “isn’t really new in creationism, though it’s interesting that Answers in Genesis would have an exhibit on it,” said Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, Calif.

It’s interesting that they have an exhibit in that we would like to see how they’ve mangled good science this time.

Gary Goodyear “believes” in “evolution”

The Canadian science minister who first refused to answer a question about his support for religion because it was querying his personal religion has now flip-flopped and said that he does accept evolution. Only it’s a very twisted version of evolution. What does it mean when he says something like this?

We are evolving every year, every decade. That’s a fact, whether it is to the intensity of the sun, whether it is to, as a chiropractor, walking on cement versus anything else, whether it is running shoes or high heels, of course we are evolving to our environment. But that’s not relevant and that is why I refused to answer the question. The interview was about our science and tech strategy, which is strong.

I’ll tell you what it means: it doesn’t matter whether he believes in any kind of evolution (and trust me, that explanation doesn’t touch the subject), because we can tell right away that the man is an incompetent moron who is going to flush Canadian science down the tube.

I’ve got irony poisoning!

The Vatican astronomer made some strong comments against creationism…but I find them bizarre.

Brother Consolmagno, who works in a Vatican observatory in Arizona and as curator of the Vatican meteorite collection in Italy, said a “destructive myth” had developed in modern society that religion and science were competing ideologies.

He described creationism, whose supporters want it taught in schools alongside evolution, as a “kind of paganism” because it harked back to the days of “nature gods” who were responsible for natural events.

Wait…did a priest of one weird cult full of bizarre ideas just claim that another weird cult was full of bizarre ideas? He’s right, of course, but he seems to have a blind spot for his own superstitions.

This, unfortunately, is complete bullshit:

“Religion needs science to keep it away from superstition and keep it close to reality, to protect it from creationism, which at the end of the day is a kind of paganism – it’s turning God into a nature god. And science needs religion in order to have a conscience, to know that, just because something is possible, it may not be a good thing to do.”

His religion is a superstition, and I don’t believe for a moment that he wants science to keep it close to reality — if that were true, he’d be chucking out all those myths about triune gods, ritual cannibalism, magical transformations of crackers into holy meat, virgin births, miracles, yadda yadda yadda.

The tripe that religion provides a conscience is just a cliche…and one that is completely false. We’ve seen just in this past week that the Catholic church would rather that 9 year old girls die in childbirth, and that Africans should eschew protection from sexually transmitted disease in order to better follow the advice of ancient celibates.

If he wants to talk credibly about morality and conscience, first thing he needs to do is dump the evil archaic religion.