Sepia officinalis
Figure from Cephalopods: A World Guide (amzn/b&n/abe/pwll), by Mark Norman.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
Salma, Salma, Salma…you heard about my thread to name the feeblest reason for believing in Christianity, and you couldn’t just leave a comment like everyone else? You had to go running to the press to submit your entry?
Mexican actress SALMA HAYEK was so upset by childhood jibes about her flat-chest, she would pray to God for larger breasts. The Ugly Betty star reveals she was bullied for having small breasts as a youngster – and decided to turn to her Catholic religion for help. She says, “My mom and I stopped at a church during a road trip we were making from our home in Mexico. “When we went inside, I prayed for the miracle I wanted to happen. I put my hands in holy water and said: ‘Please God, give me some breasts’. “And he gave me them! Within a few months, I developed a growing spurt, as teenagers do, and I was very pleased with the way I grew outwards.”
They are very nice, Salma, but you should really give credit where credit is due: genes, steroid hormone receptors, steroid hormones, diet, and a million years of chance and selection.
It’s awfully hard to get into the spirit of the War on Christmas when Christians are so danged tacky. I mean, really…the Jesus loves you sucker is only one comma away from perfect honesty, while the Jesus Tree Topper with the silk gown, gold crown, nail prints in the hands, and built-in light is pure cheese. He really needs a complement, though: Naked Tormented Jesus with Stigmata Squirting Action. Then the kids could battle it out between ascetism and the prosperity gospel right there on the Christmas tree.
Here’s a fun exercise: since we already have Christianity Today underwhelming us with the most compelling argument for Christianity, how about if we compile Pharyngula’s list of “What is the FEEBLEST reason for becoming a Christian?”
I’ll start with the easiest answer: all of them.
Clive Thompson wants us to simply redefine the “theory of evolution” as the “law of evolution”. This is possibly one of the worst ideas I’ve heard yet for overcoming the problem of the colloquial definition of theory. It is not correct. The theory of evolution is a whole collection of ideas describing complex phenomena; it is not reducible to the kind of clear and simple mathematical description we associate with scientific laws. When somebody asks me what the ideal gas law is, I can say PV=nRT; when someone asks me what the law describing the gravitational attraction between two bodies is, I say Gm1m2/R2; when they say, “OK, smartie pants, what is the law of evolution?”, what am I supposed to do? Recite Hardy-Weinberg at them (which, by the way, is called a law already, but is not the sum of all of evolution by any means)?
It’s a bad idea that sets us up for more confusion and will play right into creationist hands. Why not go all the way and just call it the “Truth of Evolution”? It’s the same strategy — it’s all avoiding the issue by an attempt at redefinition, and mangling the idea in the process.
(Larry Moran sees it the same way I do. He must be a very smart man.)
(And Wilkins was way, way ahead of us both.)
Last August, when I was at the Sci Foo camp, Paul Sereno brought along the skull of one of his latest discoveries…and whoa, is it ever a weird one. This is Nigersaurus taqueti, an herbivorous dinosaur with specializations for ground-level grazing. Look at this picture; in reality, it’s even more striking.
Those jaws and teeth—they are so neatly squared off and flat-edged. In addition, the skull itself on the spinal column is turned habitually downward. This is a creature that kept its face pressed to the ground as it nibbled its way across the landscape.
Another feature that was apparent is that the skull is awesomely light — it’s mostly empty spaces with a delicate webwork of bony struts holding it together. It’s so specialized it’s almost comical, and you can imagine something like this appearing on the Flintstones as a lawn mower or hedge trimmer.
Bora has more, and you can read the original on PLoS.
Sereno PC, Wilson JA, Witmer LM, Whitlock JA, Maga A, et al. (2007) Structural Extremes in a Cretaceous Dinosaur. PLoS ONE 2(11): e1230. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001230
I’m not a fan of the Huffington Post — I see too much support for clowns like Chopra and anti-scientific thinking like Robert Kennedy’s — so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised at this. Matthew Chapman posted his suggestion for a presidential debate on science there. This is the same issue I thought was a good idea, but cynically suspected none of the candidates would ever go for it. The response on HuffPo was to a large part deranged.
Sidr is currently officially a Category 5 cyclone, and is about to make landfall in Bangladesh…and has also finally made the top news story at CNN. You can get more timely info from a Bangladesh blog and the Bangladesh online news agency.
If you’ve been wondering about this administration’s priorities (you probably haven’t, but go with the flow), take a look at this chart comparing spending on the war with spending on alternative energy research. That thing isn’t going to scale tidily to fit on a powerpoint slide, I’m afraid.
Somehow, this reminds me of my meetup with Phil.
It’s an exercise for the reader to decide whether Phil was the meteor or the cat.
