Zimmer has a summary of the latest discoveries in the evolution of the baleen whales. It’s beautiful stuff, with the lineage showing their origin from toothed whales, through a phase where they had both teeth and baleen, to their current condition lacking teeth and having only baleen.
Trust me on this, I’m no fan of D. James Kennedy, the pompous airhead who runs Coral Ridge Ministries, so I’m happy to report that Kevin Beck also thinks he is a “lying asshat”.
I feel a little bit sorry for Joel Borofsky, Dembski’s ‘research’ assistant. Over at Inoculated Mind, Karl Mogel has excavated Borofsky’s tawdry history on them thar IntarWubs. I’d forgive him some of the earlier illiterate, whiny stuff—he started at a very young age, at about the same age as my daughter (who seems to be able to use the internet without sounding like a doofus, though)—but he doesn’t seem to have improved with age.
Neddie Jingo has an appalling example of the kind of presentation used to promote our strategic plan in Iraq. Go take a look and weep—it’s one of those meaningless godawful PowerPoint-style assemblages of boxes and arrows. You know what I mean: a nightmare of chartjunk that distracts everyone into contemplating the relationships of graphical abstractions on a screen rather than actually dealing with the substance behind them.
I’m actually very impressed that he managed to also put together a paragraph actually explaining what the graphic is supposed to mean, and that the paragraph makes sense…and exposes the deficiencies in the plan.
Once upon a time, it took a fair amount of effort to put together a slide for a presentation. It involved photography—that stuff with film—and you had to plan well ahead and put it together with some care. You had to think about what you were going to include. And when you put all that work and planning into each slide, once it was projected on the wall, you spent a good bit of time carefully explaining it to your audience. The slide was an illustration of some data, and the interpretation and explanation was done with the words you used to accompany it.
Now what I see with PowerPoint is a proliferation of graphical noise and short bullet points, accompanying by a steady bloating of the number of slides shown. An image is no longer a piece of real-world data, but something the speaker flashes up as a substitute for saying anything. As the Neddie Jingo example shows, it can be a flying piece of fantasy with no substance behind it at all…but string enough of those together and you can zip through a pretense of a talk without actually having to say anything.
One measure of a good talk to my mind is being able to imagine the video projector failing, and the speaker still being able to communicate a sensible idea to the audience. PowerPoint isn’t the point of your talk, it’s a convenience, a crutch, a tool for making some data visible. Nothing more.
Although it does look like it can also be a weapon of mass distraction when misused by the military.
It’s almost official now: Pluto really is a planet. As Phil points out, though, this means there are now 12 planets, with maybe many more to come.
Awww, it’s a charming little story about the intelligence of the octopus:
Ah, the creepy-crawly creature, the swarming arms, that deep-sea demeanor. This is the bearer of intelligence?
“That was my attitude, too,” confesses science writer Eugene Linden, who has written about animal intelligence since the 1970s and had focused, mostly, on the “big-brained” creatures such as apes, dolphins, elephants and whales. “I shared all the prejudices everybody else has.”
Then he started hearing octopus stories. Like how they can open screw-top jars and hamster balls and child-proof caps. They can do mazes and learn shapes and distinguish colors and use tools.
“They play,” says Jennifer Mather, a psychologist and octopus expert at Canada’s University of Lethbridge.
There are even hints that octopuses have a sense of humor, Linden says.
He talks about the finicky octopus who, in a lab in Pennsylvania, was served slightly spoiled shrimp. The octopus refused to finish its dinner, and when the feeding researcher returned to its tank, the octopus made eye contact with her, then meaningfully pushed all the shrimp down the drain.
A great deal of that is the interpretation of the human observer, of course; it could be the octopus isn’t making a joke at all, but is instead mentally noting the face of the offending person and promising itself to make her pay someday. But still, it’s clear that some wonderfully sophisticated things are going on inside those big invertebrate brains.
(Thanks to Mrs Coulter)
Southern Illinois University Carbondale is raising money for their Darwin Day celebration by selling something a little bit cheesy, but I may have to get one for my office anyway: a Darwin bobblehead. Cute, eh? Don’t you need one, too?
A reader sent in a question asking me to explain this: a swallowtail wings with different color patterns. Has anybody seen anything like this before? Got any explanations?
My first thought was that it was a genetic mosaic. A mitotic error in early development can lead to one wing primordium carrying a mutant allele, and the other carrying a wild-type form. At metamorphosis, the differences would become visible. It could be a defect that knocks out one pigment on pale wing, or since swallowtails can show sexual and seasonal dimorphism, it could be a change that switches on or off a male/female pattern, or an early summer/late summer pattern. Alternatively (and probably less likely), since seasonal morphs are switched by environmental conditions, this could have been a pupa in a very odd place that got different signals on the two sides.
If you’ve got a better idea, pass it on in the comments.
According to Red State Rabble, the Kansas Citizens for Science group has just turned 7. They’re an example to us all—local activism on behalf of science is exactly how we can win this war against ignorance.
I’d point at England and give a Nelson Muntz laugh if it weren’t so depressing. A survey of UK students on evolution is showing large numbers falling for the creationism/ID scam.
In a survey last month, more than 12% questioned preferred creationism — the idea God created us within the past 10,000 years — to any other explanation of how we got here. Another 19% favoured the theory of intelligent design — that some features of living things are due to a supernatural being such as God. This means more than 30% believe our origins have more to do with God than with Darwin — evolution theory rang true for only 56%.
Of course, you know whose fault this is: Richard Dawkins. Who else could possibly have filled English children’s heads with these kinds of ideas?
“As a Christian, I have believed in it for a long time and I have no reason to doubt it.”
“When I look at things in the world I think it is amazing that God has created it for us. If you have faith in God you can believe he has done it, whether there is evidence or not.”
“
As a practising Muslim, the holy Qur’an — that’s our proper evidence.”
Why, those are straight out of Dawkins’ books! I think. Maybe. Some books, anyway…the author was probably an atheist, so that’s close enough.
