A shout-out to a recuperating reader

April 30, 2015 • 4:45 pm

Reader (and biologist) Sarah Crews had back surgery yesterday, and came home (the same day!) to find, on the bed, two of her cats in a pose she calls “ridiculousness.” The cats are Professeur Chippeur (“Chippi”), left, and Surprise, Cat! (because he always looks surprised).

This is to wish her a speedy recovery, which is almost guaranteed given that these two funny rescue cats are on hand—and seven other ferals going in and out.

Ridiculousness

Dino-bat: a new flying dinosaur with membranous wings

April 30, 2015 • 1:09 pm

The evolution of flight in birds must have involved many dead ends, including all those dinosaurs with feathers that never evolved to the flying or gliding stage, or even the flying lineages that went extinct—like all dinosaurs except the single lineage that produced modern birds—when the asteroid whacked us at the end of the Cretaceous. A just-discovered species of dinosaur, described in a new paper in Nature by Xing Xu and colleagues (reference and free link at bottom), was almost certainly one of those failed experiments in flying or gliding.

The species is remarkable for two things. First, instead of having feathered forelimbs like the early ancestors of birds, it had a naked membrane stretched between the digits of its forelimbs and its body. (It did have feathers, but not on the wing membrane.) In that way it was like bats or pterodactyls. But pterodactyls weren’t dinosaurs, and so this finding, which is a winged theropod like its feathered cousins, is unique.

Further, the beast had a long bone which was an evolved extension of the wrist bone: a bone that almost certainly supported the wing membrane and, in the fossil, appears connected to that membrane. This, too, is unique in dinosaurs, but can be seen in other flying or gliding creatures like “flying” squirrels (they don’t fly, of course, but glide), the gliding marsupial “squirrel,” the ankles of some bats, and the pterosaurs. (Do recall that the “radial sesamoid” of the panda—the “panda’s thumb” made famous by Stephen Jay Gould, was also an extension of the wristbone that helped the panda strip leaves from bamboo.)

Sadly, only one specimen of this beast was found, and it’s missing the rear bits, including the crucial tail, which could have given us some information about how it glided or flew. In fact, we have no idea whether this one glided, flew, or both.

The species was named Yi qi (surely the shortest species name we have), which is Mandarin for “strange wing,” and is pronounced, according to the authors, “ee chee.”  Here’s the one specimen they found in China, dating from the Upper-middle Jurassic (ca. 160 million years ago). The scale bar at upper left is 2 centimeters (about 0.8 inches). There’s a diagram below showing the bones and what they represent:

Screen Shot 2015-04-30 at 10.35.15 AM

You can see the feather impressions above, and they’re outlined in light gray in the diagram below. There are filamentous feathers all over the body, though not on the membrane.

Screen Shot 2015-04-30 at 10.35.45 AM

So here are the crucial bits: the “styliform elements” that are an extension of the wrist, certainly produced by selection to support the membrane.  Those bits are represented by “lse” (left styliform element) and “rse” (right styliform element) in the diagrams above.

In the picture below the right styliform element is singled out (“ru” and “rr” are the ulna and radius respectively, the lower arm bones that we also have. The best way to see that these bones are extensions from the wrist is in the yellow diagram above, where the left styliform element (“lse”) extends out to to the left from the wrist, where the fingers (lmd [left manual digits] 2, 3, and 4 originate.

Screen Shot 2015-04-30 at 12.39.11 PM

The shot below shows patches of membranes; as the authors say, “sheet-like soft tissue associated with the right forelimb (yellow arrows point to patches of sheet-like soft tissue)”.

Screen Shot 2015-04-30 at 10.46.15 AM

Finally, here’s a closeup showing both feathers and membrane; as the authors say, “comparison of sheet-like soft tissue (above digit II) and individual feathers (below digit II).” You can see this bit labeled as “rmd2” in the big photo and diagram above. The distinction is clear between filaments and membrane!:

Screen Shot 2015-04-30 at 11.25.34 AM

Here’s the authors’ reconstruction of the skeleton, which closely resembles that of other theropods with wings, and you can see the long wrist-extension bone going from upper left to lower right. The main “regular” finger supporting the wing is digit #4, which is the big one with the claw almost touching the ground:

Screen Shot 2015-04-30 at 10.47.05 AM

There’s an analysis of the phylogeny of this specimen, but that needn’t detain us here; suffice it to say that it nests within the other theropod dinosaurs, and so is not at all a pterosaur.

Here’s an imaginative reconstruction of Yi qi from ScienceNews (the tail and rear bits are imaginary, as we don’t have them!):

ay_glidinghero_free
From: DINOSTAR CO. LTD

For comparison, here’s a pterosaur, also showing the wrist extension (the small “swordlike” bone coming off pointing at the shoulders), and the enormously enlarged single digit that supported the wing membrane. That was also digit #4, so there’s a case of convergent evolution here with the specimen above.  You can also see that the rest of the fingers simply stuck out from the wing.

NYCTOSR3

And here’s a pterosaur reconstruction from dinosaurjungle.com. The eentsy “fingers” sticking out from the wing may have helped it clamber about. In trees or on cliffs:

focus_pterosaur2
In contrast, bats differ in two ways. Four of their major digits—instead of one—support the wing (a single finger sticks out), and in this case there’s no wrist extension bone, though there appears to be one in the rear leg “wrist”:

bat skeleton:

bat vs skeleton

So, what we have is one of evolution’s luxuriances: a cool lineage that may well have included fliers or gliders, but didn’t form an ancestor of modern birds—though it may have been close to that ancestor.  It doesn’t tell us much about how modern birds evolved, but does affirm that the lineage we have today, as with many other groups like horses, involved many related branches that died out without leaving descendants.  Modern birds are the lucky ones (especially the ones that eat my seeds!).

h/t: Ant

_______

Xu, X., et al. (2015). A bizarre Jurassic maniraptoran theropod with preserved evidence of membranous wingsNature advance online publication.

Two readers testify that evolution helped them give up religion

April 30, 2015 • 9:55 am

Since Tuesday I’ve gotten two heartening letters from readers, both erstwhile religionists who abandoned their faith at least partly after learning about evolution. One was a Mormon, the other a Jehovah’s Witness. And both gave me permission to publish their emails and their identities.

I have to admit that I’m pleased that I was given credit for some of their enlightenment about the truth of evolution and the falsity of faith, so one of the labels I’ll put on this post is “self promotion.” But I want to make two points about these emails, and about similar ones I’ve received over the years.

First, you can change religious people’s minds about evolution, even though it’s not common. Accommodationists tout the alternative strategy of evolutionists kissing up to religion, saying that once religious people realize that evolution is compatible with their faith, they’ll flock to Darwinism. Well, that hasn’t worked. And there’s no evidence for their assertion that being an atheist and at the same time promoting evolution actually drives people away from atheism and science acceptance. I claim that the number of believers in the world has been reduced by my writing WEIT.  I’ve heard from a fair number of people who left religion because if it, but none who abandoned evolution in favor of faith because Professor Ceiling Cat is a Strident Atheist. (And believe me, those people would tell me!)

Second, I’ve learned that abandoning faith often begins with learning facts: often the scientific facts supporting evolution. I have heard many times (twice at TAM from Orthodox Jews—and in a single day!) that people’s journey to rationality and unbelief began with learning about evolution. This shows, to me at least, that religions do depend heavily on believing actual facts about nature, and are not simply vehicles for communality and empathy that are devoid of factual content. Were that the case, learning about evolution would not motivate people to leave religion. In the case of the two men who testify below, it was the dissonance between what their faith taught and the actual facts about evolution that made them see their religion was purveying lies. If those lies could easily be re-cast as metaphors, as Sophisticated Theologians™ urge, this wouldn’t happen.

So all of this does indeed justify the fears of some believers that evolution is dangerous to their faith.

On to the emails. In both cases I verified the identities of the correspondents.

*******

Hello Mr Coyne,

I would like to thank you for writing the book ‘Why Evolution is True’, and I am really enjoying the posts on your website.

I was raised as a Jehovah’s Witness, and last week they forcibly disassociated me from the religion (meaning that I am now labelled a ‘wicked’ person, to be shunned by all JWs). I am still waiting to find out whether my dad and in-laws will ever talk to me again. The reason I was given the boot is that I wrote an account of my reasons for leaving the faith (although I never tried to persuade anyone else to leave).

Anyway, inspired by your book, but wanting a more concise resource summarizing some of the more impressive evidence for evolution, I wrote a compact list of the evidence for evolution, which can be found here.

Thank you for helping me make the transition from belief to scepticism. I am a lot happier for it!

Regards,

Russell Walker.

In our further correspondence, he told me that it was difficult to leave the faith. Jehovah’s Witnesses have a policy of completely shunning those who leave: a border-collie tactic designed keep sheep in the fold. (Here’s their own explanation of how this odious practice works.)

He added this in a subsequent email (Jehovah’s Witnesses, of course, completely reject evolution):

Leaving the JWs was quite a traumatic experience. From initial doubts to being completely honest with myself that I didn’t believe took about 10 years (I left in 2010, but was only officially expelled last week). After admitting to myself that I did not believe, I spent several months reading voraciously. Early on in that process I found out (in part thanks to your book) that the people who lead the religion, whom I had trusted implicitly, had been shockingly dishonest about the evidence surrounding evolution. I was absolutely appalled at the quotes taken out of context, logical fallacies (I had to learn what a logical fallacy was), and thoroughly biased presentation of the subject. None of this was apparent to me when I was a believer because of the information control that the religion imposes (including not trusting ‘worldly’ sources of information, and completely shunning apostates – refusing to even look at anything they have to say).

Within a few weeks of leaving, I had come to terms with the fact that there is simply insufficient evidence for a supreme being, and that I was not going to live forever. When I was a believer, I thought that such a realisation would render my life meaningless (and that prevented me from pursuing answers to my doubts), but in reality I very quickly adapted, and now feel that my life has much greater meaning than ever before. I am mentally free. I no longer live with the anguish of doubt, and other psychological baggage that comes from being in a high control group.

Sadly, it looks like the JWs will continue to cast their pall over my family life for some time yet. Still, I have no regrets.

Russ.

Finally, I wondered what kind of role learning about evolution really played in Russ’s de-conversion, so I asked him this:

“It does surprise me that reading about evolution is enough to turn the tide. I wouldn’t have expected that a priori, but, I suppose, evolution is the one solid bit of evidence that everyone can understand AND that contradicts one’s faith.  Maybe that’s why reading about Darwinism tends to dispel faith.”

He responded in this way:

I think the reason evolution was such a clincher for me is that my whole belief was built on what I thought was solid and logically sound proof of creationism. My faith was a house of cards built on ‘proof’ that God exists (rather than any personal religious experience or anecdotal evidence). In effect, I was ‘reasoned into’ belief in God (albeit the reasoning was unsound), and therefore was able to be ‘reasoned out’ of it too. I think this is rare among the religious though – when I was a believer, I was often a little frustrated with the fact that my fellow believers ‘believed the right things for the wrong reasons’ as I saw it!

Russ.

To those who argue that religion isn’t based on factual beliefs, but on beliefs that are really “fictitious imaginings” (see my previous post about Tonia Lombrozo’s  and Neil van Leuuwen’s defense of this indefensible claim), Russ’s story stands in stark contrast. I think he’s right that people aren’t “reasoned into belief” (indeed, that was the point of William James’s The Varieties of Religious Experience), but that doesn’t mean that their religion, arrived at by emotion or revelation, doesn’t need to be buttressed by beliefs about what is true.

The notion that factuality of beliefs has little or nothing to do with religion is a recent trope of accommodationists, faitheists, and others who want to render religion immune to scientific and rational criticism.

I applaud Russ’s desire to put truth over falsity, even if abandoning superstition meant abandoning his social network. As you see, he’s actually much happier now.

*******

Here’s an email I got from Chris Smith of Bakersfield, California, who in subsequent correspondence ask that he be identified:

Dear Jerry Coyne
I finished reading your book “Why Evolution is True” about a year ago, and I loved it! I was raised in the Mormon church, and I left partially due to your book. I never understood evolution until I read your book, so I wanted to email you and say thank you so much for your clarity and sincerity in the way you explained evolution. Since leaving the Mormon church, I’m so much happier. And thanks to you, I’ve discover how much I love science! Evolution is true!
Thanks again for your book. It meant a lot to me.
Sincerely,
A fan
Kudos to Chris as well. I have another “testimony” that I might publish if I get permission, from another Mormon who told me how strongly the church and its adherents reject (or ignore) evolution. Chris’s account jibes with that.

Readers’ beefs

April 30, 2015 • 8:30 am

A few choice comments arrived over the past few weeks, and I thought I’d share them with you.

First, we have the usual arrogant and ignorant mushhead who tries to find hypocrisy in my acceptance of determinism. When will these people learn that determinism doesn’t preclude actions directed at changing people’s minds—and even successfully changing them? Maybe this is a Poe, but if so it’s not even slightly amusing.

Reader Peter comments on “Jesus ‘n’ Mo ‘n’ Some Animals are More Equal than Others“, and throws in a bit of name-calling:

No such thing as free speech Jerry you mug. There’s no free will according to you you spineless scum. How can there Be free speech and no free will, it’s all determined!!!

Clown.

*******

And then the usual stuff. Reader “Dave Green” tried to comment on the same post:

You are one Dumb Fuck!!!

At least he gave me the respect of capitalizing my epithet!

*******

Reader “Son of man, ” commenting on “Deepak denies that HIV causes AIDS,” is worried about my spiritual welfare.

Please seek a personal relationship with our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the Son of God. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. – John 3:16

No, thank you.

*******

Reader “Ahmed Islamov,” who gave his website link, levels a strong accusation against me about “My New Republic post on the death of Makayla Sault“:

I know, you found a sensitive topic that you are trying to exploit to earn views, hits and comments on your blog (or whatever). However, no matter what emotions you think you have right to be overwhelmed with, it is immoral to attack parents with accusations like that. There is much more that you do not know.

“Immoral”? Seriously? If there is more about this issue that I do not know, the newspapers didn’t find it, either. And if I wanted hits (and $) I could have joined Patheos.

*******

Finally, reader “Rogers Ola” comments on my post “Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons weren’t racist“:

In my opinion, if the journalist of charlie hebdo continue with the sacrilege, France will be risking every islamic nation going on a full blown war with her. Because I don’t understand why a paper will try to indicate an animation of the prophet Muhammad (SAW), when even muslim don’t represent Him (SAW) in any form whatsoever.

At first I didn’t understand “SAW,” but Wikipedia gives the answer (my emphasis):

The Arabic phrase ʿalayhi as-salām (عليه السلام), translating to “peace be upon him” is a durood or conventionally complimentary phrase attached to the name’s of the prophets in Islam. The English phrase is also given the abbreviation pbuh in writing. An extended variant of the phrase reads ṣalla llāhu ʿalay-hi wa-alehe-wa-sallam (Arabic: صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم‎) “may Allah honour him and grant him peace”. The Arabic phrase is given the name ṣalawāt and it is often abbreviated saw in writing in an English-language context.

At any rate, “Rogers Ola” appears to be a Muslim, and if he is I’ll say this to him: Your implicit threats are toothless, branding you as one of those thugs trying to shut up criticism and mockery of your faith by intimidation.  Sorry, but it won’t work on this website. By the way, “Rogers,” did you know that at one time some Muslims did depict the Prophet (viz., some Persian miniatures), and they weren’t even beheaded? Here are two pictures of Muhammad (SAW) from the Wikipedia page “Depictions of Muhammad”.

Here he is going to heaven on his human-faced horse:

Muhammad_1514
Muhammad’s ascent into the Heavens, a journey known as the Mi’raj, as depicted in a copy of the Bostan of Saadi.
Mohammed_receiving_the_submission_of_the_Banu_Nadir
Mohammad (riding the horse) receiving the submission of the Banu Nadir, also Jami Al-Tawarikh.

 I’m curious why jihadists haven’t attacked the Wikipedia staff.

Readers’ wildlife photographs

April 30, 2015 • 7:45 am

Colin Franks of Colin Franks Photography (his photo page here, Facebook page here) has sent me a large group of lovely bird pictures. I’ll put up only a third of them today, as I don’t want to sate you with feathered beauty.

Ruby-crowned Kinglet  (Regulus calendula):

IMG_11038

Spotted Towhee (Pipilo maculatus):

IMG_14506

Northern Pintail (Anas acuta):

IMG_15035

Red breasted Merganser (Mergus serrator):

IMG_15188 - mat

Great Horned Owl (Bubo virginianus):

IMG_15239

Canada Goose (Branta canadensis):

IMG_15309

European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris). Now aren’t these beautiful birds? The only reason we don’t see that is because they’re so common (look at that derogatory species name: “vulgaris”). They’re like onions and Coca-Cola: we don’t recognize their virtues because they’re ubiquitous and inexpensive.

IMG_15331

Northern Pintail (Anas acuta)

IMG_15358

And two more Northern Pintails; I suspect these are mating, and you can see why duck mating often results in the female being drowned—a highly maladaptive act for the male!

IMG_15437

 

One of Them: Part IV

April 30, 2015 • 6:38 am

Wiley Miller continues his series on America’s Hate Laws at Non Sequitur. (Why does that old dude have a cat on his shoulder?)

nq150430

Reader “Micky pearce” (who won’t be seen here in the future) tried to comment on this post, demonstrating precisely the kind of religiously-inspired bigotry shown in the strip:

This is unfair freind. Who wrote that. Not accurate complete picture. pro-gay businesses have rejected Christian approaches too. If homosexuals are wicked enough to approach and target Christian businesses instead of the hundreds of others who would happily fulfil their requirements, seeking trouble and the imposition of their agenda upon others, who really is the uncharitable and divisive party at work here. Bigotry works in all spheres, including the refusal to accept someones Christian position.

Is there a correlation between conservative religiosity and the inability to write and spell?

h/t: Linda Grilli

Thusday: Hili dialogue

April 30, 2015 • 4:56 am

Life goes on, until it stops. More work today, squirrels to feed, chicken breast for dinner, and oy, for some reason I strained my back yesterday, so it’s painful to walk or even move. That hasn’t happened in years, but otherwise I’m holding up okay for a Senior Citizen (yay discounts!).

Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, her Highness has a sharp word for her staff, who apparently let her languish on the veranda:

Hili: I don’t understand why it took you so long to open this door.
A: I was asleep.
Hili: That’s not your job.
P1020613
In Polish:
Hili: Nie rozumiem dlaczego tak długo nie otwierałeś tych drzwi?
Ja: Bo spałem.
Hili: To nie jest twoje zadanie.
Clearly, sleeping is the cat’s job!