You may recall that a while back I mentioned how Jerry Coyne praised some work on bat evo-devo. I also said that I was going to have to write that paper up sometime. The bad news: I haven't written it up for the blog. The good news: I did write it up for a future Seed column. The better news: Stephen Matheson has a summary right now, so you don't have to wait for my column to come out.
You should still subscribe anyway. It's pretty on shiny paper.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
So here I am at the IGERT Symposium on Evolution, Development, and Genomics, having a grand time, even if I did get called out in the very first talk. There were two keynote talks delivered this evening, both of which I was anticipating very much, and which represented the really good side of…
Over at Greg's place, Brian Switek notes:
Thanks for the link Greg (and thanks for the compliment, Steve). I've generally been unimpressed with Coyne's popular articles, especially given that he seems to go out of his way to attack Gould and evo-devo whenever it seems fit to do so (which is just…
We had Neil Shubin here last week, and now Jerry Coyne is guest-blogging at The Loom. I look forward to the day that I can just sit back and invite prominent scientists to do my work for me here.
Although, I have to say that while Coyne is largely correct, he's being a bit unfair. He's addressing…
It was nothing but gray skies and intermittent rain while I was there. It was so beautiful … it felt like home. It was also good seeing my old mentors from grad school days, Chuck Kimmel and John Postlethwait.
Patrick Phillips played this video on the big screen. In my presence. I thought about…
And, of course, all vertebrate wings are modified forelimbs of their direct ancestors.
You might think the "designer" has a foot fetish. But that doesn't explain it either, since it only likes to turn mammal feet/legs into mammal wings, dinosaur feet/legs into bird wings, and similar with pterosaur wings.
I think I see why they don't want to identify the designer. They'd be shown to be worshipping a defective god having extremely strange cognitive and/or psychological problems.
Glen D
tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
We don't care about the biology or the bats, how does The Joker fit into all of this?
It's maybe worth noting, too, that recently found bat fossils indicate that flying developed before sonar in bats.
In the sense of mosaic evolution, then, we have an important transitional form, although, as with archaeopteryx, we don't have a transitional form of flying (even if it's clear that archaeopteryx was as predicted by evolution, not as well adapted to flight as much later birds are). With bats, fossils of transitionals might be completely impossible to find, since the transition to flight (at least gliding) seems like it may have been very rapid
Anyway, it looks like it's going to be an informative article.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxxyc7
PZ - I just saw this cartoon and immediately thought of you.
Check it out!
http://www.flowgo.com/funny/3204_thanks-all-hard-work.html
Nice! Really, that's all I can say. I've always loved bats. Speaking of which, has there been any more news about the mysterious "white-nose plague" that's been afflicting bats in New England?
Glen,
A while back I pondered the fact that the god of the bible appears to suffer some sort of dissociative identity disorder. That, rather amusingly, leads the obvious conclusion that christians and jews needs must be polytheists.
Well they say, "follow the evidence."
While one must admit that they'd never arrive at a designer by following the evidence, once they've snuck it into science they'd best admit that the designer has serious problems, or it's all due to some weird committee of gods.
So, while we can't find god via science, they would have to admit a fucked-up god as soon as they decided that god is responsible for life. ID tells the non-theist nothing then, it just puts the theist in a serious bind.
Or iow, I think it's true that many theists really do like evolution for religious reasons, for although theodicy remains a problem for all believers in a beneficent god, at least evolution absolves god of direct responsibility for great evil and stupidity.
While we recognize that god has the only excuse possible for a deity, he actually is not present in the universe according to the evidence, and apparently never has been.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
I hear there's some caffeine fortified drink which reportedly causes the drinkers to sport wings which appear to be non-homologous to forearms. I assume it's simply a forced expression of those genes much like the mouse with the ear on it's back. In any case the stuff would clearly be best avoided... not only because that's creepy but because the stuff tastes like crap.
Evolution does point out certain weaknesses in their good books though..
Even if we were to ignore geo-time, the authors (Edited by theo?!)seem to fuck up by as soon as day four in their first novell.. That is, if we were to "believe" recent evolutionary hypothesis.
Then again, no devine proof for that, is there?
Nice bat post!!!
I hear there's some caffeine fortified drink which reportedly causes the drinkers to sport wings which appear to be non-homologous to forearms. I assume it's simply a forced expression of those genes much like the mouse with the ear on it's back.
:) I'm going for the Hox genes on the wings, but I'm almost 99% positive that mouse was just a I.D. scam by some very creative plastic surgeons with a cartilage fetish.
I guess this fits best here; from the "What good is half a wing?" files:
"The fish was completely airborne for 45 seconds."