These Maratus jumping spiders are spectacular.
Maybe there’s hope with some plastic surgery and a lot of tattooing.
One drawback: I’d never want to wear pants again.
These Maratus jumping spiders are spectacular.
Maybe there’s hope with some plastic surgery and a lot of tattooing.
One drawback: I’d never want to wear pants again.
This diagram from Convergent Adaptation of True Crabs (Decapoda: Brachyura) to a Gradient of Terrestrial Environments is going to reinforce the idea that everything converges on crabs…which is kind of cool anyway.
Please note, this diagram illustrates the evolution of a single, large, successful clade, the Brachyura. It does not imply that humans and salamanders and spiders are going to converge on a crablike form, OK? The interesting thing is that all the descendants of this Triassic lineage, despite going through multiple independent transitions from marine to terrestrial and back again, have assumed these very similar (superficially, at least) forms, and that tells us something interesting. The Brachyura have some internal constraints that shape their evolution, and studying them help us understand the balance between inherited patterns and external forces. That’s the conclusion of the paper, that there are constraints on evolution.
Herein, we inferred a large molecular phylogeny of true crabs, estimated divergence times that were older than previously thought, and estimated the number of transitions from marine to non-marine lifestyles. We found up to 17 convergent transitions through direct and indirect pathways, with at least 3 climbing to higher degrees of terrestrial adaptation. The most highly terrestrial clades were some of the oldest non-marine inferences in our data, with their common ancestors having diverged over 66 Ma. At least 9 more recent events throughout the Cenozoic led to crabs living in intertidal and marginal marine environments, a shift that is estimated to be much easier based on lower threshold liability and likely fewer traits required. As instances of convergent evolution provide emerging models in the form of “natural experiments,” the framework we have developed to compare the gradient of adaptations will enable future research that aims to “predict” the constraints leading to repeated trait evolution and better understand the drivers of biodiversity across related groups.
The Wall Street Journal reports that Elon Musk is a historic flop.
The $13 billion that Elon Musk borrowed to buy Twitter has turned into the worst merger-finance deal for banks since the 2008-09 financial crisis.
The seven banks involved in the deal, including Morgan Stanley and Bank of America, lent the money to the billionaire’s holding company to take the social-media platform, now named X, private in October 2022. Banks that provide loans for takeovers generally sell the debt quickly to other investors to get it off their balance sheets, making money on fees.
The banks haven’t been able to offload the debt without incurring major losses—largely because of X’s weak financial performance—leaving the loans stuck on their balance sheets, or “hung” in industry jargon. The resulting write-downs have hobbled the banks’ loan books and, in one case, was a factor that crimped compensation for a bank’s merger department, according to people involved with the deal.
The value of the loans to Musk quickly soured after the $44 billion acquisition was completed. But new analysis shows how their persistent underperformance has put the deal in historic territory.
I’m slightly sympathetic. I too was in debt to the Bank of America, but then I paid off my mortgage last month. If I’d been able to take out a $13 billion loan I wouldn’t be paying it off, either.
I wouldn’t be able to take out that loan anyway, because I lack “allure”.
The banks that agreed to underwrite a deal that even Musk said was overvalued did so largely because the allure of banking the world’s richest person was too attractive to pass up, according to people involved in the deal.
You’d think banks would be hard-headed and practical about this sort of thing, but no, they fell for “allure”.
It’s depressing how much the right wing of politics owes to creationists. Madhusudan Katti speaks a well-recognized truth.
Veterans of the evolution wars have been alarmed at how some of the figures driving the antiscience and anti-intellectual agenda of the modern Republican Party emerged from the creationist movement. A prime example is Manhattan Institute’ Christopher Rufo, who rose from Seattle’s Discovery Institute (birthplace of “intelligent design”) to become a leading conservative intellectual; his attacks on universities have taken on dangerous proportions, linked to attacks on academic freedom in states like Florida. Such mastery of the Gish gallop manifests not just on the debate stage these days, but in the op-ed pages of major newspapers falsely demonizing “critical race theory,” decrying DEI and getting prominent university presidents fired. Rufo and like-minded advocates know how to flood the zone with a steady barrage of disinformation until, as the philosopher and Holocaust survivor Hannah Arendt noted, “people no longer can believe anything”, losing their “capacity to act” or “to think and to judge”, and “with such a people, you can then do what you please.”
What we once thought of as an obscure reference to weird creationist tactics has become common parlance. Just about everyone knows what a Gish Gallop is, and every time a Republican steps up to a lectern we can trust them to deploy it. We have seen Trump use it; even his rallies are a random, scattershot collection of confusing nonsense. Sharks and electric batteries, anyone? Crowd sizes at his past events? Hannibal Lecter? It’s madness.
Ask one of those veterans of the evolution wars what we should do when confronted with a galloping Gish. The first bit of advice is the simplest.
The best advice for scientists, honed after years of fighting creationist and climate-denial drivel, is to eschew fake debates on stages as simply lending megaphones to liars.
Unfortunately, politicians are trapped by convention and have to do debates. So, specifically, what should someone do when compelled to participate in a debate?
Now that Biden has withdrawn from the race, the next debate, scheduled for September 10, will likely feature Harris, the presumptive Democratic nominee, who better be prepared to counter Trump’s Gish gallop more forcefully. She will face a well-practiced con artist and loud dissembler who will flood the zone with enough falsehoods to outshout the former prosecutor and senator. (Speaking as an evolutionary scientist, there are no prizes for guessing which side of the evolution-creation debate these two candidates fall on, either.) When it’s her turn to respond, Harris should turn the tables on Trump by calling him out as a liar without bothering to refute each lie and refocus the audience on her own message. When asked how she might respond if Trump started stalking her on stage, Harris said she would turn around and ask “Why are you being so weird?” Indeed, her campaign has already leaned into this strategy to highlight and mock just how extreme the Republican agenda has become. It just might see her win the next debate as well.
This is good advice for all the youtubers who get sucked into engaging with liars and fools. First, don’t. Second, if you must, focus one one thing instead of a thousand and drill down hard to expose the dumbass. Third, make it clear that your opponent is not a scientist, is not qualified to address the evidence, and is just a weird pretentious clown who is wasting everyone’s time.
But it’s unavoidable when one party is explicitly anti-science. Scientific American scrutinizes Project 2025 from the perspective of science, and you won’t be surprised to learn that a substantial part of that document is explicitly about politicizing science. Let’s start by replacing civil servants with Republican hacks.
Project 2025 presents a long-standing conservative vision of a smaller government and describes specific, detailed steps to achieve this goal. It would shrink some federal departments and agencies while eliminating others—dividing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention into two weaker entities, for instance, and abolishing the Department of Education (ED) entirely.
What is even more unusual, and also mapped out in detail, is a plan to exert more presidential control over traditionally nonpartisan governmental workers—those Trump might describe as members of the “deep state,” or regulatory bureaucracy. For example, Project 2025 claims that the the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and other scientific institutions are “vulnerable to obstructionism” unless appointees at these agencies are “wholly in sync” with presidential policy. To that end, it would reclassify tens of thousands of civil service jobs as political positions that answer to the president.
Obstructionism, in their mind, is when someone competent and qualified tells a MAGA Republican that their ideas are wrong. Project 2025 hits a whole bunch of topics: abortion, agriculture, climate change, education, environment, health care, and technology. Do those sound like areas where science might possibly make an informed contribution? Or would you prefer to have some smug graduate of a backwoods Bible college dictating policy?
That photo is nauseating. Elon Musk is not at all pious — he’s blatantly pandering to conservatives who are often religious. Now he’s calling himself a “cultural Christian,” a phrase I’ve heard a few times before, and never fails to make my stomach churn.
Describing himself as “cultural Christian,” Musk indicated his guiding belief goes back to that of seeking greater understanding. “That is my religion, for the lack of a better way to describe it, it’s really a religion of curiosity,” he said. “The religion of greater enlightenment.”
And then applying his First Principles mindset, Musk extrapolated that what follows from that goal is to have “consciousness expand in scale and scope” by increasing population and allowing differing perspectives. Or put differently, more babies and free speech.
Yeah, that’s short for “white nationalist”. He’s also claiming to have been a thoughtful scholar of religion…until he discovered that science fiction was a better fit.
As he grew older, Musk has said, he turned to the great religious books—the Bible, Quran, Torah, some Hindu texts—to deal with an existential crisis of meaning. And he looked to philosophers such as Arthur Schopenhauer and Friedrich Nietzsche.
But not until the boy discovered science fiction, he says, did he begin to find what he was looking for. In particular, he says, it was the lesson he took away from the “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” that the purpose of life wasn’t so much about finding the big answers but asking the right questions.
I don’t believe he ever read those religious texts or those philosophers, making him similar to Donald Trump. But I can believe he read Douglas Adams, although he didn’t understand him.
Elon is a perfect example of a real-life Otto.
I wouldn’t have guess the Irish, but the Irish would notice.
“Has anybody ever seen the movie ‘Gangs of New York’? ” Vance queried at a press conference held at the Milwaukee Police Association. “That’s what I’m talking about.
“We know that when we have these massive ethnic enclaves forming in our country, it can sometimes lead to higher crime rates,” Vance stated. “What we want is an American immigration policy that promotes assimilation.”
This is what happens when you base your policy on what movie you’ve seen. The facts are a bit different, though.
However, studies have indicated that migrants are no more likely to commit crimes than native-born Americans. The fictional film is set in 19th-century New York and centers around a feud between rival gangs of different backgrounds. The protagonist is an Irish immigrant seeking revenge for his father’s murder, reports the Journal Sentinel.
The Danes better watch out if he ever watches The Salvation.
Or maybe he’ll center immigration policy on a viewing of Alien: Romulus.
There is a town in Washington state which has built almost 30 dinosaur statues and installed them in parks. It’s called Granger, WA, and I have probably passed through it in the past — it’s near Yakima and the Tri-Cities, but they only started celebrating dinosaurs after 1994, after my time. As you might predict, some people don’t like it.
Here’s one old man complaining about it in the Tri-City Herald.
During my grandson’s dinosaur obsession, he brought home an elementary school library book that taught dinosaurs came into existence by means of evolution. He told me that he asked the school librarian if there were any books that taught that God created them, and he was told no.
I wish our public schools would present creationism (Intelligent Design) as a possible alternative. I shared my story with a local school board member to bring awareness and, hopefully, to include a few books that promote a viable option to evolution.
We are frequent visitors to different branches of the Mid-Columbia Library and at the time, we couldn’t find any physical books on dinosaurs that didn’t teach the theory of evolution. We requested they purchase “Dinosaurs for Kids” by Ken Ham, who is noted for building the full size replica of Noah’s Ark in Kentucky, named Ark Encounter. This particular book offers a view based on creationism. They were kind enough to purchase the book, and it is now a welcome addition to the library for our grandson and others to enjoy.
Or laugh at, as the case may be.
He does obliviously fail to notice one thing, though: the libraries aren’t afraid to include a wacky book from a religious source, but you won’t find any science books at the Ark Park. He does not, in fact, have any factual basis for presenting the narrow, sectarian cult beliefs of Answers in Genesis as comparable to the books the library did stock. Oh, he does have the usual argument from personal incredulity.
Both creationists and evolutionists easily acknowledge that the modern day inventions of a F-22 fighter jet, the Freedom Tower, or Mount Rushmore couldn’t have happened by accident or chance, but had to have a designer. I believe a much more complex structure, a living breathing human being, had a creator.
To me, it seems to be a blind leap of faith that the universe popped into existence as if by magic; in that matter created itself out of nothing by sheer random accident.
This seems to defy all science and mathematical probability, in my opinion. Others can consider another perspective, but I’ll stick with the idea that God, who wants a personal relationship with us, created this beautiful world by design.
So…he misrepresents evolution, which does not argue that complex organisms arose entirely by chance; he conflates evolution and the origin of the universe; he has an opinion that evolution defies science, rather than being part of it; he claims to have knowledge of the personal choices of an invisible intangible supreme being that created a universe of many trillions of stars so that he could be friends with a few mammals on one planet. I pity his grandson.
He ends his silly little opinion piece with what he probably considers a clever remark.
Dinosaurs may be extinct, but my beliefs don’t have to be.
I don’t think he understands that words like “extinct” can have multiple meanings, or that his beliefs aren’t persecuted — witness the Mid-Columbia Library’s response to his request.
You might be wondering how this random old guy has such authority in science that he can be advising the local school board. Here are his qualifications:
Lee Walter is Sunday School superintendent at Columbia Bible Church in Kennewick and vice chairman of the Tri-Cities Child Evangelism Fellowship.
No qualifications at all, no understanding of science, but his opinions are regularly featured in the Tri-City Herald — and he’s distressed that he can’t find his religious myths sufficiently represented in the public library.
Does anybody else find the concept of a Child Evangelism Fellowship distinctly creepy? What kind of person signs up for that?
Remember when we used to have creationists pop up in the comments here to spew stupid arguments and everyone would be wrangling over their inanities? They haven’t been coming by in recent years. I’d like to fantasize that we educated them all and they all learned the errors of their ways, but we know that’s not true. More likely, we have a reputation as an intensely hostile environment, and they migrated to occupy a more suitable niche.
But where?
I think I found them. Their new habitat is…Instagram.
Here’s a delightful little video, a guy doing a parody of Rage Against the Machine, changing they lyrics of “Killing in the Name” to explain how species change over time (sorry, I can’t imbed Instagram videos here, you’ll have to click on the link to see it). It’s short, it’s amusing. But it’s the comments that are amazing. I snipped out a small collection of the garbage posted there.
It’s funny how the upper echelons of biology, genetics, and evolutionists have disproved this. But the regular people and educational institutions haven’t caught on yet.
The fossil record doesn’t support the theory of evolution
Darwin has been debunked
But if all mammals came from fish, why are there still fish?
The laws of thermodynamics disprove evolution. Especially the second law.
But wait. Why are there still horses?
Interesting mix of micro evolution, a proven fact, with macro evolution, a long debunked theory
Evolution is a fun fantasy
Requires faith to believe we came from nothing, just like it requires faith to believe in God creating us. Fascinating the study abiogenesis, in the beginning, how it all could have started. I don’t have enough faith to believe we are one big accident, but that’s just me. 😉
we don’t evenadapt…we die if there is a 1 degree celsius difference from a country to another and u say we evolve? get outta here.
It’s an effen THEORY …
Christ is Lord
Brings up a good question about the ethics of fertility treatments and surrogacy. Some genes aren’t meant to be passed but we decided we’re going to force them down the line
Then explain this, why do monkeys and primates still exist if we EVOLVED from them.. would they have not died out? That sure is what the lyrics here imply, as well as the THEORY of evolution. Just admit, you dont have an answer for EVERYTHING.. Sorry.
Now do a song about how the fossil record is littered with evolutionary dead ends. Oh, wait…
The funniest part is there is no evidence of macro-evolution(monkeys to humans) but extensive evidence of micro-evolution(Darwins birds). God created all. Ecosystem factors created adaptations post creation.
Some of it might be sarcasm, like the “Why are there still…” comments. I didn’t include the sensible comments, like, “Imagine being a country that still has to explain evolutionism. I live 1km from the Vatican and NO ONE questions Darwin. Only ‘mmmurricah 😂” But it’s impressive how creationists have adapted by migrating to more favorable environments where they can double down on their folly.
I’m afraid to look at TikTok now.
This weird.
Trump supporters are carrying around a pretend jar of JD Vance’s jizz to mock Democrats that are unable to conceive children, just in case anyone wonders why we think they are a cult and just plain fucking weird pic.twitter.com/XqylRfWCej
— Derek the Jedi (@DerekNeverFails) August 18, 2024
Trump supporters are carrying around a pretend jar of JD Vance’s jizz to mock Democrats that are unable to conceive children, just in case anyone wonders why we think they are a cult and just plain fucking weird
Even if it’s just pretend, this is a gross concept.