Walking backwards 400 million years

Please allow me to tell you about today's trip to Missouri's Cuivre River State Park, about 1 1/2 hour drive from St. Louis. My family and our friends had lunch in the picnic area before setting out on a short hike on a half-dry creek bed. To the right you'll see a typical portion of this walk (clicking on these images will give you bigger higher-res versions). No, we didn't see any bears or snakes, but it was a beautiful day (high temperature about 70, after a summer filled with 100 degree days) and we saw quite a few small spectacular things.How about this blue moth, for example? I looked up this article and it really seems to be a moth and not a butterfly. [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingWalking backwards 400 million years

Explaining the punctuation of equilibrium

The April, 2010 edition of Discover Magazine profiles biologist Lynne Margulis, famous for her well accepted suggestion that eukaryotic bacteria did not evolve in linear fashion, solely as as a result of natural selection. Rather,

mitochondria and plastids--vital structures within animal and plant cells--evolved from bacteria hundreds of millions of years ago, after bacterial cells started to collect and interactive communities and live symbiotically with one another. The resulting mergers yielded the compound cells known as eukaryotes, which in turn gave rise to all the rest-the protoctists, fungi, plants and animals, including humans.
There was a shocking idea at the time (1967), but, as described in this article by Dick Teresi, the more recent ideas of Margulis are even more controversial. The Discover Magazine article documents her arguments that symbiosis is "the central force behind the evolution of new species." This position runs counter to the holding of modern conventional scientific wisdom, that new species arise through "gradual accumulation of random mutations, which are either favored or weeded out by natural selection." Margulis holds that random mutation and natural selection play a minor role and that the big leaps in the evolutionary record "result from mergers between different kinds of organisms, what she calls symbiogenesis." The Discover article takes the form of an interview, in which the dominant theme is that "natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn't create." Margulis argues that the laws of genetics "show stasis, not change." She was prompted by the fact that there is no record of major fossil change until 542 million years ago, yet all of a sudden we see the Cambrian explosion. Stephen Jay Gould coined this phrase, "punctuated equilibrium," "to describe a discontinuity in the appearance of new species." According to Margulis, her explanation of symbiogenesis explains these discontinuities and should thus be considered the primary mechanism for evolution. Margulis carefully distinguishes her approach from arguments based on "intelligent design." She holds that those who advocate for "intelligent design" have nothing meaningful to offer to the scientific conversation. [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingExplaining the punctuation of equilibrium

Noah’s plight and the world of Green Porno

According to the Bible, Noah was ordered to take one male and one female of each species. This part of loading the ark seems easy, at least conceptually.  Just gather up one male and one female of each of the many thousands of species of critters before beginning the journey.

7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. 7:3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.
But there is a problem: many critters don't mate in the "traditional" way, using one male and one female. Luckily, there's help on the way: a reenactment of the boarding of ark.  This delightful and informative "Green Porno" video features Isabella Rosellini.

Continue ReadingNoah’s plight and the world of Green Porno

Cat religion

Over at Mother Jones, Kiera Butler didn't like the answer she got when she asked whether cats were bad for the environment. Here's a bit of what she discovered:

Domestic cats, officially considered an invasive species, kill at least a hundred million birds in the US every year—dwarfing the number killed by wind turbines ... They're also responsible for at least 33 avian extinctions worldwide. A recent Smithsonian Institution study found that cats caused 79 percent of deaths of juvenile catbirds in the suburbs of Washington, DC. Bad news, since birds are key to protecting ecosystems from the stresses of climate change—a 2010 study found that they save plants from marauding insects that proliferate as the world warms. What's more, feral cats can carry some heinous people diseases, including rabies, hookworm, and toxoplasmosis, an infection known to cause miscarriages and birth defects.

What's the solution? Some people advocate for trap-neuter-return (TNR). Butler listens to scientists who have concluded that this is an illusory solution. Real solutions include A) don't feed strays and B) don't let your own cat outside.

Butler's article (and video) touch on the emotion and misinformation rampant among cat-lovers. I've experienced this attitude found in cat people, both in the comments to this post and with regard to a string of neighbors who have lived next door to me.   Perhaps I originally chose to read  Butler's article because I'm highly allergic to cats--they have caused me significant medical woes. I'm also not keen about cats, generally--I don't know why. I've had dogs much of my life, and I've enjoyed having them around, so I'm not anti-pet. I confess that for me, the unceasing allegedly cute cat YouTubes make me even more wary of cat owners.

About 15 years ago, I got into a cat-battle with next-door neighbors who insisted that there was nothing wrong with having 12 indoor cats, one of them being a 55 pound African serval that ate one of their siamese cats (I saw the serval with my own eyes). I didn't agree with their assessment--I thought it was bizarre to own so many pets, and it was also against the municipal code where I live (you are allowed to have only up to four animals in St. Louis). [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingCat religion