In the, "it's so sad, it's funny" category today...

Good old Noah....the most counter intuitive ans easily dealt with tale

Why do dreams become Myth? A question I for one have always asked and the closest I can find to any meaningful explanation lies with good old Joseph Campbell

you need to register - its free

an image embedded in the human psyche:

the Great Flood.

http://www.jcf.org/practical_campbell.php?id=15

I notice that us brits have our very own museum to visit too...

Creation Science Movement

Sadly, it's not quite as humour rich as the one above, but I find the arguments oddly refreshing after all that specified irreducable information complex flagellum clotting cascade rubbish from the DI.

Seeing all this stuff is actually a little depressing when you realize how many young hearts and minds are being deceived by these cutsy little drawings. One can only hope that at least some of the kids will see them for what they are.... just cartoons.

I did notice this one with "Bible + Nothing Else = 1,000s of years" on the top line, which I thought was rather too honest for their own good :-)

PaulH: There is also a creationist zoo in Bristol - The Noah's Ark Zoo Farm. http://www.noahsarkzoofarm.co.uk/

I like these - why oh why didn't Eve decide to stay stupid? - or maybe thats why she couldn't read Adam's sign? if only we could all get stupid enough again, just like in the garden of eden!
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/overheads/images/oh20010727_58.jpg
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/overheads/images/oh20010803_60.jpg
.. seriously though any ideas where I can get a cool talking snake? Eve should have realised it was one of them 'Interlecherals' - it's wearing spectacles for Chrisake!

Funny that the serpent would be wearing sun glasses. The world was supposed to be perfect before the fall, so why would he need to shield out those harmful UV rays?

But I'm sure Ken and John would tell you that the cartoons are not their best efforts at scientific accuracy. No, for that you need their stellar publications, Creation Magazine and their "Technical Journal".

Incidentally, AiG claims that TJ is their "peer reviewed" scientific journal... and they also brag about publishing an article by a 14 year old kid in TJ.

Who were the "peer reviewers", Wally and Beaver Cleaver?

"Gee, Wally, I don't get how you could evolve new novel featues through purely naturalistic mechanisms."

"Aw, Beav, quit being such a goof. Heck, everyone knows mutations can't increase genetic information. C'mon, we're gonna be late for school."

Couple of my favorites....

132. Danger: Poison!Is that a series of transitional fossil forms I see?

157. Fish fossils: Week 2. I love the reaction of the fish to the Flood sediments. YAAAAAA!!!

Haven't slogged through all of them yet, but did anyone else notice that the "relative morality" in slide 3 (Adam or Ape?) looks as if our furry friend has been hurling feces?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/overheads/images/oh20010316.jpg

I liked:

174. Dinosaur diet 2: Veggies

175. Dinosaur diet 3: Animals

Can't help but think the T. Rex was relieved by the whole diet switchover - must have been a gigantic pain in the butt trying to eat a vegetarian diet with those teeth.

Yes but T. Rex enjoyed a vegetarian in her diet :>

An interesting research project would be to get people to investigate nations that have tried to change the seven-day week. Such experiments have always failed, because biologically man is set up for six days of work, one day of rest.

There's plenty of evidence that man is biologically programmed for 6 days on, one day off.

Cool! Which chapter in Genesis explains the 17 year cicada cycle?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/overheads/pages/oh20030613_178.asp

My favorite, love the expression on the girl's face when natural selection occurs right in front of her face. Unfortunately, she keeps on singing in order to drown out the truth.

Is the apatasaur in the schoolroom slide related to Monica
DiVertebrae from Dinosaurs?

(Darn, I can't find a picture of her. She's basically the apatasaur from the slide, but blue and wearing earrings. She's a realtor, IIRC.)

Good old Noah....the most counter intuitive ans easily dealt with tale Why do dreams become Myth? A question I for one have always asked and the closest I can find to any meaningful explanation lies with good old Joseph Campbell

— K.E.

An interesting research project would be to get people to investigate nations that have tried to change the seven-day week. Such experiments have always failed, because biologically man is set up for six days of work, one day of rest.

Before the Fall diet: vegetarian.
After the fall diet: vegetarians.

Before The Fall (summer) Diet: Vegetarian.
After The Fall (winter) Diet: Vegetairans.

Wow. Just... wow.

The "why Noah's flood couldn't have been local" part, I think, has to be absolutely the best. Look at this sequence:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/overheads/images/oh20030822_189.jpg
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/overheads/images/oh20030822_190.jpg
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/overheads/images/oh20030815_188.jpg
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/overheads/images/oh20030829_191.jpg
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/overheads/images/oh20030905_192.jpg

I think this may well be the best example of starting with a conclusion and working backward that I've ever seen.

why you cant argue with some people

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/overheads/pages/oh20030621_179.asp

why you cant argue with some people

Clever slogan to give people an excuse not to think, isn't it?

So maybe when printing up the T-shirts bearing this slogan, this fine-print preface should be included:

"I'm too stupid to think for myself, so boy was I relieved when I heard that..."

Etc.

Actually, it takes a certain amount of intelligence to select and interpret sections of the bible in just such a way as to coincide with whatever view you wish to promote.

It's actually funnier than the Onion.

""We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture,""

Ever notice how

"God said it

I believe it

It's settled"

is centered on "I" and puts god in a secondary place to the belief?

To be fair, the referenced AiG article says "The truth is, though, that God said it and that settles it, regardless of whether or not I choose to believe it."

The ego problem here is the belief that one can be sure "that God said it".

There is one of them that's actually rather good:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/overheads/images/oh20030606_177.jpg

However, one I'd choose for special mention is:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/overheads/images/mr_ark_field.jpg

"So, kids, the Ark was _just_ bigger than a football field. How many of you have been to the zoo? (wait for raised hands) Is the zoo bigger than a football field? (Yes) _Much_ bigger? (Yes!) And does it have two of every kind of animal in it? (No...)"

There is one of them that's actually rather good:

I have to say that I think this one is really cute:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/overheads/pages/oh20030418_170.asp

I've felt like that after Thanksgiving dinner.

Say what you will about his science, but whoever is doing these drawings is a fairly charming cartoonist.

What's interesting for me after browsing them is how much energy the AIG people spend fighting other creationists (old-earth creationists, etc) and not just evolution. It seems like more of their effort is directed that way than towards evolution as such. Makes sense once you see it but I wouldn't have guessed it beforehand.

SF

Personally, I like the reference to "evolutionary termites": block diagram #2
Nothing like a good ol' ego boost. Go termites!

Personally, I like the reference to "evolutionary termites": block diagram #2 Nothing like a good ol' ego boost. Go termites!

At least their artwork's better than Dembski's...

Anyone else noticed the sharp decline in the quality of creationist artwork coinciding with the development of Flash games? Of course I suppose it could just be due to lack of preservation...

A good example of begging the question.

— morbius

Who ever said that science journals are just for highly trained Ph.D. scientists? That's certainly not the case with TJ---the in-depth Journal of Creation.

When Chase submitted his research paper, he humbly added the words, 'I am currently fourteen, and so really have no significant scientific qualifications. I hope that my writing ability has developed well enough to be suitable for the TJ.'

"What's for sure is that it is my dream to teach science, at either the high school or college level. I'd also like to do some laboratory research, possibly in the field of chemical evolution or some autoimmune diseases."

Thank you for sharing this gem. I was utterly convinced it was a send up site but to my absolute shock it turns out it is ment seriously. Wow.

I was absolutely crying with laughter. I particularly love the snake and eve image. Too perfect for words. In fact, I'm going to use in during my talks on snake evolution! ;-)

Cheers
Bryan

I can't tell if it's begging the question or affirming the consequent. It seems to just be stating the conclusion. I don't see any argument there, enough to even be a logical error. It seems to amount to "God exists because look at the universe, duh"

In fact, I'm going to use in during my talks on snake evolution!

1: If God existed, the world would be very beautiful. 2: The world is very beautiful. 3: Therefore, God exists

I'd be interested to hear how it can be expressed as a pettito.

We know God exists because we can see the perfect order of His Creation, an order which demonstrates supernatural intelligence in its design.

is it not true that snakes are the evolutionary descendants of mosasaurs fully aquatic reptiles, but you better not ask pachrachis because he speaks with forked tongue.

is it not true that snakes are the evolutionary descendants of mosasaurs fully aquatic reptiles

> The other is that snakes are descendents of monitor-like burrowing lizards that lost their limbs, lost their external ears and developed eyecaps as adaptations for burrowing

That is actually the case (although I'd place them closer to anguimorphs like the American alligator lizard or the European legless lizard, the varanids are actually fairly derived). Interestingly enough, snakes still retain enough of the middle ear to be able to hear but only at the wavelengths that travel well through soil. Fascinating piece of supportive evidence in regards to the early burrowing condition. Anilius and Cylindrophis are perfect examples of this early condition.

We have something coming out in Nature on lizard and snake evolution that will change our view of them forever, to be published through the advance online service on Nov 16. Can't tell ya on what though, the Nature embargo is still in place ;-) It'll be fun material to watch IDers try to comprehend let alone explain away ;-)

Cheers
B

There is also a creationist zoo in Bristol - The Noah's Ark Zoo Farm.

— Fernmonkey

We have something coming out in Nature on lizard and snake evolution that will change our view of them forever, to be published through the advance online service on Nov 16. Can't tell ya on what though, the Nature embargo is still in place ;-) It'll be fun material to watch IDers try to comprehend let alone explain away ;-)

>Well, I'm still in the "aquatic ancestors" camp, so let's see if your new material is enough to convince me. ;>

Based upon what evidence? The aquatic story was lovely but was based upon an assumed close relationship between snakes and monitor lizards. This, however, hasn't been supported by evidence (such as the fact that the varanids are no where near the closest relatives of the snakes). Based upon the close relationship with terrestrial lizards plus morphological features of basal snakes and the fact that the most primative snakes are all fossorial not aquatic, the terrestrial origin is the most strongly supported. Further, all the aquatic types of snakes (e.g. files snakes, homalopsines and sea snakes) are actually very derived lineages nested within the advanced snakes.

Cheers
Bryan

- they are kind enough to offer to produce illustrations for you - so I've asked them to produce some for Genesis 9:20-25 -
[the bit after God does the thing with the rainbow, whereupon the first thing Noah does is plant a vineyard, then gets drunk and naked and passes out in his tent.
His son Ham sees this and tells his brothers Shem and Ja'peth, they then creep in backwards and cover him up. When Noah wakes up and finds out what has happened - (presumably from those creeps Shem and Ja'peth) - boy is he mad! He then takes it out on Hams' son Canaan! - condemning him to be a slave of Shem and Japeth. What Ham actually did wrong, or what kind of morality Noah was working on here is not clear.]
- check it out yourself - I'm looking forward to those illustrations!

I'd like to see them do Genesis 19:30-38. After the destruction of Sodom, Lot's two daughters get him drunk, have sex with him, and become pregnant, so that his bloodline will be preserved.

Especially in the light of their discussion of Cain's wife. Their argument is:

1. Cain's wife - and Seth's wife, for that matter - must have been daughters of Adam and Eve, because there were no other humans around.

2. Therefore, the first few generations of humanity had to engage in brother/sister and other forms of incest in order to survive. But how can this be part of God's plan? Incest is forbidden by Leviticus 18.

3. A-HA! As incest had to be part of God's plan, even _without_ the Fall, incest must have been OK back then.

4. So, Leviticus 18 doesn't apply retrospectivly. Incest, and (presumably) all the other forms of sexual unorthodoxy described therein, were perfectly fine and legal and acceptable until the very moment that Moses wrote down that chapter.

5. So, Lot and his daughters are in the clear. And the angels that visited Sodom would have been in the clear, even if they had "lain with mankind as with womankind". And as for any woman who wanted to "stand before a beast to lie down thereto" - go ahead!

You couldn't make this up if you tried. :)

Hmmm ....

Adam aquires a trait called "Sin" and passes it to all his descendents. No living creature that does not have Adam as a common ancestor has this trait.

Where have I heard something like this before .....

Based upon what evidence?

isn't the "most snakelike lizard" the glass snake of southeastern USA? Do sea snakes leave the water to lay eggs or are they fully aquatic throughout their lives? Are there any reptiles still living that are as fully aquatic as sirenians and cetaceans? Info like this is much more interesting than who is the most outrageous fundie.

It certainly is a intriguing question and one without a hard or fast answer. However, the evidence is certainly strongly supporting the fossorial habitat rather than the long favored aquatic origin. Particularly once the varanid assumption is disregarded (which makes Pachrachis and other such fossils a non-sequitor). Similarly, the characteristics of Lanthanotus borneensis are the result of convergence, it is sister group to the varanids and is quite removed from the serpents. The boids are actually a very derived snake lineage, with the constricting form of prey capture a newly developed condition rather than an ancestral state.

--------------
>isn't the "most snakelike lizard" the glass snake of southeastern USA?

In some regards it certainly is.

> Do sea snakes leave the water to lay eggs or are they fully aquatic throughout their lives?

Depends on if you are talking about sea kraits (Laticauda) or true sea snakes (Acalyptophis, Aipysurus, Enhydrina, Pelamis etc.). Both are buried within the Elapidae family but are independent colonisations of the ocean. The sea kraits lay eggs while the true sea snakes are life bearers. The sea kraits are limited in range to the Indonesian region as a result, with Niue being the furthest eastern spread. The true sea snakes however are not limited by land availability but rather water temperature (which is why they haven't crossed into the Atlantic via the southern tip of South America).

>Are there any reptiles still living that are as fully aquatic as sirenians and cetaceans?

True sea snakes.

Cheers
B

isn't the "most snakelike lizard" the glass snake of southeastern USA?

Do sea snakes leave the water to lay eggs or are they fully aquatic throughout their lives?

Are there any reptiles still living that are as fully aquatic as sirenians and cetaceans?

Info like this is much more interesting than who is the most outrageous fundie.

It certainly is a intriguing question and one without a hard or fast answer.

My comment about the glass lizards had more to do with the genetic side of things rather than implying direct ancestry. In anycase, the key here is that the entire basis of the aquatic origin was the percieved close relationship between the snakes and varanids. This relationship however has not been borne out by the genetic studies. You can't go from the snakes to the varanids without going through a host of other lizards.

Cheers
B

But you still need to explain to me why none of the earliest known snake skulls had any modifications suggesting a burrowing existence?

>But you still need to explain to me why none of the earliest known snake skulls had any modifications suggesting a burrowing existence?

Cylindrophis and Anilius do not have the heavily armored skulls and are fossorial animals. They don't burrow deep like the blind snakes and prefer looser packed soil. So I don't think the skull characteristics are hugely important in that regard. Turning it around, there is no evidence for basal aquatic characteristics.

Burrowing vs aquatic is one of those issues that, due to lack of hard and fast evidence, is somewhat dogmatic. It comes down to which camp you believe in. Lets line up the evidence. Here's terrestrial, lets see the aquatic evidence you come up with and then compare the two.

Terrestrial:
- genetically the snakes are more closely to terrestrial lizards than a clade (e.g. varanoid) that includes highly aquatic species.
- middle ear of snakes registers only the sound wavelengths that travel well through ground, not wavelengths that would travel well through water. If an aquatic origin of snakes was the case, the retention of the ability to detect these wavelengths would be illogical)
- most basal snakes are fossorial and have a similar body plan despite taxonomic divergence (e.g. Cylindrophi, Anilius)
- the loss of limbs is not consistent with an aquatic origin since limbs (even limb buds) are useful in aquatic enviroments for steering.
- there is no evidence of lateral compression such as is found in the file snakes or sea snakes or other modifications for aquatic existance (heavy bodied boid fossils are irrelevant since the boids are a derived clade)

As a parenthetical aside, I am very much enjoying this exchange ;-)

Cheers
Bryan

"However, the evidence is certainly strongly supporting the fossorial habitat rather than the long favored aquatic origin."

In anycase, the key here is that the entire basis of the aquatic origin was the percieved close relationship between the snakes and varanids. This relationship however has not been borne out by the genetic studies. You can't go from the snakes to the varanids without going through a host of other lizards.

We have something coming out in Nature on lizard and snake evolution that will change our view of them forever, to be published through the advance online service on Nov 16.

Nice post Chris. What are your personal thoughts about the terrestrial vs aquatic origin? I think one of the inherent problems wth resolving the question is the extreme plasticity of the animals involved, both morphologically and in niches occupied. They are most inconsiderate that way ;-)

As for the 'XMas tree approach being deeply flawed', can you please expand upon that? It would seem that mapping characters over a robust genetic tree is more informative than making a combined tree which results in loss of resolution.

Cheers
Bryan

As for the 'XMas tree approach being deeply flawed', can you please expand upon that? It would seem that mapping characters over a robust genetic tree is more informative than making a combined tree which results in loss of resolution.

> thanks for the compliment.

No worries. You obviously have a bretter grasp of the literature than I do. The terrestrial vs. aquatic origin of snakes is very outside of my area of research (which is venom evolution) but its something I find interesting (actually anything to do with snakes I find interesting, I'm always on the look out for more knowledge about them. Anything that shows that they are even cooler than I previously knew is good in my book. I'm not hung up on one hypothesis or another. The aquatic origin seems very illogical since no aquatic lineage of lizard has ever lost its limbs but fossorial lizards have undergone limb reduction or loss on multiple occasions.

> I suspect snakes may not be closely related to any extant taxon.

That of course is the entire problem with such deep time questions. Particularly when lineages like serpentes, iguania and anguirmorpha have undergone such rapid radiation and diversification.

As for the XMas tree approach, I agree that when dealing with fossils things are complicated. However, I am bewildered why people, when studying extant taxa, insist on doing combined trees rather than mapping physical characters over genetic trees. Iguania are a great example, by assumed relationships of morphological characters (some of which were decidedly ambiguous) they were placed at the based of the squamate tree. However, genetic evidence showed them to be much more recently derived. Vidal's paper in this regard certainly upset a few applecarts.

Cheers
B

- genetically the snakes are more closely to terrestrial lizards than a clade (e.g. varanoid) that includes highly aquatic species.

- middle ear of snakes registers only the sound wavelengths that travel well through ground, not wavelengths that would travel well through water.

- most basal snakes are fossorial and have a similar body plan despite taxonomic divergence (e.g. Cylindrophi, Anilius)

- the loss of limbs is not consistent with an aquatic origin since limbs (even limb buds) are useful in aquatic enviroments for steering.

- there is no evidence of lateral compression such as is found in the file snakes or sea snakes or other modifications for aquatic existance (heavy bodied boid fossils are irrelevant since the boids are a derived clade)

As a parenthetical aside, I am very much enjoying this exchange ;-)

Ultimately, I think a different way of studying molecules, EvoDevo, will solve the problem. The developmental processes link the genes and morphology and may inform us about the morphological patterns we see in the fossils. Once we understand how the morphology develops, how the instructions for particular body parts interact, and how those particular developmental genes evolved, we can interpret the fossil data with more confidence.

>It will also help clear up some of the taxonomic mess that snakes have become.

Yep, some lineages have been complete taxonomical dumping grounds. Ranging from genus level such as Elaphe (which actually contained animals such as the radiated 'ratsnake' that turned out to be racers) to family (such as Colubridae which it turned out contained multiple family level divisions, some of which it turned out were much closer to cobras that corn snakes)

>Some taxonomists place the mole vipers with the true vipers, some place them with the colubrids, some place them by themselves.

This one has been resolved. The Atractaspis species (stilleto snake, mole vipers) are definately in their own family (along with some oddities that lack the advanced fangs).

>Some taxonomists place sea snakes in a separate group from the elapids (the hydrophiids), some don't. Within the sea snakes, the egg-layers and the live-bearers are almost certainly two distinctly different lineages representing two different invasions of the sea, and almost certainly don't belong together in the same group.

Yep, the sea snakes are simply very derived elapids. The Laticauda species (sea kraits) are genetically intermediate between Asian and Australian elapids while the true sea snakes are deeply rooted within the live-bearing lineage of Australian elapids. Interestingly enough, the two independent colonisers of the ocean have also secondarily remarkably streamlined their venoms, as is logical as they both have very specialised diets (fish).

Here is a link to a couple of our sea snake papers
http://www.venomdoc.com/downloads/2003_BGF_Colubroidea_RCMS.pdf
http://www.venomdoc.com/downloads/2004_BGF_Seasnake.pdf
http://www.venomdoc.com/downloads/2005_BGF_Aipysurus_eydouxii_3FTx.pdf
http://www.venomdoc.com/downloads/2005_BGF_Aipysurus_eydouxii_PLA2.pdf

> Of course, the entire colubrid group is a garbage can containing everything but the kitchen sink.

This is slowly being resolved and at a family level things are getting nicely settled. Still much to do at genus levels and species are a complete mess for some lineages. What we are going through right now is a tremendous cleaning up period. The genetic evidence has been invaluable in this regard. The resolution of higher level taxonomical arrangements is allowing us to map the changes in venom over the advanced snake tree. Venom is a basal condition of the group. The only 'colubrids' that lack venom are those that have developed constricting prey capture techniques (e.g. the true ratsnakes) or have specialised diets such as eggs or slug. The other 'colubrids' all have venom. The reason it was overlooked so long was based upon the fundamental assumption that only the three lineages with advanced venom delivery architecture (atractaspidids, elapids and viperids) had venom, that fangs were required. What turned out to be the case was that venom came first and increased efficiency of delivery logically followed. This of course makes perfect evolutionary sense since there can't be a selection pressure for the development of advanced dentition in the absense of something worth delivering. We have even sequenced cobratoxins from the radiated racer: http://www.venomdoc.com/downloads/2003_BGF_alpha-colubritoxin.pdf).

>And where the heck does the _Loxocemus_ fit into all this? ;>

Here's a link to the EMBL page on them
http://www.embl-heidelberg.de/~uetz/families/Loxocemidae.html

Cheers
Bryan

I am waiting for the Chutes n' Ladders version.

Cheers
Carlos