Rush hour in the Cambrian.
Photograph by Christopher Nedin.
Photography contest, Honorable Mention.
Redlichia takooensis (x2), Estangia bilobata, trilobites; Anomalocaris briggsi (x2); Isoxys communis, Phyllocarid. Lower Cambrian Emu Bay Shale, South Australia.
73 Comments
Mike in Ontario, NY · 3 May 2010
How come I can't see any human footprints in this fossil? Did the evil science-talkin' guys photoshop it out?
bigjohn756 · 3 May 2010
I love the caption, but, where are the traffic lights?
Robert Byers · 4 May 2010
Looks to this creationist like the creatures was entombed suddenly with the entombing sediments likewise entombed. So it all was frozen by the great pressure of sediment/water on the material. In fact this is the origin for all fossil and sedimentary rock etc. There is no cambrian age. in fact its just a part of the planet that was entombed during a single great event. It looks just like it should look. Sediment collected and turned to stone by the same powerful agent. Why is this not obvious?
Frank J · 4 May 2010
Looks to this creationist like the creatures was entombed suddenly with the entombing sediments likewise entombed. So it all was frozen by the great pressure of sediment/water on the material. In fact this is the origin for all fossil and sedimentary rock etc. There is no cambrian age.
— Robert Byers
As you know, most Discovery Institute folk think there definitely was a Cambrian period, and that it began over 540 million years ago. If you are truly serious that you doubt that, you must have some feedback from them by now. Do you?
John Kwok · 4 May 2010
Booby, would love to introduce to members of the Romulan Tal Shiar or the Cardassian Obsidian Order. You're a prime candidate for interrogation by either one:
Robert Byers said:
Looks to this creationist like the creatures was entombed suddenly with the entombing sediments likewise entombed. So it all was frozen by the great pressure of sediment/water on the material. In fact this is the origin for all fossil and sedimentary rock etc.
There is no cambrian age. in fact its just a part of the planet that was entombed during a single great event. It looks just like it should look. Sediment collected and turned to stone by the same powerful agent.
Why is this not obvious?
Matt G · 4 May 2010
A little confirmation bias there, Robert? PZ Myers had a great post over at Pharyngula about the tactics of the Creation Museum (sic). The foundational principle of the creationists is that all science must be viewed through the prism of the Bible, which is viewed as the ultimate source of all (including scientific) knowledge. Anything that strays from the Bible is therefore - by definition - wrong.
Lurker111 · 4 May 2010
C'mon. Robert Byers was obviously tongue-in-cheek.
John Kwok · 4 May 2010
Since no one has commented yet (seriously) about the photograph, I should note that the long "jaw" is actually one of the grasping appendages of the Middle Cambrian carnivorous arthropod Anomalocaris, which was the keystone predator of the Middle Cambrian oceans (best known of course for the Burgess Shale fauna). While anomalocarids were thought to become extinct at the end of the Cambrian, there was a paper published early last year - by a team which included Yale paleontologist Derek Briggs - of an Early Devonian anomalocarid arthropod (this one was a mere pygmy compared to its much larger "ancestor").
stevaroni · 4 May 2010
Lurker111 said:
C'mon. Robert Byers was obviously tongue-in-cheek.
That would be an improvement, seeing as he's usually head-in-ass.
Helena Constantine · 4 May 2010
You know, I just read on the internet that the Cambrian explosion took about a week. We are lucky there are any fossils at all.
John Kwok · 4 May 2010
We have to thank a Klingon fleet orbiting the Earth for that:
Helena Constantine said:
You know, I just read on the internet that the Cambrian explosion took about a week. We are lucky there are any fossils at all.
Am sure that's something Derek Briggs, Simon Conway Morris and Harry Whittington didn't consider when they were reinterpreting Charles Walcott's discovery of the Burgess Shale Fauna.
But perhaps, our dear friend Booby has.
Robert Byers said:
Looks to this creationist like the creatures was entombed suddenly with the entombing sediments likewise entombed. So it all was frozen by the great pressure of sediment/water on the material. In fact this is the origin for all fossil and sedimentary rock etc.
There is no cambrian age. in fact its just a part of the planet that was entombed during a single great event. It looks just like it should look. Sediment collected and turned to stone by the same powerful agent.
Why is this not obvious?
A single global flood in recent times would not have produced fossil layers in the order we see them. Instead, there must have been thousands of smaller and local floods over millions of years.
Falsehoods are never obvious, of course.
Jim Foley · 4 May 2010
Damn fine photo, Chris.
truthspeaker · 4 May 2010
I'm not aware of any catastrophic event that would turn sediment to stone in a short amount of time.
CS Shelton · 4 May 2010
The Devonian anomalocarid: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_YJtJVrH3c5k/SZHMC50bzoI/AAAAAAAABLE/K9vV6uzPyYg/s1600-h/Bartelsi.jpg
That's pretty rad, in my book. Anomalocarids are creepy as hell. Almost glad we don't have any left. Then again... The ocean is a big-ass place. Could be they degenerated to a nearly microscopic form and we just haven't happened across it yet.
Coming soon: ANOMALOCARIS: BLOODY SWARM, on SyFy!
fnxtr · 4 May 2010
Anomalocaris has always been my favourite, ever since Wonderful Life. Big suckers, aren't they.
Oh, yeah: How does Byers get his foot in his mouth when he's got his head so far up his ass?
Crudely Wrott · 4 May 2010
I read Wonderful Life in a lawn chair. The chair sat in the back yard of a modest, west coast of Florida home. Late spring of 1990. Hot and steamy. In the evening the night closed in darkly, with many voices, softly soliciting.
When I closed the book and emerged from my own private Cambrian it was as though I had broken through a barrier and actually met some of the distant ancestors of present day life.
Oh, yeah. It took longer than a week. I frequently re-read, slowing, no, prolonging my digestion of a book.
Nice to see some pictures of some old friends as dead as the may be. They were alive.
Mike Elzinga · 4 May 2010
fnxtr said:
Oh, yeah: How does Byers get his foot in his mouth when he's got his head so far up his ass?
I met Briggs at the World Science Festival here in New York City last June and remarked that the Devonian anomalocarid was akin to finding a living Velociraptor in the Amazon. He said no then, but when I saw him again last week, he just smiled and laughed:
CS Shelton said:
The Devonian anomalocarid: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_YJtJVrH3c5k/SZHMC50bzoI/AAAAAAAABLE/K9vV6uzPyYg/s1600-h/Bartelsi.jpg
That's pretty rad, in my book. Anomalocarids are creepy as hell. Almost glad we don't have any left. Then again... The ocean is a big-ass place. Could be they degenerated to a nearly microscopic form and we just haven't happened across it yet.
Coming soon: ANOMALOCARIS: BLOODY SWARM, on SyFy!
As for coming attractions, CS, I have an odd feeling you'll be hearing more about Anomalocaris soon, REAL SOON.
John Kwok · 4 May 2010
Well I think Booby would be a suitable feast for a pack of hungry Anomalocaris, or, even, Velociraptors:
fnxtr said:Anomalocaris has always been my favourite, ever since Wonderful Life. Big suckers, aren't they.
Oh, yeah: How does Byers get his foot in his mouth when he's got his head so far up his ass?
Alex H · 4 May 2010
CS Shelton said:
The Devonian anomalocarid: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_YJtJVrH3c5k/SZHMC50bzoI/AAAAAAAABLE/K9vV6uzPyYg/s1600-h/Bartelsi.jpg
That's pretty rad, in my book. Anomalocarids are creepy as hell. Almost glad we don't have any left. Then again... The ocean is a big-ass place. Could be they degenerated to a nearly microscopic form and we just haven't happened across it yet.
Coming soon: ANOMALOCARIS: BLOODY SWARM, on SyFy!
Great Cthulhu! Don't give them any more ideas!
John Kwok said:
Well I think Booby would be a suitable feast for a pack of hungry Anomalocaris, or, even, Velociraptors:
fnxtr said:Anomalocaris has always been my favourite, ever since Wonderful Life. Big suckers, aren't they.
Oh, yeah: How does Byers get his foot in his mouth when he's got his head so far up his ass?
Only if you wanted to give them food poisoning.
Frank J · 5 May 2010
Lurker111 said:
C'mon. Robert Byers was obviously tongue-in-cheek.
I first thought so, considering his style (especially the "YEC here" intro) and how he neatly evades questions that "serious" creationists (e.g. FL) feel obligated to at least acknowledge, if not answer. But then I saw how he has been doing it for years on many websites. Such persistence may be an indication that he truly believes his nonsense. But then again, when I see how much "feeding" he gets, and how the net effect makes creationism/ID look even more pathetic, then I'm back to wondering if he is playing a game.
Poe's Law: it's not "only a theory". ;-)
fnxtr · 5 May 2010
Mike Elzinga said:
fnxtr said:
Oh, yeah: How does Byers get his foot in his mouth when he's got his head so far up his ass?
Yes well it's certainly "Up, Up and Away" with him, isn't it.
fnxtr · 5 May 2010
CS Shelton said:
The Devonian anomalocarid: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_YJtJVrH3c5k/SZHMC50bzoI/AAAAAAAABLE/K9vV6uzPyYg/s1600-h/Bartelsi.jpg
Coming soon: ANOMALOCARIS: BLOODY SWARM, on SyFy!
It's probably already an episode of Primeval.
Jesse · 5 May 2010
Alex H said:
Only if you wanted to give them food poisoning.
That reminds me of one thing that I've wondered for a while: If we could get a hold of living creatures from back then (anywhere in the Cambrian to the Permian) would they be edible?
John Kwok · 5 May 2010
Definitely. People eat snails and bivalves now, so why wouldn't they dine on Paleozoic ones? Not only them, but jellyfish, fishes and tetrapods, and many others, including, insects, would be edible. Going out on a limb, I'd say even trilobites and Anomalocaris too:
Jesse said:
Alex H said:
Only if you wanted to give them food poisoning.
That reminds me of one thing that I've wondered for a while: If we could get a hold of living creatures from back then (anywhere in the Cambrian to the Permian) would they be edible?
John Kwok · 5 May 2010
Highly unlikely:
fnxtr said:
CS Shelton said:
The Devonian anomalocarid: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_YJtJVrH3c5k/SZHMC50bzoI/AAAAAAAABLE/K9vV6uzPyYg/s1600-h/Bartelsi.jpg
Coming soon: ANOMALOCARIS: BLOODY SWARM, on SyFy!
It's probably already an episode of Primeval.
But I think we'll be reading more about it soon, and that it might be the topic of a forthcoming PT entry.
If we could get a hold of living creatures from back then (anywhere in the Cambrian to the Permian) would they be edible?
Of course they would be edible -- you can eat anything you want. Amanita verna is edible. Unfortunately, if you eat it, it will kill you.
Jesse · 5 May 2010
Matt Young said:
If we could get a hold of living creatures from back then (anywhere in the Cambrian to the Permian) would they be edible?
Of course they would be edible -- you can eat anything you want. Amanita verna is edible. Unfortunately, if you eat it, it will kill you.
Edible as in fit for eating as in it won't kill me and might even have some nutritional value. I'm just wondering how different or similar the biochemistry was back 400 or 500 million years ago.
Alex H · 5 May 2010
Jesse said:
Matt Young said:
If we could get a hold of living creatures from back then (anywhere in the Cambrian to the Permian) would they be edible?
Of course they would be edible -- you can eat anything you want. Amanita verna is edible. Unfortunately, if you eat it, it will kill you.
Edible as in fit for eating as in it won't kill me and might even have some nutritional value. I'm just wondering how different or similar the biochemistry was back 400 or 500 million years ago.
Humans can eat an incredibly diverse variety of organisms, from kelp to other humans. Barring some sort of unknown chemical in their makeup that renders them toxic, there's no reason to suspect we couldn't eat them.
stevaroni · 5 May 2010
Jesse said:
Edible as in fit for eating as in it won't kill me and might even have some nutritional value. I'm just wondering how different or similar the biochemistry was back 400 or 500 million years ago.
There's a comic strip I often read called "Get Fuzzy", which chronicles a neurotic dog, a cat with delusions of grandeur and their long-suffering owner. The concept of "food" versus "edible" edible comes up a lot from their various perspectives.
Robert Byers · 6 May 2010
Frank J said:
Looks to this creationist like the creatures was entombed suddenly with the entombing sediments likewise entombed. So it all was frozen by the great pressure of sediment/water on the material. In fact this is the origin for all fossil and sedimentary rock etc. There is no cambrian age.
— Robert Byers
As you know, most Discovery Institute folk think there definitely was a Cambrian period, and that it began over 540 million years ago. If you are truly serious that you doubt that, you must have some feedback from them by now. Do you?
They are not biblical creationists. I.D. is a different tribe of creationism.
They are wrong where they oppose Genesis.
Yet they are smart when opposing ideas of nature not having the clear evidence of being from a thinking being.
Robert Byers · 6 May 2010
Matt G said:
A little confirmation bias there, Robert? PZ Myers had a great post over at Pharyngula about the tactics of the Creation Museum (sic). The foundational principle of the creationists is that all science must be viewed through the prism of the Bible, which is viewed as the ultimate source of all (including scientific) knowledge. Anything that strays from the Bible is therefore - by definition - wrong.
Yes anything opposed to the bible is wrong.
No its not the bible on all science or any. Just on a short list of origin issues. Origin issues are not science ones as they are about actions/processes now extinct.
So evolution just needs to make its case.
Creationism is all about evidence. This because of our confidence in genesis.
The creation museum recently celebrated its 1 millionth vistor.
Its been a historic success. perhaps one day there will be one by the Smithsutium. (sp).
Although legally creationism should be fully finded in all government institutions.
Tactics from this PZ Myer guy? He put me in the dungeon for no good reason so his tactics are speech control while the creation museum is to give voice to speech of those EXPELLED by the establishment.
Robert Byers · 6 May 2010
Dale Husband said:
Robert Byers said:
Looks to this creationist like the creatures was entombed suddenly with the entombing sediments likewise entombed. So it all was frozen by the great pressure of sediment/water on the material. In fact this is the origin for all fossil and sedimentary rock etc.
There is no cambrian age. in fact its just a part of the planet that was entombed during a single great event. It looks just like it should look. Sediment collected and turned to stone by the same powerful agent.
Why is this not obvious?
A single global flood in recent times would not have produced fossil layers in the order we see them. Instead, there must have been thousands of smaller and local floods over millions of years.
Falsehoods are never obvious, of course.
Sure it would. The same process you just invoked. One need only see different flow dynamics in a great surging water field. A event this week and one the next can account for all divisions.
The idea of little floods etc constantly occuring and bringing about sediment into rock is unlikely and not needed.
Single events make better sense and is what one actually sees in the field. Collections of sediment by a power with innate divisions due to the origin of the power.
Dave Luckett · 6 May 2010
Shorter Byers: "Geology? We don' need no steenking geology!"
Frank J · 6 May 2010
They are not biblical creationists. I.D. is a different tribe of creationism. They are wrong where they oppose Genesis. Yet they are smart when opposing ideas of nature not having the clear evidence of being from a thinking being.
— Robert Byers
Thanks. If you are truly concerned about who is being honest about the science and who is misrepresenting it, you should be more annoyed with the DI than with "Darwinists," may of who agree that God is ulimately responsible for life. The 2 comments of yours I saw at the DI's UnCommon Descent site were both ignored your comment. I would not be surprised if they deleted some of your other ones. UD has banned banned old-earth-young-life creationist Ray Martinez because he dared to challenge their "don't ask, don't tell" strategy.
You can't have it both ways. Pretending that the irreconcilable differences regarding "what happened when" in natural history don't matter when you are addressing anti-evolutionists, but do matter when addressing "Darwinists" shows that you are either utterly confused about the nature of science, or deliberately employing a double standard, either to promote an anti-science agenda or (Poe's Law) to show how misguided that agenda is.
Frank J · 6 May 2010
Dave Luckett said:
Shorter Byers: "Geology? We don' need no steenking geology!"
Actually, Byers' old-style creationism does need geology, in order cherry pick any data that seem to support their conclusion when removed from context, and ignore any data that contradict it.
The DI has little use for geology, because it has figured out that there's no need to fool people into thinking that the earth, or at least the biosphere, is only 1000s of years old, or to make up "gaps" between "kinds. Those who want to believe that are usually already convinced with or without "evidence." The DI's approach is to fool non-Genesis literalists into thinking that evolution is "weak," while making sure not to alert YECs and OECs that their "theories" are infinitely weaker (as if being mutually contradictory isn't bad enough).
John Kwok · 6 May 2010
I'll be sure to inform Brown University cell biologist Ken Miller and Vatican Astronomer (and Jesuit brother) Guy Consolmagno the next time I see them, since both, as devout Christians, don't take the Bible as literally as your own delusional, intellectually challenged mind does:
Robert Byers said:
Matt G said:
A little confirmation bias there, Robert? PZ Myers had a great post over at Pharyngula about the tactics of the Creation Museum (sic). The foundational principle of the creationists is that all science must be viewed through the prism of the Bible, which is viewed as the ultimate source of all (including scientific) knowledge. Anything that strays from the Bible is therefore - by definition - wrong.
Yes anything opposed to the bible is wrong.
No its not the bible on all science or any. Just on a short list of origin issues. Origin issues are not science ones as they are about actions/processes now extinct.
So evolution just needs to make its case.
Creationism is all about evidence. This because of our confidence in genesis.
The creation museum recently celebrated its 1 millionth vistor.
Its been a historic success. perhaps one day there will be one by the Smithsutium. (sp).
Although legally creationism should be fully finded in all government institutions.
Tactics from this PZ Myer guy? He put me in the dungeon for no good reason so his tactics are speech control while the creation museum is to give voice to speech of those EXPELLED by the establishment.
hoary puccoon · 6 May 2010
Byers says: "The idea of little floods etc constantly occurring and bringing about sediment into rock is unlikely...."
Okay, it's one thing to ignore biologists. But floods from hurricanes, tsunamis, sudden snow melts; flash floods from rainstorms in the mountains, etc. are standard journalistic fodder. And the stories are generally accompanied by photos of people cleaning out gobs of sediment in the aftermath.
But Byers slips in "sediment INTO ROCK..." as if the sediment must immediately solidify at the time of the flood, or it doesn't count. How clever of him. That should get by all those scientists who think they're so smart.
And that's the game. I don't think Byers cares what Darwin says or what Sean B. Carroll says, or even what the bible says. He just wants to look smarter than a scientist.
I'm with Lurker111. Byers is a Poe.
Frank J · 6 May 2010
I’ll be sure to inform Brown University cell biologist Ken Miller and Vatican Astronomer (and Jesuit brother) Guy Consolmagno the next time I see them, since both, as devout Christians, don’t take the Bible as literally as your own delusional, intellectually challenged mind does:
— John Kwok
But as you know, neither do many (most?) DI fellows. Yet that's at most a minor inconvenience to YEC activists, and apparently no inconvenience at all to their clueless fans. Michael Behe can say that we're related to cats and dogs, and they look the other way. But let Ken Miller say it and they go hysterical. The same Miller who freely identifies the designer as God, while the DI's Behe even admits that the designer could be deceased.
Amazing what the toxic combination of pseudoscience and wishful thinking can do to vulnerable minds.
John Kwok · 6 May 2010
True, but up to a point:
Frank J said:
I’ll be sure to inform Brown University cell biologist Ken Miller and Vatican Astronomer (and Jesuit brother) Guy Consolmagno the next time I see them, since both, as devout Christians, don’t take the Bible as literally as your own delusional, intellectually challenged mind does:
— John Kwok
But as you know, neither do many (most?) DI fellows. Yet that's at most a minor inconvenience to YEC activists, and apparently no inconvenience at all to their clueless fans. Michael Behe can say that we're related to cats and dogs, and they look the other way. But let Ken Miller say it and they go hysterical. The same Miller who freely identifies the designer as God, while the DI's Behe even admits that the designer could be deceased.
Amazing what the toxic combination of pseudoscience and wishful thinking can do to vulnerable minds.
In public at last year's World Science Festival here in New York City, both Ken and Guy Consolmagno declared that, as scientists, they do not even think of supernatural causation; for them, as scientists, science must and does trump religion every time. It is only in their private, personal time as religiously devout people would they consider their religious views.
Unfortunately this distinction isn't one that Behe or his fellow DI mendacious intellectual pornographers is one that they as "scientists" would accept. That's why I find Ken and Consolmagno far more credible as religiously devout scientists than I ever will regard Behe, Minnich, Wells, or Dembski.
John Kwok · 6 May 2010
Egads another typo, so am correcting the previous comment to read as follows:
Unfortunately this distinction isn't one that Behe or his fellow DI mendacious intellectual pornographers would find acceptable as "scientists". That's why I find Ken and Consolmagno far more credible as religiously devout scientists than I ever will regard Behe, Minnich, Wells, or Dembski.
Robert Byers · 6 May 2010
Frank J said:
They are not biblical creationists. I.D. is a different tribe of creationism. They are wrong where they oppose Genesis. Yet they are smart when opposing ideas of nature not having the clear evidence of being from a thinking being.
— Robert Byers
Thanks. If you are truly concerned about who is being honest about the science and who is misrepresenting it, you should be more annoyed with the DI than with "Darwinists," may of who agree that God is ulimately responsible for life. The 2 comments of yours I saw at the DI's UnCommon Descent site were both ignored your comment. I would not be surprised if they deleted some of your other ones. UD has banned banned old-earth-young-life creationist Ray Martinez because he dared to challenge their "don't ask, don't tell" strategy.
You can't have it both ways. Pretending that the irreconcilable differences regarding "what happened when" in natural history don't matter when you are addressing anti-evolutionists, but do matter when addressing "Darwinists" shows that you are either utterly confused about the nature of science, or deliberately employing a double standard, either to promote an anti-science agenda or (Poe's Law) to show how misguided that agenda is.
If i understand you. You are saying biblical creationists ignore the differences with i.D.
Nonsense. We are simply allies on certain matters and yes they are a gain for us and we wish them well in their cause. Its not right now a threat to us. I suspect they are the future and will overthrow the present evolution establishment. Then they will be a adversary.
Right now the are just another army fighting the same bad guy.
Robert Byers · 6 May 2010
hoary puccoon said:
Byers says: "The idea of little floods etc constantly occurring and bringing about sediment into rock is unlikely...."
Okay, it's one thing to ignore biologists. But floods from hurricanes, tsunamis, sudden snow melts; flash floods from rainstorms in the mountains, etc. are standard journalistic fodder. And the stories are generally accompanied by photos of people cleaning out gobs of sediment in the aftermath.
But Byers slips in "sediment INTO ROCK..." as if the sediment must immediately solidify at the time of the flood, or it doesn't count. How clever of him. That should get by all those scientists who think they're so smart.
And that's the game. I don't think Byers cares what Darwin says or what Sean B. Carroll says, or even what the bible says. He just wants to look smarter than a scientist.
I'm with Lurker111. Byers is a Poe.
Accusations mean nothing without evidence. like evolution.
It is very important in process of turning sediment into rock.
Evolution/geology model is unlikely if at all possible.
Having endless sediment deposited by water and weight/heat turning strata after strata into rock is beyond the pale.
Nothing to do with floods.
Its about great pressure on water collecting and stamping powerfully the same into rock.
A instant action and not this slow idea which seems impossible and not needed.
Robert Byers said:
Accusations mean nothing without evidence. like evolution.
It is very important in process of turning sediment into rock.
Evolution/geology model is unlikely if at all possible.
Having endless sediment deposited by water and weight/heat turning strata after strata into rock is beyond the pale.
Nothing to do with floods.
Its about great pressure on water collecting and stamping powerfully the same into rock.
A instant action and not this slow idea which seems impossible and not needed.
What have you done or observed that demonstrates that sandstone or shale or any other fossil-bearing sedimentary rock can be instantaneously created?
Robert Byers · 6 May 2010
Frank J said:
They are not biblical creationists. I.D. is a different tribe of creationism. They are wrong where they oppose Genesis. Yet they are smart when opposing ideas of nature not having the clear evidence of being from a thinking being.
— Robert Byers
Thanks. If you are truly concerned about who is being honest about the science and who is misrepresenting it, you should be more annoyed with the DI than with "Darwinists," may of who agree that God is ulimately responsible for life. The 2 comments of yours I saw at the DI's UnCommon Descent site were both ignored your comment. I would not be surprised if they deleted some of your other ones. UD has banned banned old-earth-young-life creationist Ray Martinez because he dared to challenge their "don't ask, don't tell" strategy.
You can't have it both ways. Pretending that the irreconcilable differences regarding "what happened when" in natural history don't matter when you are addressing anti-evolutionists, but do matter when addressing "Darwinists" shows that you are either utterly confused about the nature of science, or deliberately employing a double standard, either to promote an anti-science agenda or (Poe's Law) to show how misguided that agenda is.
If I understand you. You are saying we don't admit to a difference. We do.
They simply are a gain for our side in fighting the common bad guys.
One day they will be a adversary as i believe they will overthrow the present evolution establishment.
Yet our differences are very clear. They don;t believe in Genesis as a witness to origins.
Jesse · 6 May 2010
Robert Byers said:
Frank J said:
They are not biblical creationists. I.D. is a different tribe of creationism. They are wrong where they oppose Genesis. Yet they are smart when opposing ideas of nature not having the clear evidence of being from a thinking being.
— Robert Byers
Thanks. If you are truly concerned about who is being honest about the science and who is misrepresenting it, you should be more annoyed with the DI than with "Darwinists," may of who agree that God is ulimately responsible for life. The 2 comments of yours I saw at the DI's UnCommon Descent site were both ignored your comment. I would not be surprised if they deleted some of your other ones. UD has banned banned old-earth-young-life creationist Ray Martinez because he dared to challenge their "don't ask, don't tell" strategy.
You can't have it both ways. Pretending that the irreconcilable differences regarding "what happened when" in natural history don't matter when you are addressing anti-evolutionists, but do matter when addressing "Darwinists" shows that you are either utterly confused about the nature of science, or deliberately employing a double standard, either to promote an anti-science agenda or (Poe's Law) to show how misguided that agenda is.
If i understand you. You are saying biblical creationists ignore the differences with i.D.
Nonsense. We are simply allies on certain matters and yes they are a gain for us and we wish them well in their cause. Its not right now a threat to us. I suspect they are the future and will overthrow the present evolution establishment. Then they will be a adversary.
Right now the are just another army fighting the same bad guy.
Blow as much smoke as you wish. ID is the "big tent."
Jesse · 6 May 2010
Robert Byers said:
Frank J said:
They are not biblical creationists. I.D. is a different tribe of creationism. They are wrong where they oppose Genesis. Yet they are smart when opposing ideas of nature not having the clear evidence of being from a thinking being.
— Robert Byers
Thanks. If you are truly concerned about who is being honest about the science and who is misrepresenting it, you should be more annoyed with the DI than with "Darwinists," may of who agree that God is ulimately responsible for life. The 2 comments of yours I saw at the DI's UnCommon Descent site were both ignored your comment. I would not be surprised if they deleted some of your other ones. UD has banned banned old-earth-young-life creationist Ray Martinez because he dared to challenge their "don't ask, don't tell" strategy.
You can't have it both ways. Pretending that the irreconcilable differences regarding "what happened when" in natural history don't matter when you are addressing anti-evolutionists, but do matter when addressing "Darwinists" shows that you are either utterly confused about the nature of science, or deliberately employing a double standard, either to promote an anti-science agenda or (Poe's Law) to show how misguided that agenda is.
If I understand you. You are saying we don't admit to a difference. We do.
They simply are a gain for our side in fighting the common bad guys.
One day they will be a adversary as i believe they will overthrow the present evolution establishment.
Yet our differences are very clear. They don;t believe in Genesis as a witness to origins.
Actually, many of them do. ID is nothing more than creationism in a political wrapper.
Mike Elzinga · 6 May 2010
Jesse said:
Blow as much smoke as you wish. ID is the "big tent."
Especially since Byers appears to be blowing that smoke from a bong. That's the real purpose of the tent.
Once more, Byers, you have lied to us here. You don't get to promote outright fraud here, such as making the Bible or any other man-made book an absolute standard for truth in the universe, and not expect to get called out for your nonsense and blasphemy.
Robert Byers said:
Sure it would. The same process you just invoked. One need only see different flow dynamics in a great surging water field. A event this week and one the next can account for all divisions.
The idea of little floods etc constantly occuring and bringing about sediment into rock is unlikely and not needed.
Single events make better sense and is what one actually sees in the field. Collections of sediment by a power with innate divisions due to the origin of the power.
Robert Byers said:
Yes anything opposed to the bible is wrong.
No its not the bible on all science or any. Just on a short list of origin issues. Origin issues are not science ones as they are about actions/processes now extinct.
So evolution just needs to make its case.
Creationism is all about evidence. This because of our confidence in genesis.
The creation museum recently celebrated its 1 millionth vistor.
Its been a historic success. perhaps one day there will be one by the Smithsutium. (sp).
Although legally creationism should be fully finded in all government institutions.
Tactics from this PZ Myer guy? He put me in the dungeon for no good reason so his tactics are speech control while the creation museum is to give voice to speech of those EXPELLED by the establishment.
Alex H · 7 May 2010
Mike Elzinga said:
Jesse said:
Blow as much smoke as you wish. ID is the "big tent."
Especially since Byers appears to be blowing that smoke from a bong. That's the real purpose of the tent.
Only if you can use angel dust in a bong.
Dave Lovell · 7 May 2010
Robert Byers said:
Its about great pressure on water collecting and stamping powerfully the same into rock.
A instant action and not this slow idea which seems impossible and not needed.
Have you noticed how sunken ships like Bismarck and Titanic have buried themselves twenty feet into mud, despite being over two and a half miles under water. Care to speculate as to why this is still mud after thousands of years, when sediments deposited in parts of the Himalayas barely covered by the flood for a few weeks have become rock?
Dave Luckett · 7 May 2010
Shorter Byers: I don't understand this, so it isn't true.
Dornier Pfeil · 7 May 2010
And by the time we are busy building such a monstrosity in that location the Chinese will be recovering their man missions from the outer planets. Your willful ignorance has consequences.
Robert Byers said:
Matt G said:
A little confirmation bias there, Robert? PZ Myers had a great post over at Pharyngula about the tactics of the Creation Museum (sic). The foundational principle of the creationists is that all science must be viewed through the prism of the Bible, which is viewed as the ultimate source of all (including scientific) knowledge. Anything that strays from the Bible is therefore - by definition - wrong.
Yes anything opposed to the bible is wrong.
No its not the bible on all science or any. Just on a short list of origin issues. Origin issues are not science ones as they are about actions/processes now extinct.
So evolution just needs to make its case.
Creationism is all about evidence. This because of our confidence in genesis.
The creation museum recently celebrated its 1 millionth vistor.
Its been a historic success. perhaps one day there will be one by the Smithsutium. (sp).
Although legally creationism should be fully finded in all government institutions.
Tactics from this PZ Myer guy? He put me in the dungeon for no good reason so his tactics are speech control while the creation museum is to give voice to speech of those EXPELLED by the establishment.
hoary puccoon said:
I'm with Lurker111. Byers is a Poe.
PseudoPserious · 7 May 2010
Matt Young said:
Of course they would be edible -- you can eat anything you want. Amanita verna is edible. Unfortunately, if you eat it, it will kill you.
Please forgive the OT question, but does anyone know why Amanita verna and its ilk are toxic? Not what chemicals makes them toxic, but why they produce those toxins. A quick Google didn't find an answer.
In other words, is the toxicity an "intended" effect or an unfortunate (for us) side-effect?
Thanks!
PP
hoary puccoon said:
I'm with Lurker111. Byers is a Poe.
He may be real, but he certainly is delusional. Pseudo poe seems to be the correct classification. Imagine how incompetent you would have to be to try to convince anyone of anything by arguing with them for years, in English and not capitalize "i". It isn't just a typo because he does it often. Of course he then capitalizes it later in the same post just to be contrary. He does the same kind of thing with many other words as well. The only conclusions that one can draw from this behavior are that either he is just yanking chains or that he really is this rude intentionally. No one could honestly think that such an approach could ever convince anyone of anything.
Byers is the intellectual equivalent of trying to sell a crucifix to a Rabbi. He always chooses to be completely clueless in the most offensive way possible. He should be the object of pity, nothing more or less.
hoary puccoon · 7 May 2010
I became interested enough in how shale does form to overlook my computer semi-illiteracy and Google 'mud into shale' and I found a site entitled, "Mud into Shale: When and How ABSTRACT," by R.Siever, 1966.
What Siever says is that mud will not turn into shale while under sea water. In line with Dave Lovell's comment about the Bismark and the Titanic, Siever says ocean floor deposits have been found as old as 50 million years, but still just mud. In order to form mud into shale the deposit must first be submerged and then later raised so that groundwater flows through it.
Other sites mentioned shale imbedded with wind-blown volcanic ash and spelled out that natural gas imbedded in shale derives from episodes of sea level raising and lowering, leaving deposits of plankton imbedded in the rock. The plankton eventually forms natural gas.
I found it interesting that most of the hits for 'shale into mud' are for commercial applications. People who believe shale was formed in a single world-wide flood have the bible on their side. But people who believe shale required a more complicated process have billons of dollars in natural gas revenues.
hoary puccoon said:
What Siever says is that mud will not turn into shale while under sea water.
You needed a study to show flood geology is wrong? Hmmm, I wonder what sort of research money I can get for the following study proposal:
Step 1: wade into ocean beyond low tide mark
Step 2: attempt to stick hand in ground
Sept 3: repeat 50 days later
Step 4: if hand goes in, confirm that underwater soil not solidify into rock after 40 days under water.
Obvious procedural variations can be used if someone argues the flood was freshwater (use the Mississippi) or only applies to certain types of soil (find an appropriate spot, or import it), or only applies to deep water (use scuba gear).
Kevin B · 7 May 2010
eric said:
hoary puccoon said:
What Siever says is that mud will not turn into shale while under sea water.
You needed a study to show flood geology is wrong? Hmmm, I wonder what sort of research money I can get for the following study proposal:
Step 1: wade into ocean beyond low tide mark
Step 2: attempt to stick hand in ground
Sept 3: repeat 50 days later
Step 4: if hand goes in, confirm that underwater soil not solidify into rock after 40 days under water.
Obvious procedural variations can be used if someone argues the flood was freshwater (use the Mississippi) or only applies to certain types of soil (find an appropriate spot, or import it), or only applies to deep water (use scuba gear).
You don't even need to get your feet wet!
You just need to site a webcam somewhere where there's a good tidal range and you can watch the mud not turning into shale every time the tide goes out.
Newport in South Wales would be a good place. The tidal range is very large, and the banks of the River Usk are very, very muddy.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/48028479%40N00/120869595/
hoary puccoon · 7 May 2010
Eric-- No, I didn't need a study to show flood geology was wrong. But I didn't know exactly how shale does form, so I looked for somebody who had done some serious work in that field. And surprise, surprise, I actually learned something. It's getting the facts straight, after all, that separates scientists from creationists.
SWT · 7 May 2010
Kevin B said:
eric said:
hoary puccoon said:
What Siever says is that mud will not turn into shale while under sea water.
You needed a study to show flood geology is wrong? Hmmm, I wonder what sort of research money I can get for the following study proposal:
Step 1: wade into ocean beyond low tide mark
Step 2: attempt to stick hand in ground
Sept 3: repeat 50 days later
Step 4: if hand goes in, confirm that underwater soil not solidify into rock after 40 days under water.
Obvious procedural variations can be used if someone argues the flood was freshwater (use the Mississippi) or only applies to certain types of soil (find an appropriate spot, or import it), or only applies to deep water (use scuba gear).
You don't even need to get your feet wet!
You just need to site a webcam somewhere where there's a good tidal range and you can watch the mud not turning into shale every time the tide goes out.
Newport in South Wales would be a good place. The tidal range is very large, and the banks of the River Usk are very, very muddy.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/48028479%40N00/120869595/
Funny thing, I was thinking I'd like that a location like Kauai would be an ideal site for such a study. I know geological field work can be grueling, but with suitable grant support I might be up to dealing with the rigors of this location ...
Now, this is hilarious:
http://www.rae.org/marsupials.html
Creationists must address this important matter because it appears logical and evolutionists often cite it. We must be able to give good answers to all questions based on our confidence in the Bible as the accurate account of beginnings. These answers can be interesting and even advance studies in biogeography and biology. A careful examination of fossil and living creatures does provide a persuasive answer that all creationists can boldly and simply assert.
Let me translate that into "real" language:
Creationists must make up some lie about this important matter because it appears logical and evolutionists often cite it. We must be able to continue to confuse people about the facts regarding questions based on their delusions about the Bible as the accurate account of beginnings. These answers can be interesting and even advance the cause of religious fundamenalism without which most of us would be out of business. A distortion of the evidence of fossil and living creatures does provide a persuasive answer that all creationists can boldly and simply assert without any hint of ethical consistency.
Mike Elzinga · 7 May 2010
Kevin B said:
eric said:
hoary puccoon said:
What Siever says is that mud will not turn into shale while under sea water.
You needed a study to show flood geology is wrong? Hmmm, I wonder what sort of research money I can get for the following study proposal:
Step 1: wade into ocean beyond low tide mark
Step 2: attempt to stick hand in ground
Sept 3: repeat 50 days later
Step 4: if hand goes in, confirm that underwater soil not solidify into rock after 40 days under water.
Obvious procedural variations can be used if someone argues the flood was freshwater (use the Mississippi) or only applies to certain types of soil (find an appropriate spot, or import it), or only applies to deep water (use scuba gear).
You don't even need to get your feet wet!
You just need to site a webcam somewhere where there's a good tidal range and you can watch the mud not turning into shale every time the tide goes out.
Newport in South Wales would be a good place. The tidal range is very large, and the banks of the River Usk are very, very muddy.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/48028479%40N00/120869595/
Or just look at the silt piled up behind many of our dams. Most of that has been around for considerably longer than 40 days.
eric · 7 May 2010
SWT said:
Kevin B said:
You don't even need to get your feet wet!
You just need to site a webcam somewhere...
Funny thing, I was thinking I'd like that a location like Kauai would be an ideal site for such a study.
Exactly. Webcam? Dam? Pfeh. The study cannot be done properly without a 50-day excursion to some tropical beach. :)
Matt Young said:
Of course they would be edible -- you can eat anything you want. Amanita verna is edible. Unfortunately, if you eat it, it will kill you.
Please forgive the OT question, but does anyone know why Amanita verna and its ilk are toxic? Not what chemicals makes them toxic, but why they produce those toxins. A quick Google didn't find an answer.
In other words, is the toxicity an "intended" effect or an unfortunate (for us) side-effect?
Thanks!
PP
I'm just postulating, but, I get the impression that the toxins in toxic mushrooms may be an unfortunate (from a human's point of view) accident, with the toxins being the end result of metabolism. I postulate this, as it wouldn't make sense to guard the fruiting bodies against vertebrate predators, given as how they tend to last anywhere from a few hours to a few months, and the most destructive threats to mushrooms, i.e., fungus gnats, parasitic fungi, fungus maggots and snails and slugs, don't appear to be bothered by deadly mushroom toxins at all.
And then there's the fact that many genera include many closely related species that are either edibility or poisonous, or sometimes both. The genus Amanita, alone, runs the full gamut from delicacies prized since time immemorial to infamous killers. If I had a penny for every mushroom book that sang the praises of the Blusher and the Caesar's Amanitas, while simultaneously admonishing you to never ever ever attempt to hunt for them for fear of confusing them with the Panther Amanita or Fly Agaric, I could afford to import a box of Godiva alcoholic chocolate liqueur cherries.
Meanwhile, going back to the older question on the edibility palatability of animals like trilobites, Richard Fortey once mentioned how he and his wife went to a restaurant in Thailand, and, upon seeing a horseshoe crab crawling around in the aquarium, they ordered it for dinner. From what he wrote, he said that it (and her eggs) had a bittersweet taste with a very metallic tang, and he and his wife found it to be rather disagreeable and unappetizing.
If Idiot Byers won't go away, and if Idiot Byers is free to post as much idiocy as he wants, where ever he wants, what else are we going to do?
You could ignore him. If you don't feed trolls, they usually starve or shut up.
Remember this advice from my wise father: Be careful arguing with a jackass, else there may soon be 2 jackasses having an argument.
John Kwok · 7 May 2010
Agreed. Maybe if we all ignored Byers - whom I am ignoring now - maybe he would just go away and try infesting another blog that's worth his intellectual weight in gold, Uncommon Dissent:
Matt Young said:
If Idiot Byers won't go away, and if Idiot Byers is free to post as much idiocy as he wants, where ever he wants, what else are we going to do?
You could ignore him. If you don't feed trolls, they usually starve or shut up.
Remember this advice from my wise father: Be careful arguing with a jackass, else there may soon be 2 jackasses having an argument.
Robert Byers · 10 May 2010
Dave Lovell said:
Robert Byers said:
Its about great pressure on water collecting and stamping powerfully the same into rock.
A instant action and not this slow idea which seems impossible and not needed.
Have you noticed how sunken ships like Bismarck and Titanic have buried themselves twenty feet into mud, despite being over two and a half miles under water. Care to speculate as to why this is still mud after thousands of years, when sediments deposited in parts of the Himalayas barely covered by the flood for a few weeks have become rock?
It is a recipe to turn sediment into stone. Yet both sides must agree this happens. We simply speed the process up. Another poster talked about speculations on how this happens. Its never been witnessed/testable so its not science.
The mud on the ships either is not actually powerfully pressurized upon the underlying sediment. I think also one needs to stamp sediment into stone with more sediment plus pressure. Regardless of the recipe its a clear and easier conclusion that sediment/life is more likely instant turned too stone by great pressure from above and not these strange ideas of slow process endlessly repeating themselves.
Dave Luckett · 10 May 2010
Has anyone noticed how Byers posts in the wee small hours, if he's in Canada. Is it so the damfool things he says are not going to face moderation for a while?
73 Comments
Mike in Ontario, NY · 3 May 2010
How come I can't see any human footprints in this fossil? Did the evil science-talkin' guys photoshop it out?
bigjohn756 · 3 May 2010
I love the caption, but, where are the traffic lights?
Robert Byers · 4 May 2010
Looks to this creationist like the creatures was entombed suddenly with the entombing sediments likewise entombed. So it all was frozen by the great pressure of sediment/water on the material. In fact this is the origin for all fossil and sedimentary rock etc.
There is no cambrian age. in fact its just a part of the planet that was entombed during a single great event. It looks just like it should look. Sediment collected and turned to stone by the same powerful agent.
Why is this not obvious?
Frank J · 4 May 2010
John Kwok · 4 May 2010
Matt G · 4 May 2010
A little confirmation bias there, Robert? PZ Myers had a great post over at Pharyngula about the tactics of the Creation Museum (sic). The foundational principle of the creationists is that all science must be viewed through the prism of the Bible, which is viewed as the ultimate source of all (including scientific) knowledge. Anything that strays from the Bible is therefore - by definition - wrong.
Lurker111 · 4 May 2010
C'mon. Robert Byers was obviously tongue-in-cheek.
John Kwok · 4 May 2010
Since no one has commented yet (seriously) about the photograph, I should note that the long "jaw" is actually one of the grasping appendages of the Middle Cambrian carnivorous arthropod Anomalocaris, which was the keystone predator of the Middle Cambrian oceans (best known of course for the Burgess Shale fauna). While anomalocarids were thought to become extinct at the end of the Cambrian, there was a paper published early last year - by a team which included Yale paleontologist Derek Briggs - of an Early Devonian anomalocarid arthropod (this one was a mere pygmy compared to its much larger "ancestor").
stevaroni · 4 May 2010
Helena Constantine · 4 May 2010
You know, I just read on the internet that the Cambrian explosion took about a week. We are lucky there are any fossils at all.
John Kwok · 4 May 2010
Dale Husband · 4 May 2010
Jim Foley · 4 May 2010
Damn fine photo, Chris.
truthspeaker · 4 May 2010
I'm not aware of any catastrophic event that would turn sediment to stone in a short amount of time.
CS Shelton · 4 May 2010
The Devonian anomalocarid: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_YJtJVrH3c5k/SZHMC50bzoI/AAAAAAAABLE/K9vV6uzPyYg/s1600-h/Bartelsi.jpg
That's pretty rad, in my book. Anomalocarids are creepy as hell. Almost glad we don't have any left. Then again... The ocean is a big-ass place. Could be they degenerated to a nearly microscopic form and we just haven't happened across it yet.
Coming soon: ANOMALOCARIS: BLOODY SWARM, on SyFy!
fnxtr · 4 May 2010
Anomalocaris has always been my favourite, ever since Wonderful Life. Big suckers, aren't they.
Oh, yeah: How does Byers get his foot in his mouth when he's got his head so far up his ass?
Crudely Wrott · 4 May 2010
I read Wonderful Life in a lawn chair. The chair sat in the back yard of a modest, west coast of Florida home. Late spring of 1990. Hot and steamy. In the evening the night closed in darkly, with many voices, softly soliciting.
When I closed the book and emerged from my own private Cambrian it was as though I had broken through a barrier and actually met some of the distant ancestors of present day life.
Oh, yeah. It took longer than a week. I frequently re-read, slowing, no, prolonging my digestion of a book.
Nice to see some pictures of some old friends as dead as the may be. They were alive.
Mike Elzinga · 4 May 2010
John Kwok · 4 May 2010
John Kwok · 4 May 2010
Alex H · 4 May 2010
Frank J · 5 May 2010
fnxtr · 5 May 2010
fnxtr · 5 May 2010
Jesse · 5 May 2010
John Kwok · 5 May 2010
John Kwok · 5 May 2010
Matt Young · 5 May 2010
Jesse · 5 May 2010
Alex H · 5 May 2010
stevaroni · 5 May 2010
Robert Byers · 6 May 2010
Robert Byers · 6 May 2010
Robert Byers · 6 May 2010
Dave Luckett · 6 May 2010
Shorter Byers: "Geology? We don' need no steenking geology!"
Frank J · 6 May 2010
Frank J · 6 May 2010
John Kwok · 6 May 2010
hoary puccoon · 6 May 2010
Byers says: "The idea of little floods etc constantly occurring and bringing about sediment into rock is unlikely...."
Okay, it's one thing to ignore biologists. But floods from hurricanes, tsunamis, sudden snow melts; flash floods from rainstorms in the mountains, etc. are standard journalistic fodder. And the stories are generally accompanied by photos of people cleaning out gobs of sediment in the aftermath.
But Byers slips in "sediment INTO ROCK..." as if the sediment must immediately solidify at the time of the flood, or it doesn't count. How clever of him. That should get by all those scientists who think they're so smart.
And that's the game. I don't think Byers cares what Darwin says or what Sean B. Carroll says, or even what the bible says. He just wants to look smarter than a scientist.
I'm with Lurker111. Byers is a Poe.
Frank J · 6 May 2010
John Kwok · 6 May 2010
John Kwok · 6 May 2010
Egads another typo, so am correcting the previous comment to read as follows:
Unfortunately this distinction isn't one that Behe or his fellow DI mendacious intellectual pornographers would find acceptable as "scientists". That's why I find Ken and Consolmagno far more credible as religiously devout scientists than I ever will regard Behe, Minnich, Wells, or Dembski.
Robert Byers · 6 May 2010
Robert Byers · 6 May 2010
Stanton · 6 May 2010
Robert Byers · 6 May 2010
Jesse · 6 May 2010
Jesse · 6 May 2010
Mike Elzinga · 6 May 2010
Dale Husband · 7 May 2010
Alex H · 7 May 2010
Dave Lovell · 7 May 2010
Dave Luckett · 7 May 2010
Shorter Byers: I don't understand this, so it isn't true.
Dornier Pfeil · 7 May 2010
Dornier Pfeil · 7 May 2010
PseudoPserious · 7 May 2010
DS · 7 May 2010
hoary puccoon · 7 May 2010
I became interested enough in how shale does form to overlook my computer semi-illiteracy and Google 'mud into shale' and I found a site entitled, "Mud into Shale: When and How ABSTRACT," by R.Siever, 1966.
What Siever says is that mud will not turn into shale while under sea water. In line with Dave Lovell's comment about the Bismark and the Titanic, Siever says ocean floor deposits have been found as old as 50 million years, but still just mud. In order to form mud into shale the deposit must first be submerged and then later raised so that groundwater flows through it.
Other sites mentioned shale imbedded with wind-blown volcanic ash and spelled out that natural gas imbedded in shale derives from episodes of sea level raising and lowering, leaving deposits of plankton imbedded in the rock. The plankton eventually forms natural gas.
I found it interesting that most of the hits for 'shale into mud' are for commercial applications. People who believe shale was formed in a single world-wide flood have the bible on their side. But people who believe shale required a more complicated process have billons of dollars in natural gas revenues.
Matt Young · 7 May 2010
With apologies to Betty Comden and Adolph Green:
Why, oh why, oh why, oh --
Why do you argue with this guy, oh?
eric · 7 May 2010
Kevin B · 7 May 2010
hoary puccoon · 7 May 2010
Eric--
No, I didn't need a study to show flood geology was wrong. But I didn't know exactly how shale does form, so I looked for somebody who had done some serious work in that field. And surprise, surprise, I actually learned something. It's getting the facts straight, after all, that separates scientists from creationists.
SWT · 7 May 2010
Dale Husband · 7 May 2010
Mike Elzinga · 7 May 2010
eric · 7 May 2010
Stanton · 7 May 2010
Stanton · 7 May 2010
edibilitypalatability of animals like trilobites, Richard Fortey once mentioned how he and his wife went to a restaurant in Thailand, and, upon seeing a horseshoe crab crawling around in the aquarium, they ordered it for dinner. From what he wrote, he said that it (and her eggs) had a bittersweet taste with a very metallic tang, and he and his wife found it to be rather disagreeable and unappetizing.Matt Young · 7 May 2010
John Kwok · 7 May 2010
Robert Byers · 10 May 2010
Dave Luckett · 10 May 2010
Has anyone noticed how Byers posts in the wee small hours, if he's in Canada. Is it so the damfool things he says are not going to face moderation for a while?
Glendon Mellow · 13 May 2010
Run, trilobite, run!
That's an amazing fossil.