h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Given these fossils are 17 years old, I'm not sure whether they're 'news', but the verict is in on A. ramidus:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8285180.stm

"if Ardipithecus ramidus was not actually the species directly ancestral to us, she must have been closely related to it, and would have been similar in appearance and adaptation."

Gif

just posting this (those pharyngulites amoungst us will prob have seen it) not for the controvesy but rather, as one commenter put it, because "Thornton’s letter is one of the best explanations of modern evolutionary thought that I’ve seen in a long time. It should be required reading for everyone who wants to understand evolution."
(comment #5 from the link)

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2009/10/15/the-blind-locksmith-continued-an-update-from-joe-thornton/

Looks like 'ida' is not a human ancestor after all:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8318643.stm

Gif

hmmm, more likely an opening up of debate than a conclusion - but this does seem to be a more in depth study.

http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2009/10/breaking_the_link_-_darwinius_revealed_as_ancestor_of_nothin.php?utm_source=sbhomepage&utm_medium=link&utm_content=channellink

is interesting on the subject and gives a bit more educated info than the beeb link. I suspect this one will run for a while till it is sorted whilst the discovery institute wilfully misunderstands the debate from the sidelines!

Yeah, I've already pointed out elsewhere that (despite the press fanfare), 'Ida's' phylogeny was debated from day 1. Whatever she is, she's close to the lemur / monkey split and thus very useful to those who study early human ancestry.

My prediction is that it'll be about 6 months before another paper appears arguing that Ida is on the human line after all.

Gif

yeah. Although in all this it should be remembered that the classification is based on phenotype evidence and not dna so it is still a case of 'well, it looks more like A than B'. They could have the whole thing wrong. I think everyone is aware there are likely to be some pretty big surprises still in store as we further explore the evolutionary tree. And don;t forget it took over 90 years to classify the duck-billed platypus - an animal that is alive today.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8322781.stm

A survey shows that a majority of Britons support the teaching of ID / Creationism alongside evolution in school science lessons.

Gif

interesting:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/11/17/extinct-goat-tried-out-reptilian-cold-blooded-living-it-didnt-work/

"Say you’re a goat stuck on a Mediterranean island with scarce food and no way to leave. How do you survive? The strange species Myotragus answered that question by getting small, and, most unusually, adopting the cold-bloodedness normally seen in reptiles."

the first cold blooded mammal we know of.

I thought Clint Eastwood was quite cold-blooded too. At least in the Dollars trilogy he was.

hmm, I thought he was a reptile rather than a mammal though?

The teaching of evolution is to be compulsory in schools:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8369172.stm

At almost the same time, a Labour minister has warned (threatened?) that Conservative plans for education would open the door to the teaching of Creationism:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6926283.ece


And finally, the children used as models for the latest BHA campaign are from an evangelical family.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6925781.ece

Ruth 'it's not an editorial, it's news' Gledhill seems to regard this as an embarrasement for the BHA (and it may be), but I have to ask... what was the alternative? Do comprehensive checks to ensure that only the children of atheists were used in a campaign aimed at stopping people judging children by the religion of their parents...?

Gif

or even an embarrassment...

Gif

It is amazing the amount of 'not getting it' that is going on.
In an advert about not labelling kids they think there is some news worthiness in labelling the kids and then having a go at those who created the ad?

not sure we haven't already had this one, but anyway:
Mini T-Rex found - an early relative of both T-Rex and velociraptor from about 215mya.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8405897.stm

"He explained that it filled a gap in the fossil record, demonstrating that dinosaurs split into their three major groups - theropods, sauropodomorphs and ornithischians - very early in their evolution."

Still no crocoduck though.

> A survey shows that a majority of Britons support the teaching of ID / Creationism alongside evolution in school science lessons.

Hmm, perhaps we should "rewrite" the English language, and instead of "creatures" we could have evolutures

Peace

warner

just because the majority are ignorant does not make them right!!!

whose version of ID would be taught?????there are several versions out there, young earth, old earth, or somewhere in between????

at least the scientific theories get testable consistant results and do not depend on which version of WOO they believe

Hi Warner,

I believe the word you are looking for is 'organisms'...

But seriously, why not teach ID in science lessons? It is a good example of pseudoscience, and could be used to show how the scientific method differs from religious apologetics.

Gif

Gif
I don't think that "the origin of the universe" comes under Biology, but then there is some overlap ..

I never had any problems when I was studying Biology .. I covered evolution, and it wasn't suggested that "God was a lie" or that evolution was solely responsible for existence etc.

Perhaps some teachers are "overstepping the mark", and hence the religious community has to step in and counter false claims.

Peace

<>

you got that the wrong way round

and hence the religious community has to step in and MAKE false claims.

there thats better!!!!

Hi Warner,

>I don't think that "the origin of the universe" comes under Biology, but then there is some overlap ..

It doesn't, where did you get the idea it does?

>I never had any problems when I was studying Biology

Good.

>I covered evolution, and it wasn't suggested that "God was a lie"

Good, why would it be?

>or that evolution was solely responsible for existence etc.

Good, why would it be?

>Perhaps some teachers are "overstepping the mark", and hence the religious community has to step in and counter false claims.

What does this mean? What method are you using to distinguish true and false claims, and why would the religious community need to get involved in science education?

Gif