tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10285000569963500942024-02-18T20:28:40.933-06:00Mysterious Zoology - Hidden Animals Around The WorldTroodon Roarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06458650924508744077noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1028500056996350094.post-18565377989769801802017-04-10T13:27:00.004-05:002017-04-10T13:27:50.350-05:00On Reports Of Putative Relict Pterosaurs: A ReappraisalWhile I have written about reports of alleged surviving relict pterosaurs on this blog before, I took a mostly critical and sceptical perspective, in which I pointed out that, as the reports do not seem to describe what is now known about pterosaur anatomy from the fossil record, I deem the said reports unlikely to actually be describing living pterosaurs. At the time, I wrote that misidentifications of known animals, such as bats and birds, are likely the main culprits, with perhaps some reports possibly representing encounters with unknown species of birds and bats. However, a recent reappraisal of the situation, spurred by my becoming aware of some more reports that seem to be describing morphological features known in pterosaurs from the fossil record, and that, additionally, are obscure features not known to the average layperson, has inspired me to revisit this topic and reconsider my thoughts on the issue of these purported mystery animals.<br />
<br />
On an article (http://www.mysteriousuniverse.org/2016/07/mysterious-living-dinosaurs-of-the-wild-west/) on the weblog Mysterious Universe, the following report is detailed:<br />
<br />
"In 2012, another witness claimed to have seen what appeared to be a baby pterodactyl under a bridge in Tucson, Arizona. The winged creature was said to have a wingspan of around 8 feet, and to be covered in whitish fur, with a head sporting a "top knot" that appeared to be molting. The strange creature was apparently quite aggressive towards the intruders, spreading its wings, hissing, and assuming an attack stance."<br />
<br />
What immediately stood out to me from this report is that the putative juvenile pterosaur is described as being covered with "whitish fur," much like the pycnofibres (fur-like integumentary structures) that fossils of pterosaurs from the Mesozoic Era show them to have possessed. This is in stark contrast to the other reports which seem to describe scaly- or leathery-skinned winged monsters, with nary a semblance to the actual prehistoric ornithodiran, or avemetatarsalian, archosaurian winged reptiles of the Mesozoic Era. Not only is this feature of the report anatomically accurate, but, notably, pycnofibres are also a relatively obscure anatomical feature that the average layperson, exposed to naked-skinned Flintstones-esque inaccurate portrayals of pterosaurs, would not be overtly familiar with.<br />
This renders the above report more impelling, in my eyes, than most.<br />
<br />
Yet another realization I have had is that, as pterosaurs' bones tended to be relatively hollow and lightweight, like those of birds (an adaptation to flight), it would seem less implausible for them to have a 66-million-year-long ghost lineage between the end of the Cretaceous Period and the present-day. The criticism of the idea that surviving prehistoric species might explain cryptozoological encounters has been made that many of the proposed candidates were in possession of large, dense, bones resistant to erosion, whose fossils would not easily leave a ghost lineage. (However, it shall be noted that even this is not necessarily a tightly-binding rule, as there exists a group of ichthyosaurs -- marine reptiles with large, dense, erosion-resistant bones -- for which a 66-million-year-long ghost lineage exists, the same length of time as has elapsed between the end of the Cretaceous Period and now).<br />
As pterosaurs' bones were relatively light, hollow, and fragile, the idea of them leaving a considerable ghost lineage seems to be, on the face of it, by no means absurd.<br />
<br />
So I decided it was time for a reappraisal of my views on the matter. I now view the idea of surviving relict populations of the clade Pterosauria, as, by no means confirmed or likely, but not overly implausible or far-fetched, and a possibility that, while ought still to be parsed skeptically, should be considered, rather than rejected outright, when analyzing cryptozoological reports said to describe creatures similar to them.<br />
<br />
Bibliography:<br />
Swancer, Brent. 22 July 2016. "Mysterious Living Dinosaurs of the Wild West". Mysterious Universe. http://www.mysteriousuniverse.org/2016/07/mysterious-living-dinosaurs-of-the-wild-west/<br />
<br />Troodon Roarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06458650924508744077noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1028500056996350094.post-41227229521884091372017-03-19T22:47:00.003-05:002017-03-19T22:48:59.840-05:00A New Combined Many Worlds/Multiverse–Quantum Entanglement–Wormhole ModelOnce again, I am posting an article that is unrelated to palaeontology, zoology, or biology, but, instead, covers topics in physics and cosmology that, likewise, fascinate me.<br />
<br />
In this article, I present my own hypothesis regarding several aspects of quantum physics and cosmology. Here, I propose my own hypothetical model which attempts to combine the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics, the numerous Hubble volumes multiverse model, quantum entanglement, ER=EPR/wormholes, and retrocausality/time travel to the past into one unified, elegant model. You might have heard of the concept of a multiverse. If not, I will now proceed to explicate it. A multiverse is a hypothesized plurality of universes that exist. In other words, just as there are planets besides Earth, solar systems besides the one that contains Earth, and galaxies besides the Milky Way, there could, likewise, be other universes besides the one we are inhabiting. Quantum entanglement refers to a process wherein two or more particles are described using the same wave function. This means that anything that happens to one particle will instantly be responded to by the other, regardless of how far apart the particles happen to be. Quantum entanglement was criticized by Albert Einstein, who referred to it as “spooky action at a distance”, as he thought that it was impossible to occur, as it implied the sending of information faster than the speed of light in a vacuum, in contradiction to the postulate of relativity that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum.<br />
<br />
First, it is necessary to clarify some basics of quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanics, entities such as light and electrons are in possession of both a particle nature, as well as a wave nature. In other words, they can sometimes behave like particles, and sometimes like waves, depending upon how they are being experimented upon. For example, electrons sent through a sheet containing a pair of slits show interference, like waves, while light is made up of tiny particles, or corpuscles, known as photons, as well as showing wave phenomena such as interference. This means that, just as a mathematical equation can be used to describe the state of a wave at a particular time, as all particles have a wave nature, a wave equation can be used to describe them, as well. In quantum mechanics, the wave equation that is utilized for subatomic particles is referred to as the Schrödinger equation, named after physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who formulated it. A solution to this equation is referred to as a wave function.<br />
<br />
Strangely, however, the wave function does not describe exactly where the particle’s location is, but, rather, the probabilities that its location will be in various places. It was once thought by many physicists, including Einstein, that this uncertainness entailed that scientists were unaware of certain information, and that, once this information was to be filled in, the wave function would be able to tell us the particle’s exact location with certainty. In other words, physicists thought that this probability at such tiny scales was no different from the probability we encounter in everyday life, for example, if someone trapped inside a building who has no idea what the weather is outside were to say “There is a 60% probability that it is rainy right now, and a 40% probability that it is sunny right now”. In reality, it would be either rainy or sunny outside right now, but the individual stuck in the building does not currently possess enough information to make the determination as to which one happens to be the case.<br />
<br />
More experimental evidence showed that this was, alas, not the case. Rather than merely reflecting scientists’ lack of knowledge, it was shown that the probability at the quantum scale is inherent, meaning that, prior to measurement, a particle really does lack a precise location, and that it subsequently restricts itself to a particular location once it is measured. This baffled physicists profoundly. Many found themselves incredulous, and started searching for explanations. Some of the explanations have included the one that the consciousness of the observer, when observing and measuring the particle, forces it to become restricted to one particular location. Some others have included the process known as quantum decoherence, in which interaction with the environment causes a superposition of states to break down, in a sense, into what appears to be a single state, as the smaller quantum system under observation coagulates into a larger quantum system composed of itself and parts of its environment.<br />
<br />
The interpretation of the probabilities of quantum mechanics that this article focuses its attention on, however, is the Many Worlds Interpretation, originally formulated by physicist Hugh Everett III in the year 1957 of the decimal Gregorian calendar. This interpretation states that the probabilities described by the wave function represent a superposition of all of the copies of the object being measured that exist in parallel universes, and that, when the measurement is performed, the observer can only observe the particle that exists in the universe that they are in.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, leaving the realm of quantum mechanics altogether and entering the realm of cosmology, the study of the origins, evolution, and large-scale structure of the universe, and reality, as a whole, it is thought that the amount of space in the universe beyond that which we can detect, due to the light from there not having had sufficient time to reach us yet, might be infinite, or finite, but very large. If so, then, as there are a finite number of ways that particles can be arranged to form objects, this would entail that any possible scenario would be able to occur in some region of space. This has led to the formulation of another multiverse theory, known as the cosmological or spatial multiverse model. This model postulates that, in the regions of space beyond that from which light has had sufficient time to reach us, known as our Hubble volume, if you were to travel far enough, by the pure laws of chance and probability, you would eventually come across numerous other Milky Way Galaxies, numerous other Solar Systems like ours within them, and numerous other Earths within them, but each one would be slightly different from ours, in some ways.<br />
<br />
For example, on some of these other Earths, situations and characters that are part of fiction in our own Hubble volume would actually be real. There could be a Jurassic Park Universe in which Isla Nublar and Isla Sorna exist, and a company called InGen actually cloned dinosaurs and placed them on the islands, a Full House and Family Matters Universe in which these shows and the characters within them are real (these shows must take place in the same universe, as Steve Urkel from Family Matters once made a cameo appearance on Full House), even a Land Before Time Universe in which dinosaurs' neurological and throats anatomy evolved in such a way that allowed them to evolve the ability to speak, and the characters and situations from that series are real.<br />
<br />
The suggestion has been made, and I make it again here, that both of these types of multiverse models -- the one derived from the weird probability superpositions of quantum mechanics, and the one derived from the inferred vastness of space -- might, in fact, be one and the same. In this way, the quantum mechanical superposition of probabilities would constitute a description of all of the copies or versions of an object under measurement, as they exist in separate Hubble volumes, separated by vast expanses of space. The probabilistic nature of the measurement, then, would come about as a result of the mathematical Schrödinger equation and the wave function contained within it not being able to tell you which Hubble volume the observer performing the measurement happens to be situated within.<br />
<br />
I find this merging of these two varieties of multiverses to be quite an elegant theory, indeed, and it has the additional benefit of being more parsimonious than proposing two different types of multiverse that contain pretty much largely the same content.<br />
<br />
The fact that the same wave function would describe these various particles, in different Hubble volumes of space, would entail that they would be entangled. Entanglement entails some kind of method for the various copies in different Hubble volumes to be able to communicate information with each other nearly instantaneously, regardless of the vastness of the intervening distance. I here propose a solution that has already been proposed by others: namely, that tiny wormholes could connect entangled particles. This conjecture has been termed the ER=EPR model. Here, I put it into the context of the quantum/cosmological-combined multiverse model. In this model, these tiny wormholes would connect different versions of an object in different universes, allowing quantum entanglement to exist between them.<br />
<br />
I take it a step further, and propose another, more controversial idea; combining retrocausality and backwards time travel with the ER=EPR model. Other experiments have hypothesized that quantum entanglement could be explained by signals traveling backwards in time to a time when the two entangled particles were closer together, and could thus transmit information easily. I find this an elegant solution, as, even with the addition of the tiny wormholes, the action could not be instantaneous--as nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, all travel through a wormhole would do is considerably shorten the journey needed to be taken by a signal from one particle to reach the other, but that would still only shorten the journey, not make it instantaneous, as is observed in quantum entanglement. Allowing backward causation would explain this seemingly instantaneous action at a distance, as, then, the connection would have already been made in the past, prior to the measurements being performed on the entangled particles.<br />
<br />
I propose that, in a standard quantum mechanical experiment described by the Schrödinger equation and its wavefunction, the probabilistic superposition of states represents all of the versions of a particle existing in different Hubble volumes, separated by vast expanses of space. They are, therefore, entangled. These entangled particles would be able to transmit information between each other, and, thus, have the ability to be instantly affected by measurements performed upon their counterparts. A possible explanation for their entanglement is that they are connected by miniature wormholes, which connect back in time to a time period in the past, perhaps very early on in the universe's history, shortly after the Big Bang, when these particles, or the matter that would later go on to become them, were situated close enough to each other that normal signal transmission between them could occur easily. This would mean that the connection between them could be maintained, as, no matter how far apart the particles would have drifted, the signal could always go back to a time when they were close enough through a miniscule wormhole. After a signal from one particle is sent through the wormhole back in time to the other particle in the past, perhaps the other particle could subsequently retain the information from the signal as it travels into the future, meaning that, by the time it is separated by the vast expanses of space between Hubble volumes that not even light has yet been able to traverse, it would retain information about its -- now quite far-away -- counterpart.<br />
<br />
My new model combines the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics, the multiverse model containing numerous Hubble volumes, the ER=EPR model of tiny wormholes linking quantum-entangled particles, and retrocausality & backwards time travel into one model that I feel comprehensively explicates both many of the mysteries of quantum mechanics, including probabilities, superpositions, and entanglement, as well as the mysteries of the multiverses.<br />
<br />
This hypothesis of mine is by no means confirmed, and is still tentative, but I can only hope that further discoveries and experimentally-obtained evidence in the future might, perhaps, be able to corroborate it. Any constructive criticism or suggestions for improving this model, which I term the Quantum Hubble Volumes Temporal Wormhole Model, would be highly appreciated.Troodon Roarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06458650924508744077noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1028500056996350094.post-6638491803056441192017-03-18T19:49:00.004-05:002017-03-18T19:55:48.937-05:00In Response To Michael L. Woodruff On Bacterial SentienceMichael L. Woodruff wrote and published an article in the journal <i>Animal Sentience</i> criticizing the idea that sentience exists in bacteria. Woodruff cites two reasons: first, that the processes often cited as showcasing bacterial sentience are not homologous to those thought to control sentience in multicellular neuronal organisms, and second, that aforementioned processes can be explained in terms of purely biochemical interactions, with no need to invoke sentience as an explanation for them. Here, I will respond to both of Woodruff's arguments.<br />
<br />
The objection is raised that the genes coding for the chemotaxis system of bacteria are different from those coding for biological sensitivity in multicellular organisms with nervous systems. The bacterial chemotactic systemic genes "do not demonstrate broad species continuity". I fail to see how this has any bearing at all on the question of sentience in bacteria. Convergent evolution is a well-known phenomenon in organismic biology, so why can't it apply to sentience, as well? Why couldn't bacteria and multicellular, neuronal organisms have independently evolved sentience, from different genes?<br />
<br />
Woodruff then states that, as the chemotaxis process in bacteria is carried out by a series of biochemical processes and interactions, it is unnecessary to "admit sentience as an explanatory variable to explain" it. But is this not true of even human neurological processes and interactions? After all, is not the indubitably sentient decision, by a human, to open a door merely sensory nerves in the skin communicating with neurons in the brain, and those neurons in the brain then communicating with muscles in the hand, using action potentials (electrical signals) and chemical neurotransmitters? The process of a human opening a door involves touch nerve receptors, which communicate the touch to the brain, which then sends a signal to the muscles in the hand to open the door. Likewise, ligands (chemicals that bond to other chemicals) in a bacterium's environment are sensed by the externally-protruding domains of its sensory proteins, which sends a chemical signal – a protein termed CheY – to bind to a rotor of the flagellum, and, thus, control the flagellar, and, in turn, the bacterium's, direction of motion.<br />
<br />
After all, even in humans, such processes as thought and emotion are thought to be mediated by neurotransmitters, including dopamine and glutamate, and electrical signals. One could easily invoke Occam's Razor to claim that human behaviour, being, as it is, controlled by the transmission of electrical and chemical signals between neurons, can be sufficiently explicated without inferring the presence of sentience. Just as a human opening a door occurs through neurons in the hand, after sensing the environment, sending electrical signals and chemicals to the brain, which then sends those aforementioned signals to the muscles in the hand, ordering them to move and open the door, likewise, a bacterium's tumbling occurs through external sensory protein domains, after sensing the environment, sending a CheW chemical signal to the CheA protein, which, in turn, sends a CheY chemical signal, across the cytoplasm, to the protein that controls the direction of rotation of the flagellum, FLiM. Once CheY binds to the flagellar rotor, it induces the bacterium to tumble and to change its direction of motion. Notice the similarities? In both the human's case and the bacterium's case, the actions of opening a door and reversing swimming direction, respectively, can be adequately and satisfactorily explained with molecular processes and signal transmissions. What Woodruff said about the bacterium's case applies just as well to the human's case.<br />
<br />
In both cases, however, there still lies the question of "why?" Why, in the human's case, did the brain, after processing the information about the external environment from the sensory nerves, decide to send signals to the muscles telling them to move? And why, in the bacterium's case, did CheA, after receiving the information about the external environment from the sensory protein domains, decide to send CheY to the flagellum, instructing it to modify its direction of movement? I propose, here, that, in both organisms' cases, the fact that a decision to initiate a behavior was made upon retrieval of and processing of cues from the external environment could, perhaps, be indicative of conscious sentience being a factor in the neurotransmitter and action potential-mediated interneuronal interactions of multicellular neuronal organisms, as well as the chemical and enzyme-mediated intermolecular interactions of unicellular organisms, respectively.<br />
<br />
Bibliography:<br />
Woodruff, Michael L. (2016) "Bacteria and the cellular basis of consciousness: Commentary on Reber on Origins of Mind". <i>Animal Sentience</i>, 126. (http://animalstudiesrepository.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1152&context=animsent/)<br />
<br />Troodon Roarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06458650924508744077noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1028500056996350094.post-807419188710592772017-03-17T19:34:00.004-05:002017-03-17T19:46:20.618-05:00Sasquatch Habitat And Population Size: Some CalculationsWhile I wrote an article that was skeptical about Sasquatches, as well as Yetis, quite recently, by no means does that entail that I blindly accept all arguments offered by skeptics against the existence of these creatures. One argument that I have been thinking about lately is the argument that, as large mammals require a large home range that is proportional to their body mass, and there is little forest habitat in the Pacific Northwest of Northwestern North America, this means that Sasquatch would have either been discovered long ago, or does not exist, as there is not sufficient forest to allow a breeding population of these creatures to remain hidden until now. This has spurred me to carry out my own calculations to determine how capable the forest habitat of the Pacific Northwest really is of supporting a viable breeding population of these hypothetical animals. Never content to just accept whatever information I read without subjecting it to some critical analysis and skeptical scientific scrutiny, I decided to test this claim made by critics of Sasquatch's putative existence.<br />
<br />
The correlation between an animal's body mass and the size of its home range is furnished by the following formula: Home Range = 0.024 * Body Mass^1.38. I was not able to find, in any sources, the answer to the question nagging me: Does this formula refer to the kilometers and kilograms of the metric system, or to the miles and pounds of the imperial system? In any case, as miles are larger than kilometers and pounds are smaller than kilograms, utilizing miles and pounds would have the effect that the area of the home range would be represented by a smaller number, and the mass of the animal would be represented by a larger number. Therefore, this would make the calculated plausibility of Sasquatch lower than if kilometers and kilograms had been utilized in their stead.<br />
<br />
Since I am trying to stay as conservative and critical as I can possibly be (for reasons I will state at the end of this post), I decided to plug in the numbers that would render it the least likely that a viable Sasquatch population could exist in the Pacific Northwest, meaning that I decided to use miles and pounds as units. Additionally, while there are varying hypothetical speculations about the body mass of Sasquatch in the literature, I decided to go with 1,000 pounds, reportedly the highest end of the range, according to a Bigfoot research group.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, according to the World Wildlife Fund, also known as the Worldwide Fund For Nature, there are 114,000 square miles of forest in the Pacific Northwest.<br />
<br />
I then plugged 1,000 pounds and 114,000 square miles into the equation relating home range to body mass:<br />
<br />
HR = 0.0024 x 1,000^1.38<br />
1,000^1.38 = 13,803.8426<br />
HR = 0.0024 x 13,803.8426<br />
<br />
HR = 331.29222 m.^2<br />
<br />
So I got the result that the home range for one 1,000-pound Sasquatch would be 331.29222 square miles.<br />
<br />
Then, I divided this number by the estimated number of square miles of forest in the Pacific Northwest, about 114,000 miles, to get the estimated population of Sasquatches that could inhabit this region.<br />
<br />
Pop. = 114,000/331.29222<br />
Pop. = 344.1070826 individuals<br />
<br />
My calculated result was that there is a population of about 344 Sasquatches in the Pacific Northwest. Now the question arises: Is even this estimate, which I tried to lowball as much as I could, enough to constitute a viable breeding population of animals? Well, considering the fact that many species and subspecies of large-bodied mammals are currently so endangered that their populations are far smaller than this estimate, the South China Tiger offering just one example, I would say yes. Indeed, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica, a general rule of thumb is that 50 is a minimum number of individuals needed for a genetically viable breeding population. Sasquatch, according to my calculations, would be well over 300 individuals. Whether or not that population is large enough to furnish enough genetic diversity to sustain the population for long periods of time into the future in a world in which the effects of human activity run rampant throughout the biosphere is a different story. Indeed, if Sasquatch exists, it may be that their population was once higher in the past, and has now declined as a result of human encroachment onto their habitats, in which case, if it is ever discovered, it would likely be classified as an endangered species and enjoy the full protection of the law.<br />
<br />
And now I come to the reason why I intentionally tried to lowball the estimates as much as I could. And that is to demonstrate that, even in the "worst-case" scenario for Sasquatch's existence/"best-case" scenario for its non-existence, the calculations would still permit a viable breeding population of Sasquatches to exist in the Pacific Northwest of North America. It may very well be that Sasquatch weighs far less than 1,000 pounds, or that this formula is in the context of using metric units of measure, rather than imperial ones (indeed, considering that metric units tend to be far more often utilized as the standard units of measure in the sciences, I think the latter is actually quite likely).<br />
<br />
Now, keeping the body mass of the animal constant, I will calculate the estimated viable population size using the aforementioned metric units. In metric units, 1,000 pounds gets converted to 453,592 kilograms, while 114,000 square miles gets converted into 295,258.645 square kilometers.<br />
<br />
HR = 0.024 x 453.592^1.38<br />
453.592^138 = 4,636.585077<br />
HR = 0.024 x 4,636.585077<br />
HR = 111.27804185 km.^2<br />
<br />
Now, I, once again, divide this number by the area of forests in the Pacific Northwest to get an estimated viable population size.<br />
<br />
Pop. = 295,258.645/111.27804185<br />
Pop. = 2,653.3414867 individuals<br />
<br />
See how much of a difference that made? Now we have a population of over 2,000 individuals, close to 3,000. This is roughly comparable to what is thought to be the population of remaining wild tigers in the entire world.<br />
<br />
So, to recap: Am I a believer in Bigfoot? No. I do not have belief or faith in cryptids, and I go where my evidence, calculations, and logic lead me. And my calculations lead me to the conclusion that, despite the paucity of scientific evidence that withstands the scientific criteria for proving the existence of a given species beyond reasonable doubt, the argument against the possible existence of these creatures from the ecological body size to home range ratio can be safely ruled out.<br />
<br />
References/Works Cited:<br />
• du Toit, J.T. December 1990. "Home range – body mass relations: a field study on African browsing ruminants". <i>Oecologia</i>. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00319416<br />
<div>
• Vath, Carrie L. and Robinson, Scott K. 9 December 2015. "Minimum viable population (MVP)". Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/science/minimum-viable-population</div>
• Parker, Edward. "Pacific Temperate Rainforests". World Wildlife Fund/Worldwide Fund For Nature. http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/ecoregions/pacific_temperate_rainforests.cfm<br />
<br />Troodon Roarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06458650924508744077noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1028500056996350094.post-23923244034684356492017-03-04T17:48:00.001-06:002017-03-04T17:48:47.443-06:00A "Nanobrain" For Unicellular Organisms Via A System Of Interconnected Signal-Transducing Proteins<br />
I mentioned earlier that some studies are starting to show evidence of cognition in unicellular organisms, including slime molds and bacteria, that lack brains or nervous systems. However, there perhaps exists an alternative plausible mechanism explaining how these attributes could exist in these brainless creatures.<br />
<br />
This is the fact that, in every unicellular organism, the transmission of signals between components within the cell occurs regularly. There is a network of proteins that constitute the medium through which these signals are conveyed, with each protein assuming the same role as a neuron in an organism with a nervous system, and the ends of proteins, referred to as structural domains, assuming the same role as the ends of neurons, with both the structural domains of proteins and the ends of neurons transmitting and receiving signals to and from other proteins and neurons, respectively.<br />
<br />
We know that the phenomenon of convergent evolution, in which different biological approaches to the same function arise in disparate taxa, is a common aspect of the evolutionary landscape. I find it plausible that a system of proteins through which signal transuction occurs, forming the equivalent of a "nanobrain" which is analagous to the brains of multicellular organisms, has allowed unicellular microorganisms to evolve the same functions of cognition, communication, and possibly consciousness, sentience, and self-awareness, as well as multicellular neuronal organisms.<br />
<br />
References:<br />
Marks, Friedrichs; Klingmüller, Ursula; Müller-Decker, Karen. Cellular Signal Processing: An Introduction to the Molecular Mechanisms of Signal Transduction. Garland Science, Taylor and Francis Group, LLC. Print. (https://books.google.com/books?id=0TIWBAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=cell+signal+transduction&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi1sJbzgr7SAhVJz2MKHVu-BLMQ6AEIMjAF#v=onepage&q&f=false)Troodon Roarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06458650924508744077noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1028500056996350094.post-79734443894043395512017-03-04T16:57:00.002-06:002017-03-04T17:05:54.502-06:00No, Tetragametic Chimerism Poses No Threat To The Individuality Of Early EmbryosIn addition to the twinning argument, one additional argument sometimes utilized to deny the individuality of early embryos is the fact that two embryos are capable of fusing together to form a single organism. This process is known as tetragametic chimerism, and the resulting individual is referred to as a tetragametic chimera, or simply a chimera. They are called tetragametic because they originated from four gametes, twice the number as someone who is not a chimera.<br />
<br />
The argument asserts that, as two embryos have the potential to become one individual, this means that, before fusion, each embryo cannot be regarded as a single individual in its own right. However, I find this argument to be as jejune and flawed as the twinning objection, and I will elucidate why I think so.<br />
<br />
Just like how I mentioned that the twinning argument is rendered absurd by the fact that any adult animal could potentially be cloned, which is basically delayed monozygotic twinning, and, in fact, has even been referred to as such in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, as shown in the example cited below, I think that the chimerism argument is rendered absurd by the fact that organ transplants between adult animals are, in fact, not just theoretically possible, but already happen quite routinely.<br />
<br />
As a hypothetical gedankenexperiment, let us envision a scenario wherein half of one adult human's organs are defective, and urgently need to be replaced. Now let us say that half of the organs from another adult human's body are removed, killing the unfortunate donor in the process, and transplanted into the recipient, with the result that the recipient now has half of the organs in their body originating from someone else, and comprised of cells with a different genome, rendering them a postnatally-derived tetragametic chimera.<br />
In this scenario, no one would deny that, prior to the fusion, there existed two distinct individual adult organisms. Likewise, the same would hold when this process occurs involving a pair of early embryos coalescing into a singleton.<br />
<br />
While, for ethical reasons, such a scenario is obviously unlikely to happen, it still means that, at least in principle, it is possible to form tetragametic chimeras in adulthood via the process of organ transplantation, just as, at least in principle, it is possible to form monozygotic twins in adulthood via the process of cloning.<br />
<br />
Therefore, just as the fact that cloning is hypothetically possible at any age of postnatal life renders the argument that the ability of a single embryo to split into twins during the process of monozygotic twinning means it is not yet an individual absurd, so, too, does the fact that extensive organ transplantation is hypothetically possible at any age of postnatal life render the argument that the ability of more than one embryo to combine into one during the process of tetragametic chimerism means that neither are yet individuals absurd.<br />
<br />
References:<br />
Med Wieku Rozwoj. "Human clone or a delayed twin?" 2001;5(1 Suppl 1):39-43. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/11684762/)<br />
<br />
<br />Troodon Roarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06458650924508744077noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1028500056996350094.post-6696160657065507412017-02-25T15:35:00.003-06:002017-02-25T15:35:53.232-06:00A Review Of The Nessie Chapter In Abominable Science!: Origins of the Yeti, Nessie, and other famous cryptids by Daniel Loxton and Donald R. ProtheroI just finished reading the chapter about the Loch Ness Monster in the skeptical cryptozoology book Abominable Science! by Daniel Loxton and Donald R. Prothero. I will review it here.<br />
<br />
Overall, the chapter makes a decent analysis of several of the evidence marshaled to support the existence of the Loch Ness cryptid, including the Surgeon's Photo taken by Dr. Robert Kenneth Wilson, who was really a gynaecologist, rather than a surgeon, but, hey, I guess most people don't think of the Loch Ness Monster, but something else entirely, when they hear the phrase "Gynaecologist's Photo". I agree with the chapter's conclusions that the Surgeon's Photo is likely to be a hoax, although I am still open to the possibility that it shows either a bird or an otter, as well as the same conclusion with regard to the Stuart Photo. I should note that when I first set eyes on both of these pictures as a child, they looked off to me, in some way. I suppose my intuition wasn't too far off the mark.<br />
<br />
I also found the connection drawn between King Kong and the sighting by the Spicers enlightening, and I am inclined to think that this is quite a plausible suggestion. I think it is quite plausible that the release of the movie King Kong created an atmosphere during the time of the Great Depression which made prospective witnesses more likely to interpret sightings of common animals and disturbances of water in the loch in the light of the film, causing it to morph into a sauropod- or plesiosaur-like entity. I might opine here that the Spicer sighting could have been a group of otters seen crossing the road, which they interpreted as a sauropod-like beast since they might have been driving home groggily after seeing the movie.<br />
<br />
These are the good parts of this chapter, in my opinion. Overall, I found the analysis of evidence, such as photos and videos, to be mostly rational and cogent, with one exception. The digital enhancement of the Rines flipper photograph was emphasized, and the original, unenhanced version was shown next to the enhanced version, in an attempt to show how a plesiosaur-like flipper was detectable in the enhanced version, but not in the unenhanced version. However, with me, this juxtaposition of the images had the exact opposite effect as that which was intended. Indeed, I could still clearly make out the shape of a flipper, even in the original, unenhanced version, and it is much too clear to me, I think, to be a case of pareidolia on my part.<br />
<br />
But when it came to the evaluation of the plesiosaur hypothesis and the possible entry of prospective Nessies into the loch from the ocean, I was left somewhat disappointed. I did not find the argument put forth against a plesiosaur identity being a possible one for a prospective unknown creature in Loch Ness convincing. This is because the argument overlooked key fossil finds and paleontological studies, overlooked possibilities for plesiosaur behavior and physiology which seem plausible in light of those of relatives known to be extant, and flatly contradicted other portions of the same chapter on the issue of entry into Loch Ness from the sea.<br />
<br />
It is stated that "They [plesiosaurs] were tropical animals, unsuited for the cold waters of the loch—and most plesiosaurs were marine animals, unsuited for freshwater in general". Yet a study published three years prior to this book found evidence that plesiosaurs likely were in possession of endothermy, colloquially referred to as "warm-bloodedness". And the claim that plesiosaurs were "tropical animals" is just false. Indeed, plesiosaur fossils have been found in several Upper Cretaceous formations in Antarctica. And while it is true that Antarctica in the Upper Cretaceous was warmer than it is today, it still had a climate not too dissimilar to Southern South America today, as one article covering an Antarctic plesiosaur fossil find noted. Considering the southern tip of South America, Tierra del Fuego, lies at a latitude that is more southerly than Loch Ness is northerly, I doubt that a plesiosaur adapted to the cold climate of Late Cretaceous Antarctic waters would have much difficulty adapting to the cold climate of Holocene Loch Ness waters.<br />
<br />
And plesiosaur fossils have also been found in regions indicative of them having lived in a freshwater environment. Indeed, considering that numerous modern species which spend some or much of their life in marine environments, ranging from seals to cetaceans to Bull sharks to both saltwater crocodiles (Crocodylus porosus) and American crocodiles (Crocodylus acutus), have been known to inhabit freshwater environments, as well as saltwater environments, it seems rather dogmatic to me to state that plesiosaurs could not have done the same.<br />
<br />
It is also stated that "Finally, plesiosaurs were air breathers. Any plesiosaurs in Loch Ness could be photographed several times an hour, each time they surfaced to breathe." This argument is stating that, as plesiosaurs were air-breathers, they would be regularly seen far more often breaking the surface of the water to take a breathe, rendering it unlikely that they would be able to remain inconspicuous for long in a lake such as Loch Ness. However, the idea has been previously brought forth that plesiosaurs might have evolved snorkel-like appendages on their heads that they might protrude above the surface of the water to take a breathe, which would not be as conspicuous. And while it is argued that such snorkels would, nevertheless, still be detected, another option awaits in the wings. And that is the aquatic cutaneous diffusion method of respiration.<br />
<br />
Whether plesiosaurs were entirely air-breathers, or whether they respired through water, is not something that can be directly ascertained from the fossil evidence at hand. It is, in fact, entirely plausible that plesiosaurs could have been able to supplement their oxygen intake by aquatic cutaneous diffusion of oxygen -- i.e., absorbing molecules of oxygen directly from the water through their skin. Indeed, some turtles are known to respire in this way nowadays, and it is worth noting that, additionally, all humans once respired in this manner, as well, in utero, prior to their birth. If plesiosaurs were able to respire in such a manner, it would render them far more adapted to an aquatic lifestyle and ecological niche. Indeed, considering that extant turtles, which are less aquatic than plesiosaurs probably were (there is evidence that plesiosaurs were viviparous, giving birth at sea, constituting evidence that they were supremely adapted to a nearly completely aquatic existence), have evolved this ability, it would be surprising if plesiosaurs did not, likewise, do the same. A plesiosaur respiring through water via cutaneous diffusion of oxygen would not have a pressing or urgent need to routinely come to the surface to breathe air, meaning that it could conceivably remain hidden in a freshwater lake for a long stretch of time.<br />
<br />
When discussing possible entry of the unidentified animals into Loch Ness from the ocean, it is stated, as well, that "The rivers and canals that flow into Loch Ness can be confidently ruled out as commuter routes for large monsters, broken up by shipping locks, or some combination." While it is true that, past a certain upper limit on size, an oceangoing creature would encounter considerable difficulty in navigating these pathways to the loch, it is worth noting that it is a confirmed fact that animals as substantially-sized as seals and porpoises have managed to do so. Indeed, it strikes me as rather perplexing that the author(s) spent so much of the rest of the chapter emphasizing the fact that these known marine animals have been known to make their way into Loch Ness previously with the purpose of using their presence in the loch to explain Nessie sightings. So why the double standard here? If porpoises and seals can swim into Loch Ness from the Moray Firth through the River Ness or the Caledonian Canal, why not putative Nessies, as well?<br />
<br />
The statement about "large monsters" not being able to enter the loch is a red herring, as it is by no means a prerequisite that the creatures must already be large at the time that they enter the loch. The creatures could have made their way into the loch from the ocean when they were juveniles, perhaps no larger than salmon, or even smaller, and remained in the loch until they grew larger, rendering them trapped in the loch.<br />
<br />
Indeed, this allows me to segue into another issue brought up in this chapter, that of the need to maintain a breeding population of creatures in the loch for eons. It is asserted that, to have a population large enough to breed, it would necessarily follow that there would not be enough food in the loch to sustain them, and the population would be too large for them to be able to remain hidden.<br />
<br />
However, it is entirely possible that, rather than a breeding population of creatures having been extant in Loch Ness since the end of the Pleistocene, occasional vagrants have navigated their way into the loch from the ocean, and remained trapped there for a generation or two, before dying out. This would have the additional advantage of explaining why sightings seem to pique in some years in comparison with others. This hypothesis has come to be referred to as the 'Rogue Nessie' hypothesis, and it is covered delightfully well by writer Kurt Burchfiel in this article for StrangeMag magazine: http://www.strangemag.com/roguenessie.html<br />
<br />
Finally, it is stated repeatedly that there were no sightings of a strange, unidentified creature in the same vein as Nessie at Loch Ness prior to the 1930s in the decimal Gregorian calendar. Yet this, too, is demonstrably false. Indeed, a newspaper report from the 19th century of the decimal Gregorian calendar reporting on a sighting of what seemed to the locals to be an anomalous large fish in Loch Ness stated that the locals had been inclined to think of the existence of such a besst in the loch as a reality for years, indicating that there was already a tradition of reported sightings of strange creatures in Loch Ness by this time.<br />
And, even if it were true that Nessie sightings made their debut in the 1930s, this would not be a big deal, as, with the Rogue Nessie hypothesis, which postulates that Nessie is an oceangoing creature which occasionally swims into the loch from the open ocean, it is entirely plausible that a small population of these creatures could have entered the loch for the first time in the 1930s.<br />
<br />
Overall, the chapter on Nessie, the Loch Ness Monster, the fourth chapter of Abominable Science!, contributes a decent analysis of much of the evidence purported to support this alleged cryptid, while having some deficiencies in the theoretical realms, in particular, when it comes to the arguments presented against a plesiosaur identity for Nessie and those presented against the creatures being able to remain undiscovered in Loch Ness.<br />
<br />
The truth is that the palaeontological evidence from peer-reviewed scientific journals is, at worst, indifferent to the question of whether or not a plesiosaur identity is plausible for lake monsters in general, and the Rogue Nessie hypothesis shows that the objections with regard to population size and detectability can be surmounted by certain scenarios, the plausibility of which has been borne out by documented cases of marine animals making the switch to freshwater habitats.<br />
<br />
It is worth noting at this juncture that all of the evidence and reasoning presented here applies to most reported lake cryptids, such as Champ of Lake Champlain, Ogopogo of Lake Okanagan, Storsjoodjuret or Storsie of Lake Storsjon, Selma of Lake Seljordsvatnet or Lake Seljord, Nahuelito of Lake Nahuel Huapi, etc.<br />
<br />
References/External Links:<br />
<br />
Endothermy in Plesiosaurs:<br />
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/328/5984/1379<br />
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/06/100610-giant-sea-reptiles-warm-blooded-science/<br />
<br />
<br />
Polar Plesiosaurs:<br />
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1671/0272-4634(2003)23%5B104%3ATEPACF%5D2.0.CO%3B2<br />
http://www.nature.com/news/2006/061211/full/news061211-4.html<br />
<br />
Freshwater Plesiosaurs:<br />
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14772019.2011.634444?scroll=top&needAccess=true<br />
<br />Troodon Roarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06458650924508744077noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1028500056996350094.post-65370473919562497862017-02-18T18:58:00.001-06:002017-02-18T18:58:48.859-06:00An Additional Note On Monozygotic Twinning And Individuality In EmbryosI mentioned earlier that it now appears that, when monozygotic twinning occurs, an original embryo is formed at time of egg-sperm fusion, and then some of its cells break off at the blastula stage to form a second embryo, while the original embryo continues to exist, and can regenerate its missing cells.<br />
<br />
Even if this picture turns out to be erroneous, and it turns out that monozygotic twinning erases the existence of the original embryo, and leaves two new embryos in its wake, this would still not prove that, before the twinning event occurred, there was not one individual embryo.<br />
<br />
As an analogy to help demonstrate this clearly, let us consider the fact that, in principle, every single cell could be taken from an adult animal, such as an adult human's, body and a clone made from each one of them. This would have the result that there would be trillions of clones of the original adult, while the original adult would cease to exist. But by no means does this, somehow, retroactively negate the existence of the original adult as one individual organism, as opposed to merely a not-yet-individuated clump of cells, prior to its dismantlement and concurrent cloning.<br />
<br />
When it is realized that, in any case, regardless of what happens to the original embryo when it splits to form identical twins, triplets, quadruplets, etcetera in the monozygotic twinning process, the exact same process could theoretically happen to an adult, as well, the legitimacy of this argument against the individuality of early embryos during the stage in which monozygotic twinning is possible gets effectively flushed down the toilet.Troodon Roarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06458650924508744077noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1028500056996350094.post-4493585996681698992017-02-18T12:15:00.001-06:002017-02-18T12:15:27.887-06:00Cryptozoology And The Whole Science Vs. Pseudoscience DebacleIt is often claimed that cryptozoology is a pseudoscience. I have written on this topic before, but I feel the need to do so once more right now, as I have encountered arguments that have made me come to realize that it would be germane of me to do so.<br />
<br />
First, we need to define "science" and "pseudoscience". Science is a means of obtaining information by formulating ideas called hypotheses, testing them to see whether or not they match the reality at hand, and keeping or discarding them based on how well they conform to the physical evidence at hand. This process should usually be able to be repeated by others. Pseudoscience is something that has a superficial veneer of being scientific, but does not meet the key criteria of being scientific. While it is still somewhat debated what those criteria are, the two dominant schools of thought are the logical positivist, or verificationist, philosophy of science, and the falsificationist philosophy of science, particularly the latter. Verificationism means that a hypothesis needs to be able to be proven, or verified, by obtaining sufficient evidence for it to be scientific, while falsificationism means that a hypothesis needs to be able to be disproven, or falsified, by obtaining sufficient evidence against it to be scientific.<br />
<br />
Cryptozoological assertions meet both of those criteria. If I assert that "a large undiscovered hominoid species is inhabiting North America", this could potentially be verified by finding a body of this hypothetical unknown hominoid. Meanwhile, it could also potentially be falsified by painstakingly searching every square centimeter of North America and failing to find one scrap of evidence, one measly little body part, to support the assertion.<br />
<br />
There is the issue that many self-proclaimed cryptozoologists insert intrinsically unfalsifiable supernatural assertions into the field, such as asserting that a given cryptid is a noncorporeal entity, such as a ghost or a phantom. Indeed, critics of cryptozoology often use the ubiquity of such supernatural-seeming reports of cryptids in the archives of cryptozoology to imply that the cryptids in question are inherently connected to the supernatural, and, thus, it makes sense to lump in cryptozoology with the study of paranormal phenomena, such as parapsychology. Yet this is a grave error. This is because many known animals have been associated with supernatural phenomena, as well, just as frequently, if not more so, than cryptids. From superstitions of black cats being associated with bad luck to reports of spectral hounds to reports of cows being abducted by aliens, all of the same criticisms that are leveled at reported hypothetical unknown species investigated by cryptozoology could equally be applied to known species whose existence is unquestioned, and, thus, render the entire field of zoology pseudoscientific due to its association with the supernatural.<br />
<br />
So cryptozoology deals in hypotheses that are potentially both verifiable and falsifiable, and the association of the reported creatures it investigates with the supernatural does not render it pseudoscientific any more so than the association of other, known animals with the supernatural renders "mainstream" zoology pseudoscientific.<br />
<br />
One more argument commonly leveled in favor of classifying cryptozoology as a pseudoscience is that it has not had any successes thus far. While this statement is certainly questionable, and, indeed, I highly doubt its veracity and deem it untrue, even assuming that it was true, this would not render cryptozoology a pseudoscience any more than the fact that no extraterrestrial life has yet been discovered outside of Earth renders astrobiology (the study of life, including extraterrestrial life, throughout the Universe) a pseudoscience. Indeed, many of the same claims regarding cryptozoology being pseudoscientific could equally be applied to astrobiology. Yet astrobiology is widely recognized as a legitimate branch of biology, as opposed to a pseudoscience. So what gives? Why the apparent double standard here?<br />
<br />
I honestly think the reason as to why cryptozoology is widely panned as pseudoscientific is because it has been marred by association with poorly-done versions of it that actually are pseudoscientific in the popular media. From true believers who fail to think critically and investigate what evidence they think they have managed to obtain to those who assert a supernatural origin for certain cryptids, it is true that most of what masquerades as cryptozoology to much of the population is, indeed, pseudoscience. Much of the real scientific work going on in cryptozoology -- such as the peer-reviewed articles in the Journal of Cryptozoology, the studies of potentially undiscovered large marine species by Naish, Shanahan, and Paxton et al., the studies of reported Yeti hairs that found them to belong to bears by Bryan Sykes, Karl Shuker's books, The Cryptozoologicon, etc. -- is obscure, and does not receive as much attention as the pseudoscience that surrounds it.<br />
<br />
As cryptozoology is not, inherently, pseudoscientific, by bringing the actual science going on in it to the forefront and drawing more attention to it, hopefully, its reputation among the scientific community can be salvaged, and serious scientific investigations of reported cryptids can occur on a wider scale than they currently are.Troodon Roarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06458650924508744077noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1028500056996350094.post-24678453887916031562017-02-08T20:23:00.001-06:002017-02-08T20:37:39.405-06:00Epithelial Tissues: An Arbitrary & Artificial Grouping That Ought To Be Split Up<b>Epithelial Tissues: An Arbitrary & Artificial Grouping That Ought To Be Split Up</b><br />
<br />
Histology is the study of the bodily tissues of organisms and their cellular structure. In histology, animal tissues are conventionally divided into no more than four main types: Muscle Tissues, Connective Tissues, Nervous Tissues, and Epithelial Tissues. Muscle Tissues constitute muscles, which allow an organism to move. Connective Tissues are tissues that connect body parts to other body parts, and include bone, cartilage, and blood. Nervous Tissues constitute the nervous system, including the brain, spinal cord, and peripheral nerves, and are utilized by organisms to sense and be cognizant of their environments. It is often asserted that these four tissue types are natural groupings that arise from common shared characteristics of the tissues grouped within them. While this appears to be the case for Muscle, Nervous, and possibly Connective Tissues, I think it is not true for Epithelial Tissues. I think Epithelial Tissues are an arbitrary and artificial grouping of several disparate tissue types that humans have lumped together, without good cytological or ontogenetic justification. This article will explore Epithelial Tissues in depth, and arrive at an explanation as to why I propose that this unnatural grouping ought to be split into several different tissue types.<br />
<br />
To start out, it shall be noted that all tissues in an adult animal are ultimately derived from one of three original germ layers that develop in an embryo during a process known as gastrulation: the Ectoderm, the Mesoderm, and the Endoderm. If two or more tissues in the adult were derived from the same embryonic germ layer, then this furnishes a natural basis for them to be grouped together. Indeed, analogously to phylogeny, if two or more adult tissues share a common ancestor, so to speak, in an embryonic germ layer, this is the ontogenetic equivalent of sharing a common ancestor in phylogenetics, and, thus, provides good reason to group them together, with the resultant tissue group being the equivalent of a monophyletic group in phylogeny.<br />
<br />
On the contrary, if two or more adult tissues do not derive from the same embryonic germ layer, then grouping them together would be analagous to grouping together two or more species that do not share a most recent common ancestor together in phylogeny, rendering the resultant group the equivalent of a polyphyletic group in phylogeny. A notable example of such a polyphyletic grouping is Pachydermata, including usually large mammals with thick skin such as rhinoceroses, hippopotamuses, and elephants. Pachydermata, as a group, has now been abandoned by those who study the phylogenetic relationships of these mammals, as it has now been demonstrated that elephants actually share a more recent common ancestor with manatees and hyraxes than with either of the other two, hippopotamuses share a more recent common ancestor with cetaceans than with either of the other two, and rhinoceroses share a more recent common ancestor with horses than with either of the other two.<br />
<br />
Now here's the kicker. While all tissues classified as Muscle Tissues are derived from the mesoderm, all tissues classified as Connective Tissues are, likewise, derived from the mesoderm, and all tissues classified as Nervous Tissues are derived from the ectoderm, tissues classified as Epithelial Tissues are derived from all three of the germ layers, endoderm, mesoderm, and ectoderm, with different subcategories of Epithelial Tissues being derived from different germ layers. This makes Epithelial Tissues analogous to a polyphyletic phylogenetic grouping, such as Pachydermata. Just as polyphyletic groupings have now largely fallen by the wayside in favor of the more natural monophyletic groupings in taxonomy, likewise, it makes sense for groupings naturally derived from shared ontogenetic provenance from one of the embryonic germ layers to take precedence over artificially-derived arbitrary groupings of disparate tissues from different embryonic germ layers in histology.<br />
<br />
Additionally, it shall be noted that at least Nervous Tissues and Muscle Tissues share common aspects of physical appearance. For example, although the exact specifications may vary between different locations in the nervous system, all Nervous Tissues are composed of the same type of cells, neurons. Meanwhile, while there is variation between striated, smooth, and cardiac types of muscles, all muscle tissue, likewise, is comprised of cells that have an appearance and structure that is, overall, mostly similar.<br />
<br />
The same cannot be said for Epithelial Tissues. There are numerous variegated types of Epithelial Tissues, and the cells present wildly varying morphologies. Epithelial Tissues are currently divided into seven subcategories based upon the shape and configuration of their constituent cells: simple squamous, simple cuboidal, simple columnar, stratified squamous, stratified cuboidal, pseudostratified columnar, and transitional. As shown in the juxtapositions of Figure I, Figure II, and Figure III below, these different subcategories of Epithelial Tissues look vastly different, as opposed to the subcategories of Muscle Tissues and Nervous Tissues, which, overall, present a pretty similar appearance.<br />
<br />
Additionally, unlike Muscle Tissues, which are all universally internal, and Nervous Tissues, which are all universally internal, as well, Epithelial Tissues are found both externally and internally. The tissue on such widely separated locations in the body as the epidermis of the skin and the lining of the gastrointestinal tract is said to consist of Epithelial Tissues, for example. An often-asserted commonality shared by all Epithelial Tissues is that their job is to protect the body from external substances in the environment. However, this seems like a rather arbitrarily-chosen criterion to me. For example, adipose tissue, or fat, is classified as one of the Connective Tissues, yet it also plays a role in protecting the body from various putative threats in the environment, including trauma from impacts and cold, to name two. Yet it is classified among the Connective Tissues, rather than among the Epithelial Tissues. This shows that this shared characteristic of function is not enough to group the widely differing varieties of tissues grouped under the name of Epithelial Tissues into such a broad, overarching category.<br />
<br />
Overall, to recap, Epithelial Tissues are derived from all three of the embryonic germ layers, meaning that they lack common ontogenetic provenance, unlike the other principal tissue types, they present a wide variety of cell structures and configurations, unlike the other principal tissue types, and the proposed criterion of common function is not enough to salvage the grouping, as, if applied logically and consistently, this same criterion would subsume other tissues that are not classified as Epithelial Tissues into the category, as well.<br />
<br />
This is why I propose that, since Epithelial Tissues seem to me to be an arbitrary and artificial grouping of several unrelated tissues together by humans, it would be beneficial for histology to drop this grouping, and split it into several different groupings, with the result that there would be more than four principal types of tissues present in animals' bodies, just as phylogeneticists have now dropped arbitrary, artificial polyphyletic groupings in favor of natural monophyletic groupings.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgBius_SuP6x7fkG79rCooCYbHRM7vFXD2sKteFeKqWOmg09g4jnV0S33WaHmpdD-cKzxO5J_ueiUhT4_VIhGKD8vIhRjLq5WeyMEerPI7djHQNWhrw-C3CBPTiuw3bQLlQDZb03BHXjxY/s1600/introduction-to-the-nervous-system-and-nerve-tissue1-11-638.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgBius_SuP6x7fkG79rCooCYbHRM7vFXD2sKteFeKqWOmg09g4jnV0S33WaHmpdD-cKzxO5J_ueiUhT4_VIhGKD8vIhRjLq5WeyMEerPI7djHQNWhrw-C3CBPTiuw3bQLlQDZb03BHXjxY/s320/introduction-to-the-nervous-system-and-nerve-tissue1-11-638.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Fig. I: The three primary types of neurons, cells that constitute what is classified as Nervous Tissue.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyCPMP8jFTzu_ZibYMgUA-LwfPP8URGRlRXad5YM_0zBXJDHKMc2shYh0k8osKDxp9y55Erf7TO7KMY5Md2M5uhoNhIjSYwGHw2YWJF48ylrLwlAtH1eCYsD9i0wHDiSDthV54O7p-Jzk/s1600/image3.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyCPMP8jFTzu_ZibYMgUA-LwfPP8URGRlRXad5YM_0zBXJDHKMc2shYh0k8osKDxp9y55Erf7TO7KMY5Md2M5uhoNhIjSYwGHw2YWJF48ylrLwlAtH1eCYsD9i0wHDiSDthV54O7p-Jzk/s320/image3.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
Fig. II: The three types of Muscle Tissue and their characteristics and functions.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOHNJFw6OMAGiIpXfj8G7gZ3W2KxHE38VIs9dJOO-1alBqBisK0taXdzenQ8KQOXQmjxIzFmIseH2-PZbC29YsO7QSUkcTcStDS6npMvLStPln-s4K2tPWXpFaK4beWRufuS9_g4-oWSk/s1600/illu-epithelium.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="128" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOHNJFw6OMAGiIpXfj8G7gZ3W2KxHE38VIs9dJOO-1alBqBisK0taXdzenQ8KQOXQmjxIzFmIseH2-PZbC29YsO7QSUkcTcStDS6npMvLStPln-s4K2tPWXpFaK4beWRufuS9_g4-oWSk/s320/illu-epithelium.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
Fig. III: The seven recognized types of tissue currently classified under the label of "Epithelial Tissues", and the characteristic shapes of the cells that comprise them.</div>
Troodon Roarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06458650924508744077noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1028500056996350094.post-44238635243477487422017-02-03T07:37:00.001-06:002017-02-03T07:38:26.956-06:00Why Time Travel Does Not Violate The First Law Of ThermodynamicsTime Travel And Conservation Of Energy/Mass/Matter:<br />
<br />
The possibility of time travel, particularly to the past, has had numerous objections raised to it over time. Perhaps one of the most seemingly difficult to grasp is the objection that time travel, particularly to the past, violates the First Law of Thermodynamics, also known as the Law of Conservation of Energy and Mass/Matter (as energy and mass are equivalent, as shown by Albert Einstein's famous equation e=mc^2). This law states that energy can never be created nor destroyed, but can only be changed from one form to another. The reason some have equated this to ruling out time travel is the following: You are probably aware that you existed in the past, for example, one week ago. Even prior to your conception, although you were not alive, the particles that would later make up your body still existed, but were just scattered around in various places until they later coalesced to form you. So every person comes from matter that already existed, and has since the beginning of the Universe. Let's say you time traveled to the Late Jurassic period. Even though it is at least 144 million years before your conception, the energy that would later constitute your body exists, as tiny particles scattered throughout the world (and possibly throughout the universe -- who knows if some of the particles that would later make up your body came to Earth from outer space?). This, according to some, constitutes a violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics, since you now coexist in the same time period alongside the particles in the past that would later form you, with the result that more energy is being added to the Late Jurassic, while energy is being simultaneously removed from the present Quaternary period, constituting a violation of conservation of energy.<br />
<br />
This is the crux of the argument against time travel from violation of conservation of energy/mass. However, I disagree with this argument, and this article will refute this argument by probing more deeply into the logical underpinnings at work beneath it.<br />
<br />
The Law of Conservation of Energy simply states that, in a closed system, energy cannot be created or destroyed. A closed system is defined as a system in which no input from outside of the system is received by said system. The issue at relevance here is that different time periods are emphatically, demonstrably not closed systems, due to the simple fact that entities are always, constantly moving forward in time, and, therefore, entering new time periods. Someone inevitably entered Wednesday from the preceding Tuesday; they did not just magically, spontaneously pop into existence on Wednesday. Additionally, general relativity shows that space and time are inextricably woven together, as complementary components of a single, unified system known as spacetime. Therefore, since individual time periods are not closed systems, we do not have to apply the conservation law to particular periods of time, on their own. Considering the entire spacetime continuum, altogether, to constitute a closed system, someone popping into a past time prior to their conception, and existing alongside the particles that would later make up the ovum and spermatozoon that would eventually conceive them, would not be injecting more mass or energy into a closed system, as, without time travel into the past, both the putative time traveller and the particles in the past prior to the individual's conception that would later come to constitute their body already are coexisting in the spacetime continuum -- merely at different times. Travel to the past would merely bring their locations in spacetime into greater proximity with one another, as they are now at the same time, instead of at differing times.<br />
<br />
As a thought experiment, let us now envision a wormhole connecting the year 1733 to the year 1725, for example. A person conceived in 1721 who is twelve years old in 1733 and four years old in 1725 would exist in both time periods. Now let's say the twelve-year-old goes through the wormhole, and arrives back in time in 1725 from 1733. When this happens, the twelve-year-old disappears from 1733, and reappears in 1725. While, if we were to consider each of the times, 1733 and 1725, as closed systems, this would, indeed, be in violation of the First Law, since we know that they are not closed systems, we know that this is not a violation. If we are to consider the entire spacetime continuum, as a whole, to be a closed system, then, there is no violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics inherent in this situation, as the disappearance of the time traveller from 1733 is balanced out by his/her subsequent reappearance in 1725. It's just like how removing a peanut from a bag of peanuts does not violate the law of conservation of energy/mass, as the peanut bag is not a closed system, but, rather, part of a closed system. Energy/matter can, indeed, be displaced within a closed system. And being displaced is completely different from being destroyed or created.<br />
<br />
Energy can be displaced from one region of a closed system and arrive at another region in its stead. There is, theoretically, no reason that a person could not coexist at the same time as the particles which would later go on to constitute their physique, instead of existing at a different time from them. Only the location of the person along the time dimension would have changed, without creating any new energy, so this would not violate the Law of Conservation of Energy, and, by extension, of Mass and of Matter.<br />
<br />
Overall, this argument against time travel, particularly time travel to the past, seems compelling at first glance, but, upon closer examination, its faults become readily apparent. It shall be noted that one may feel tempted to accept arguments against the possibility of time travel due to the fact that time travel contradicts common sense. However, there are numerous statements made by science, some of which are facts, which contradict common sense. Common sense is not always necessarily an infallible arbiter of truth. One must always tread with caution, and think critically about any arguments one finds, and parse them logically, even if they seem to appeal to intuitive notions of common sense. This is how progress is made, and new discoveries that potentially overturn paradigms occur.Troodon Roarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06458650924508744077noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1028500056996350094.post-73896872505573940222017-01-31T23:59:00.001-06:002017-01-31T23:59:05.713-06:00Consciousness, Sentience, And Self-Awareness: An OverviewConsciousness, sentience, and self-awareness are among the most contentious topics in biology, as well as in popular culture. In the past, it was commonly assumed by eminent philosophers that only humans were conscious and sentient, and no other animals, let alone non-animalian organisms, were. Additionally, even now, it is commonly believed that even some humans younger than a certain age, such as in the prenatal stages of life, are not capable of being in possession of these qualities. But a mass of scientific research, welling up to a profound crescendo which cannot be ignored, has been accumulating over the years that contradicts these assertions. No longer can we claim, while still remaining on solidly grounded scientific footing, that only postnatal Homo sapiens are conscious, sentient biological entities. In fact, one of the core assumptions accepted even by many in the scientific community now, that a brain, or, at the very least, a nervous system composed of neuronal cells, is necessary for consciousness, sentience, and self-awareness has now started to be persuasively challenged by the evidence. This is what is the primary focus of this present article.<br />
<br />
Firstly, we need to define these terms. Consciousness can be defined as an awareness of one's surroundings, sentience can be defined as an ability to perceive subjective states (i.e., "This situation is good for me", "This situation is bad for me", etc.), and self-awareness can be defined as awareness that one exists, and recognition of oneself, as an individual, distinct from others. Based on these very simple criteria, it shall be shown that the widely-accepted assertion that only humans, and only humans at a certain ontogenetic stage, at that, possess these qualities is simply not concordant with the evidence at hand presently.<br />
<br />
Let us start with the evidence from those creatures closest to home, so to speak, with members of the same species in which these qualities are accepted as existing, Homo sapiens, but at an ontogenetic stage where it is assumed not to possess them: neonatal and prenatal humans.<br />
<br />
It is very common to encounter statements that a fetus is not conscious, sentient, or self-aware. Some even go as far as saying that a newborn baby, after birth, does not yet have those qualities. Yet a cursory overview of the scientific literature on this subject reveals these assertions to be grounded more in preconceived notions than on fact. A study has shown that newborn babies can recognize the sound of their own cry when heard among the sounds of other babies' cries and the sounds of other animals, revealing a type of self-awareness at the neonatal stage of life. And this is purely anecdotal, and thus cannot count as empirical scientific data, but one of my own cousins once removed, at six months after her birth, has, according to her parents, already developed a preoccupation with her own reflection in mirrors, a preoccupation which she does not display when observing the reflections of other objects in mirrors, an indication of an awareness of a sense of self.<br />
<br />
A study by Umberto Castiello et al. has revealed that, at least as early as fourteen weeks in utero, twins have been observed touching each other. The first inclination of the reader would be to dismiss these motions as mere reflexes, but the authors point out that they seem purposeful and directed. This study examined five pairs of twins in utero, and all displayed this same behavior, with the authors therefore arriving at the conclusion that "These findings force us to predate the emergence of social behaviour".<br />
<br />
Let us now move on to the likely even more controversial portion of this article, that concerned with the research indicating the existence of these qualities, as well as numerous other cognitive capabilities, such as problem-solving and communication, in creatures completely lacking brains or nervous systems as we know them, such as plants, protozoa, and bacteria.<br />
<br />
Any mention of plant sentience, consciousness, or self-awareness is immediately marred by association with the pseudoscience that, sadly, cast a dark shadow over investigations into this subject decades ago, beginning with the publication of The Secret Life of Plants, a book which claimed that doing things to plants such as playing certain varieties of music to them would allow one to communicate telepathically with them and convey emotions, among other such mystical claims. This has led to the investigation of plant cognition being seen as taboo by serious botanists nowadays, a rather unfortunate reality, now that renewed research is beginning to show that this avenue of investigation is, indeed, worth pursuing.<br />
<br />
The work of scientists such as Stefano Mancuso, Richard Karban, and Monica Gagliano on plant communication and learning has spread shockwaves throughout the botanical community, bringing up memories of the not-too-pleasant specter of the pseudoscientific claims engendered by The Secret Life of Plants and its ilk. Yet this research cannot be ignored. It has been shown by the work of Karban and Mancuso that plants are capable of communicating to each other through chemical signaling, with some even likening the chemicals released after grass is cut that give it such a characteristic smell as "screaming" intended to warn surrounding plants of the impending danger. Additionally, experimental research carried out by Gagliano has shown that some plants are capable of learning that a given stimulus is harmless after being exposed to it repeatedly, while giving a defensive reaction, showing that they still suspect it might be harmful, once subjected to a different stimulus.<br />
<br />
This has led to the development of a nascent branch of botany known as plant neurobiology, which is a misnomer, as even the botanists who study it are aware that plants do not possess neurons, in the same way that animals do. While still an emerging field, it already has made promising progress, and many more insights into plant social behavior and cognition certainly await in the future.<br />
<br />
Let us now move on to the organisms that are commonly thought to lie at the very bottom of the Scala Naturae of old, the microbes and protozoa. Even these seemingly most unlikely of candidates for the presence of consciousness, sentience, and self-awareness have no shortage of studies expounding the evidence for the presence of these qualities in them.<br />
<br />
Some of the most persuasive evidence in this area has come from research on a certain species of Slime Mold, Physarum polycephalum. This slime mold has been shown to be capable of memorizing its history of spatial location, and of navigating a maze with such precision and ease that it would fill the most clever of human engineers with envy, as it would be comparable to their most carefully calculated efforts.<br />
<br />
In addition, bacteria offer an impressive reportoire of cognitive and social behaviors. Bacteria are capable of processing input from their environments and producing outputs in return based upon their computation of said information. They also possess an ability known as quorum sensing. That is the ability to detect when a group of their own species has reached a sufficient number to be able to carry out a certain operation, implying some degree of social awareness. According to a study by the late Eshel Ben Jacob et al., bacteria display some cognizance of the distinction between themselves and others, i.e., self-awareness. Indeed, the actions of bacteria within the bodies of host organisms, and their ongoing battle waged with said host organisms' immune systems, has been compared in its complexity to human guerilla warfare. Bacteria are also capable of genetic engineering, incorporating foreign DNA into their own genomes. In other words, bacteria have had the ability to genetically engineer for billions of years, while humans have now had it for less than a century. This evidence is too impelling to be ignored. Renowned bacterial geneticist James A. Shapiro states that "This remarkable series of observations requires us to revise basic ideas about biological information processing and recognize that even the smallest cells are sentient beings."<br />
<br />
I will be posting much more on this topic in the near future, but it shall suffice to say that we must be more open-minded about consciousness, sentience, and self-awareness in numerous varieties of creatures, from microbes to slime molds to plants, and, therefore, by extension, to zygotes, embryos, and fetuses of all animals.<br />
<br />Troodon Roarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06458650924508744077noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1028500056996350094.post-53305579417544990062017-01-15T22:53:00.004-06:002017-01-15T23:11:27.875-06:00Sasquatches And Yetis: An OverviewSome of the most well-known alleged creatures investigated by cryptozoology are, undoubtedly, the supposed undiscovered bipedal primates reportedly seen around the world, including such fabled beasts as the Sasquatch, or Bigfoot, of North America, and the Yeti, or Abominable Snowman, of Asia. These alleged creatures are highly controversial, with their existence being widely regarded as unlikely by much of the scientific community, albeit with some notable exceptions, such as Grover Krantz and Jeffrey Meldrum. The proponents of their existence are quite zealous, passionately defending their supposed evidence against the arguments of the skeptics. In this article, I will examine this situation from a neutral perspective, arriving at a conclusion on this topic at the end, starting with an exercise in vicariously seeing what goes on in the minds of witnesses, from a first-person perspective:<br />
<br />
<i>I am walking through the dense, temperate rainforests of the Pacific Northwest, heading back to camp after collecting and purifying drinking water from a creek. All of a sudden, behind a bush, I see something I cannot quite identify; coming closer, I see that it is a hair-covered mass, which proceeds to leap out from the underbrush and stare at me. I am stunned; it is quite tall, appearing to ambulate in the manner of a human. It stares me in the face for what seems like an eternity, before finally strolling off into the dense green cacophony of thickets, never to be seen again. After it leaves, I look down at the ground, seeing footprints. Spilling plaster into them, I take the casts home to show everyone. It has been a frightening, yet massively rewarding, day for me; I got the fright of my life upon seeing this creature, but now I have the privilege of being able to say that I have set my eyes on the notorious Bigfoot.</i><br />
<br />
This scenario is by no means singular or unique. Since at least about sixty years ago, if not earlier, witnesses have reported coming face-to-face with creatures resembling upright-walking, bipedal hairy primates in various locales, ranging from the snow-covered peaks and valleys of the Himalayas, that mountain range formed by the collision of the former continent of India with Asia earlier in the Cenozoic Era, to all parts of North and South America, to even places such as Australia, where a similar creature known as the Yowie has been reported to roam the Outback.<br />
<br />
Besides sightings and videos, including some famous examples, such as the Patterson-Gimlin Film, the evidence most often marshaled by supporters of these creatures' supposed existence consists mainly of footprints, excrement, and hairs. Recently, numerous hairs alleged to belong to anomalous primates from around the world were tested by hominid geneticist Bryan Sykes and colleagues. They arrived at the conclusion that the hairs came from a wide variety of known animals, ranging from ungulates to bears, with some hairs from the Himalayas, reportedly from a Yeti, being found by said study to belong to an as-of-yet unknown variety of Polar Bear. A subsequent study by Eliecer E. Gutierrez and Ronald H. Pine arrived at the conclusion that the hairs likely came from the known Himalayan Brown Bear, with there being no reason to suppose that they came from anything else.<br />
<br />
Another study found that the reported range of Sasquatch encounters in North America where sightings were most frequently reported matched up nearly perfectly with the known range of the American Black Bear, Ursus americanus. The authors, reflecting on their findings, noted that the idea that two sympatric species of large mammals with reportedly similar superficial appearances and habits would inhabit the exact same region left them incredulous.<br />
<br />
Reality television programs such as Finding Bigfoot on Animal Planet have now added fuel to the fire with their claims of investigating these reported creatures scientifically, while, with all due respect to the people involved in the series, their investigations are a prime example of what I consider to be the pseudoscience which mars cryptozoology and gives it a bad reputation among the scientific community. The investigators on that program repeatedly perform strategically-placed calls to attempt to attract Sasquatches with them, subsequently interpreting any response they get, however vague, as said Sasquatches responding to their communication. First of all, they need to provide evidence that these calls they are using are really Sasquatch calls, and how we can know they are such, if Sasquatch has not even been confirmed to exist, let alone discovered or studied in any intensive detail. Second, it seems to me like they too readily employ confirmation bias when it comes to interpreting their findings. Since they have the mindset that they are communicating with Bigfoot, they interpret any calls they hear as coming from Bigfoot, automatically, despite the lack of any solid evidence, whatsoever, that this is, in fact, the case.<br />
<br />
Another recent event in the community of Bigfoot advocates was the claims by Melba Ketchum and colleagues that they had found Bigfoot DNA. However, Ketchum et al.'s study was published in their own scientific journal that had been purchased by Ketchum herself months earlier, without passing through the rigorous process of peer review necessary to cement its findings as scientifically sound. The process of publication of the article was also marred by scandalous events, including one researcher's insistent claims that he had photographed the face of a Sasquatch, really nothing more than a Chewbacca mask. Ketchum concluded that Sasquatches resulted from a hybridization event between humans and another unknown hominid species in the Pleistocene, about fifteen thousand years ago.<br />
<br />
After all of these different avenues of investigation and recent events that have occurred surrounding Yeti and Sasquatch research, I must say that, as someone who once passionately thought that the evidence supported the existence of a species, or several species, of closely-related unknown bipedal primates inhabiting the Palaearctic and Nearctic ecozones, and possibly the Australasian one, as well, I have now drifted to a more skeptical point-of-view on these cryptids, given that the evidence that seemed most compelling to me in the past has now been tested, and, with the exception of Ketchum et al.'s controversially-derived results, genetic evidence of unknown primate presence was not detected.<br />
<br />
What really caused me to reexamine my views and take on a more skeptical position, though, were two main reasons. One reason was the study comparing the distribution of Sasquatch sightings to the distribution of American Black Bears, which really impressed on me what a coincidence this would be if a Sasquatch was a real unknown primate species, as well as the study of alleged Yeti hairs carried out by Bryan Sykes et al., and the subsequent follow-up study conducted by Eliecer Gutierrez and Ronald Pine. As much as I wanted it not to be true, because of how much it dampened my hopes of discovering a real new species of bipedal, hairy hominid roaming the forests of North America and Asia someday, I had to admit that Occam's Razor supported misidentifications of ursids as being one of the most common reasons for reported Sasquatch and Yeti sightings. I myself have seen videos of bears walking bipedally, and it is striking how similar their method of ambulation can appear to that utilized by hominids. A witness could very easily be forgiven for mistaking a bear walking upright on its hind legs for a Bigfoot or a Yeti, especially if they were walking through an area of wilderness where Bigfoot or Yeti sightings have been reported in the past, and they were expecting to see one, creating a psychological condition in which they were more likely to interpret any large bipedal furry creature glimpsed by them as said cryptid.<br />
<br />
The other reason was the fact that, as pointed out previously by American physical anthropologist and Sasquatch proponent Grover Krantz, since people have reported sightings of similar creatures to the Yeti and the Sasquatch all over the world, with sighting reports implying that they have nearly a cosmopolitan distribution, this undermines the credibility of the case that they furnish evidence of an actual species of undiscovered primate. The more widespread the sightings are around the world, and the more random their distribution appears to be, the less likely the putative existence of the creatures seems. Indeed, such worldwide distribution would seem to hint at common universal factors in the human psyche perhaps playing a role in the phenomenon of reported sightings of these creatures.<br />
<br />
Overall, I am still open-minded, and I think it is still possible that Sasquatch, Yeti, and their ilk might, indeed, exist and are roaming the wilderness at this very moment. I just do not see enough evidence to cause me to commit to such a hypothesis at the moment. Meanwhile, there are still some other mystery primates whose potential existence is, I think, grounded in plausibility, such as the Orang-Pendek of Sumatra, which has the advantage of having reports of it be confined to a specific geographical locale, being described as sounding like a real, ordinary animal, rather than a mythologized beast, as the others sometimes sound like, the presence of fossil evidence at said locale which might be of pertinence (the "Hobbit", or <i>Homo floresiensis</i>), and the fact that it seems to inhabit a feasible-sounding habitat for a creature of its description.<br />
<br />
The topic of mysterious primates in cryptozoology has attracted much controversy and consternation over the years, and I doubt this trend is going anywhere anytime soon. I remain open-minded about the whole situation, and trust me, I would be ecstatic with joy if I turned on my television set or looked in my newspaper tomorrow morning and saw that a Yeti or a Sasquatch had been captured, proving the existence of a new hominid species roaming the temperate ecozones of the Earth's Biosphere. Secretly, I hope my newfound skepticism is totally wrong, and, indeed, I would love nothing more than for it to be proven wrong. After all, at heart, I am a romantic in all things, not least the zoological, and few things, if anything, can captivate me more than the thought of new species of exotic animals, hidden for ages, being discovered in our own backyards.<br />
<br />Troodon Roarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06458650924508744077noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1028500056996350094.post-91343774175705051442017-01-14T18:07:00.001-06:002017-01-14T18:07:28.748-06:00Epigenetics: An OverviewIn my articles on zygotes and embryos, I mentioned non-genetic factors that play crucial and significant roles in the development of individual organisms; one of those processes I mentioned was epigenetics, which I alluded to in one sentence. In reality, such a brisk glossing over does this very important and complex subject no justice, so I have decided to pen this present article to cover this topic, in particular.<br />
<br />
What is epigenetics? To understand, we need first to cover what genes and genomes are. Genes are portions of DNA (Deoxyribonucleic Acid), the nucleic acid macromolecule inherited from an organism's ancestors. Each individual gene is like an instruction to produce a particular characteristic, and the entire set of genes in the DNA, all taken together, is known as a genome. The process of how these instructions actually create the structures that they code for is known as gene expression. This is where epigenetics comes in. Epigenetics is the process of controlling and modfying how genes are expressed during the process of gene expression.<br />
<br />
This seemingly innocuous fact has wider implications, for it shows that, thanks to epigenetics, it is truly inaccurate to say that we, as individual organisms, are the products of our genes alone, and that our genes represent our destinies. In reality, we are the products of genes, as well as processes such as epigenetics, which result in non-genetic factors, including other components of the cell, such as cytoplasm, and external factors in the environments inhabited by us, playing a critical role in shaping who we are as individuals.<br />
<br />
Another important aspect of epigenetics to note is that it is, to some extent, heritable. At the time of fusion of the gametes, ovum and sperm, the resulting offspring inherits an epigenome (a set of epigenetic factors somewhat analagous to the genome, which is composed of genes, hence the name) from both of its parents.<br />
Yet another important aspect of epigenetics is that, in addition to being heritable, unlike genes (which generally remain fixed throughout an individual organism's life cycle), epigenetics can be altered by an individual's experiences in their life, and this altered epigenome can then subsequently be passed down to offspring at the time of reproduction. In other words, changes to the epigenome incurred during an organism's life are heritable, allowing them to be existent in the offspring of said organism from the time of said offspring's conception.<br />
<br />
An organism's epigenome is modified by its environment and experiences throughout its life, from the time it is conceived by the fusion of each of its parents' gametes to the time of its death.<br />
<br />
This process of changes to an individual's phenotype brought on by an individual's life experiences that are subsequently inherited by its offspring is quite reminiscent of Lamarckism, a hypothesis regarding how evolution worked proposed by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, positing that, for example, a giraffe stretching its neck, lengthening it slightly, to reach the tallest leaves on a tree would bear children with slightly longer necks than it, and so on, until, over time, the giraffe population, as a whole, became long-necked. This hypothesis was adopted by many early proponents of evolutionary theory, including noted American paleontologist Edward Drinker Cope, but was generally discredited once Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection arrived on the scene.<br />
<br />
However, epigenetics has, in a sense, resurrected Neo-Lamarckism. In addition to noting this, it should also be noted that, according to recent discoveries, even phenomena normally thought to be entirely the providence of the nervous system, such as memories, might fall under the purview of epigenetics. I am planning to devote another full article to this later, but I think it shall suffice to say here that the existence of a phenomenon known as cellular memory, the ability of cells, including some besides those of the nervous system, to record information incurred during an organism's lifetime in the form of memories, has begun to be supported by studies. This means that experiences that were endured by an individual's ancestors and which left their imprints in said ancestor's cells were passed on to their descendants in the form of their gametes, meaning that even things such as memories could be, to some extent, heritable, in a sense, due to epigenetics.<br />
<br />
Overall, epigenetics is among the most fascinating frontiers in the field of developmental biology and genetics, and research on it is still in its early stages. In the future, more research could shed light on this wonderfully intriguing, and strikingly imperative, area of biology.Troodon Roarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06458650924508744077noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1028500056996350094.post-545034899520802042017-01-09T23:34:00.001-06:002017-01-09T23:34:23.840-06:00Responses To More Claims About Zygotes And EmbryosHere are some additional arguments I have encountered, in various sources, against zygotes and embryos being living individual organisms, which I will review and judge on their own merits here, as well.<br />
<br />
One of the most popular arguments, widely believed by many, including some in the scientific community, is that, prior to fourteen days after fertilization of the oocyte by the spermatozoon, the embryo is not yet an individual because there is the potential for monozygotic twinning to occur, causing there to be two individuals instead of one. This argument assumes that this split into two individuals erases the existence of the original embryo, leaving two progeny in its wake. However, in reality, it is thought that monozygotic twinning occurs at the blastocyst stage of embryonic development, in which the cells of the inner cell mass have separated from the cells on the outside of the embryo, which form a structure called the trophoblast. When monozygotic twinning occurs, part of the blastocyst separates from the rest of the embryo, splitting off and giving rise to a genetically identical clone, or twin. It is very important to note here that this process does not erase the existence of the original embryo, and, in fact, due to the embryo's amazing ability to heal its wounds and regenerate missing cells, it actually makes a pretty decent recovery afterwards. Neurobiologist Maureen L. Condic compared this process to the analogy of an adult human's arm being cut off and used to create a clone of itself, while the original is able to regenerate its missing arm afterwards.<br />
<br />
Indeed, the very mention of cloning allows me to segue into the mention of the fact that, as human cloning, by the merging of any reprogrammed somatic cell with an oocyte, is at least hypothethetically possible, the truth is that you or I have the potential to be cloned, which is basically the same process as monozygotic twinning, at any moment. Therefore, if we utilize the argument against individuality from twinning/cloning, then, no adult animals, including humans, are ever individuals, as they could, potentially, be cloned at any time. This is obviously an absurdity, which means the above argument must be, as well.<br />
<br />
Another argument, this one based more on lack of information than anything else, really, is that, as embryos are capable of being frozen and thawed back out many years later, emerging alive, while this has not been done to adult animals yet, this proves that embryos are less alive than adult animals. Yet a simple exploration of what actually happens during the embryo freezing process dispels this one entirely. During this process, water is expelled from the cells, as, since water forms sharp crystals that penetrate and kill cells when it freezes, it is dangerous and deadly to allow an organism to freeze without first doing so. Then, antifreeze is put into the cells in place of the expelled water. The only reason why this has, to date, been done successfully only on embryos, and not on adults, is simply because it is far less practically feasible to carry out this process on an adult organism, simply because the latter is so much larger than an embryo. It is only a matter of practicality based around physical size. There is nothing inherently different between an embryo and an adult that causes this difference. Who knows? Perhaps, in the future, preserved, frozen adult humans will be a reality, just like preserved, frozen embryonic humans are now.<br />
<br />
Lastly, there is the argument that, since the trophoblast forms what are commonly referred to as extraembryonic tissues, including the placenta and yolk sac, while the inner cell mass forms what is thought of as the embryo proper, before the separation of the trophoblast from the inner cell mass at the blastocyst stage, the embryo cannot yet be an individual. However, a closer examination of this argument reveals critical faults. The fact that the structures formed by the trophoblast are referred to as extraembryonic structures is rather misleading; in reality, they are, indeed, part of the embryo's body, just like what is thought of as the embryo proper. The fact that they are utilized only during the antenatal stage of life, and subsequently shed upon parturition, does not make them any less part of the embryo's body than the fact that milk teeth are utilized only during childhood, and are subsequently shed, makes them any less part of postnatal children's bodies.<br />
<br />
Overall, these three additional arguments against zygotes and early embryos being individual organisms can all be soundly rejected. The argument from twinning can be rejected due to the fact that twinning only produces a new embryo, while the original remains, and that any adult organism could potentially be cloned at any time, the argument from freezing and preservation can be rejected due to the fact that the difference between adults and embryos in this respect is only a matter of size, and nothing more fundamental than that, and the argument from extraembryonic structures can be rejected due to the fact that these are, indeed, parts of the embryo's body, which are subsequently shed after birth.<br />
<br />
References:<br />
<br />
Condic, Maureen L. (2014). Totipotency: What It Is And What It Is Not. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3991987/)Troodon Roarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06458650924508744077noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1028500056996350094.post-5854182352012786392017-01-08T17:33:00.002-06:002017-01-08T17:33:53.324-06:00Yes, Zygotes And Embryos Are Individual Organisms: A Rebuttal To Common Claims <ul class="first-line-outdent" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 17.5px; list-style-type: none; margin: 0.875em 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 40px;">
<li id="b9"> </li>
<li id="b9">In this article, I will go over several arguments I have found on the Internet arguing that zygotes and embryos are not individual organisms in their own right, but, rather, merely cells. In other words, they argue that a human zygote or embryo is not an individual human, or that a whale zygote or embryo is not an individual whale, but merely a cell or clump of cells of human/whale origin, no different from shed human/whale skin cells, for example.</li>
<li id="b9">I will examine these arguments to try to see if they hold any veracity. Overall, I am satisfied with the conclusions I reach, as I feel that they are the result of my application of logic and critical thinking to these arguments.</li>
<li id="b9">Alright, without further ado, let us delve right on in.</li>
<li id="b9"><br /></li>
<li id="b9">One of the most basic arguments I could find was that a human (to utilize the example of the species for which this issue is the most controversial) zygote or embryo does not resemble a mature human, and lacks none of the physical characteristics, or autapomorphies, necessary for classification as a member of the species Homo sapiens. As a human zygote is a unicellular organism, indeed, it resembles a protozoan, such as an amoeba, far more than an adult human. However, I find this argument incredibly myopic and spurious, due to the fact that a simple glance at the rest of the animal kingdom shows much diversity in physical forms at various stages of ontogeny. Most kindergartners are probably aware (I know I was) of the metamorphosis by which a caterpillar transmogrifies into a butterfly, and possibly also that by which a tadpole transmogrifies into a frog. Indeed, it shall be observed that, in many ways, a caterpillar bears far more resemblance, physically, to an annelid worm than it does to its older self, just as how a human zygote bears far more resemblance to an amoeba than to its older self. Yet it is uncontroversially accepted that a caterpillar and the butterfly it becomes are the same individual, and members of the same species, who only look that much different due to being at different ontogenetic stages in their life cycle. A human, at the earliest stage of life, is a unicellular organism, but it is still entirely a Homo sapiens, just as a Monarch butterfly, when it was a caterpillar, and lacked wings, was still entirely a Danaus plexippus.</li>
<li id="b9"><br /></li>
<li id="b9">Additionally, it shall be noted that many organisms are classified as members of various clades, be they species, genera, families, orders, classes, phyla, kingdoms, domains, or any kind of clade, while lacking key autapomorphies defining membership in said clade. For example, humans, due to their mammalian provenance, are classified in the clade Synapsida, membership in which is defined by the presence of one fenestra (literally translated as window, meaning an orifice, or a hole, in the skull) in the skull, as compared with anapsids, which have no fenestrae in their skulls, and diapsids, which have two. Humans lack this single fenestra -- they are secondarily fenestra-less -- yet they are still classified as synapsids because they are descended from ancestors that possessed it. To use yet another example, snakes and caecilians are classified in the clade Tetrapoda, defined as encompassing verebrate animals with four limbs, despite the fact that they lack limbs entirely in the adult ontogenetic stage of their life cycles.</li>
<li id="b9"><br /></li>
<li id="b9">Another argument I could find was that, as it is not genes alone, but genes in addition to environmental influences, that make an individual who they are, a zygote cannot be an individual of the species it belongs to. This argument asserts that saying that a zygote, immediately after a spermatozoön fertilizes an oocyte, is an individual of the species it belongs to is a form of genetic reductionism that discounts the role of the environment in shaping the individual, and compares the assertion that a zygote is a member of the same species as the adult organism it will later become to a form of preformationism, the erroneous belief that the physical features the zygote will later have are already present within it. </li>
<li id="b9">First, I need to make it clear that I am no preformationist; I acknowledge that the phenotype of the zygote is drastically different from the phenotype of the adult creature that it will eventually become. Second, I am no genetic reductionist, either; I acknowledge the key role that environmental influences, in addition to genetics, play in molding an individual.</li>
<li id="b9"><br /></li>
<li id="b9">The difference is that I am aware that the environmental influence on an individual's phenotype is a process that continues throughout life, until the individual's death. The phenotype of an individual organism, and humans are no exception, changes drastically as they age, up to the time of their death, and environmental influences continue to play a significant role in these changes up until death. One notable example is height, or body size. This is undoubtedly one of the most noticeable and characteristic physical features of any organism. And it is well-known that it is affected by environmental factors, such as nutrition, throughout childhood and adolescence. Let's say a human child, seven years after their birth, is now four feet tall. They could have a range of possible tallest adult heights in their future, depending upon environmental influences in the intervening years. They might have the genetic potential to grow to be six feet tall, but if they spend the next years of their life in a war zone, deprived of nutrition, they might end up reaching an adult height of only five feet, eight inches, while, if they live a healthy lifestyle, they could end up reaching the height of six feet. Since the child's final height seven years after birth is still indeterminate, and is, at least partially, contingent upon environmental influences, does this mean that the child, at seven years after birth, is not yet an individual person, as their environmental influences have not yet fully molded them into their adult form alongside their genes?</li>
<li id="b9"><br /></li>
<li id="b9">To furnish more examples, I can easily think of cases in which the environment continues to modify an individual's phenotype well into adulthood. For example, let's say a forty-year-old runner with unnaturally flat feet due to a lifetime of wearing unhealthy shoes decides to take up barefoot running, and subsequently experiences elevation of the arches in their feet. It is also well-known that the aging process comes with numerous physical changes, many of which seem to be due to the environment interacting with genetics. A thirty-year-old adult human whose height is 5'6'', with black hair, a mouth full of teeth, and high bone mineral density looks significantly different from an eighty-year-old adult adult human whose height is 5'2'', with white hair devoid of pigmentation, no teeth in an edentulous mouth, and low bone mineral density, yet, it is entirely possible, and, in fact, is true in a lot of cases, that these two disparate descriptions are of the same individual at different ontogenetic stages in their life history.</li>
<li id="b9"><br /></li>
<li id="b9">As it is established that the environment acting in concert with genes to shape an individual is a lifelong process that does not truly cease until death, it is totally arbitrary to draw a line at any age and say that "this is when enough of these environmental influences have accumulated to say that you are now you." To take this argument the only logical way, one would have to say that we are never truly ourselves, and, therefore, never truly alive as individuals, until the very end of our lives, when the environmental forces finally cease exerting their influence upon our genomes, which is, of course, absurd.</li>
<li id="b9"><br /></li>
<li id="b9">Since it is acknowledged that environmental influences upon genomes are an important aspect of shaping an individual, it also must be pointed out, at this juncture, that it has been shown that this process actually starts at conception. Recent embryological research has demonstrated that environmental influences are thought to be an important part of causing the zygote to undergo its first mitotic cleavage, through which it reaches its two-cell stage. So the assertion that the life of an individual organism has to begin later than at the time of its conception because only genes are present at this time is rendered moot, as environmental influences, as well as genes -- the whole package -- are actually present from conception onwards.</li>
<li id="b9"><br /></li>
<li id="b9">Finally, another argument is that, although a human zygote, for example, is human biological material in the same sense that a human somatic cell is, it is not an individual human in the same sense that a human adult is. This argument fails to comprehend and take into account fully the distinction between living matter and living organisms. The truth is that, subtle though it may seem, there is, indeed, a distinctive difference that separates cells that are organisms in their own right from cells that constitute parts of organisms. That is the ability to behave in an organized manner, with the different parts of the cell functioning together as a unified whole. A somatic cell, if removed from its owner and taken to a locality with conditions conducive for growth, will grow in a random, chaotic manner, unlike the organized, coordinated manner of a zygote as it undergoes repeated mitotic cleavages to become a morula, a blastula, a blastocyst, a gastrula, and so on and so forth. It is often asserted that, as some cells that sometimes form in a mature organism's body, like cancer cells, have genomes that are different from the other cells in the body, but do not constitute organisms in their own right, that it cannot be said that the zygote constitutes an organism in its own right due to having its own unique genome. However, this argument overlooks the crucial fact that a zygote displays behavior characteristic of an organism from the moment that the sperm penetrates the zona pellucida of the ovum, unlike somatic cells of any type, including cancer cells. It is not merely the fact that the zygote possesses its own unique genome that makes it an organism, but the way it displays a self-organizing, coordinated pattern of behavior, with the parts of the cell working together to allow the entity to function as a whole, to facilitate the transition to the following multicellular stages. For example, different regions of cytoplasm within the zygote coordinate their varying activities to allow the organism, as a whole, to function.</li>
<li id="b9"><br /></li>
<li id="b9">So the zygote not only has a unique genome of its own from the time of its conception, but environmental forces are already affecting it and exerting their influence on its genes from the time of its conception, and it displays a pattern of behavior characteristic of living organisms, as opposed to mere living biological material, from the time of its conception.</li>
<li id="b9"><br /></li>
<li id="b9">And, yes, it is true that the sperm cell and the egg cell that formed the zygote were just as alive as it was. However, it needs to be clarified that, unlike the zygote they gave rise to, they were not individual organisms in their own right, but, rather, parts of organisms -- the ovum to the adult female animal which produced it, and the sperm to the adult male animal which produced it. This is not entirely because they lacked a distinct set of genes, but mainly because, unlike a zygote, they do not exhibit organismal patterns of behavior.</li>
<li id="b9"><br /></li>
<li id="b9">Another argument, which that, as human cloning is now possible, and as any somatic cell from an individual's body could be used to produce a clone of them, this renders these somatic cells the equivalent of zygotes, can also be summarily rejected due to one critical flaw. This argument makes the mistake of overlooking the fact that, before said somatic cells can produce a clone, genetic information from them first needs to be transplanted into an egg cell, rendering the new combination equivalent to a zygote in terms of its molecular composition and its properties.</li>
<li id="b9"><br /></li>
<li id="b9">Overall, the argument from physical appearance can be refuted by a simple cursory glance at the various ontogenetic stages numerous species pass through during their life cycles, the argument from environmental influences can be refuted by the fact that environmental influences that shape individuals, such as epigenetic processes, start acting on an individual's genome at conception and do not cease doing so until death, the argument from false equivocation of zygotes and embryos with somatic cells and tissues can be refuted by the fact that the former display clearly organismal behavioral patterns, whilst the latter do not, and the argument from cloning, closely connected to the last argument, can be refuted by the crucial fact that, in order for cloning to occur, an ovum must be involved, as in the formation of a zygote.</li>
<li id="b9"><br /></li>
<li id="b9">I must arrive at the conclusion that the embryological evidence seems to point firmly to the conclusion that, from the moment that the sperm and the ovum form a zygote, it is a living individual member of the species to which it belongs. Indeed, this seems to me to be the predominant view in most of the field of embryology. I penned this article because I felt the need to clear up the numerous misconceptions surrounding this subject that I kept repeatedly encountering on the Internet. I felt a duty to set the record straight, and allow the world to know the truth.</li>
<li id="b9"><br /></li>
<li id="b9">References:</li>
<li id="b9">Condic, Maureen L. (2014). Confusions About Totipotency: Stem Cells Are Not Embryos. (http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2014/03/12361/)</li>
<li id="b9"><br /></li>
</ul>
Troodon Roarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06458650924508744077noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1028500056996350094.post-13412397752429577792016-12-27T13:29:00.000-06:002016-12-27T15:18:54.811-06:00Television Signals and WormholesIt is not very often that I go off-topic here, but today is one of those rare occasions. I am going to veer off-topic for this post, and pen an article that is not directly related to zoology, but, instead, physics.<br />
<br />
In the past few months, I have been researching wormholes: those connections between different regions of spacetime that are predicted to exist according to some solutions of Einstein's equations of general relativity. Wormholes have become a fixture in popular culture, with their potential use as devices for spacefaring across vast regions of space to faraway galaxies, as well as for travel between parallel universes and for time travel, having gained a firm foothold in at least some quarters of the general public. It is this last potential aspect of wormholes, travel through time (besides the normal time travel that everyone is constantly doing of going to the future at the rate of, within one particular relativistic frame of reference, one second per second), that will constitute the primary focus of this present article.<br />
<br />
First, it shall be useful to elucidate what, exactly, a wormhole is, and how they probably come about. For this, it shall be necessary to turn to an explanation of the theory of general relativity, popularized by Albert Einstein. According to general relativity, space and time are melded together into a single entity known as spacetime, and the existence of matter, by necessity, warps and bends the spacetime it inhabits to some degree, which leads to the phenomenon of gravity. When an object is attracted by a larger object's gravitational pull, according to general relativity, it would be falling into the dip, or dent, in spacetime created by the larger object's mass. A useful analogy would be to imagine spacetime as being a blanket. If a ball were to be placed in the center of the blanket, it would cause the fabric of said blanket to dip downwards in the middle. Now imagine if something of sufficient mass was placed in the center of the blanket to cause such a large dip that the two ends of the blanket now rise up and meet, forming a connection between them.<br />
This is how wormholes are probably formed. When something of sufficient mass exists in the fabric of spacetime, it creates such a strong gravitational force that it bends the fabric of spacetime, causing two distant regions of spacetime to come together and meet, thereby forming a connection, or a shortcut, between them. This connection is what is referred to as a wormhole.<br />
<br />
Physicist John Archibald Wheeler, about sixty years ago, was the first to hypothesize that spacetime, at the smallest scales, became a chaotic mess of wormholes, black holes, and a variety of other such phenomena, constantly popping into and out of existence. Spacetime was predicted to take on such a structure at the Planck scale, the smallest scale known to physics, far smaller than an atom. This structure is known as quantum foam, and, according to Barry R. Parker, Ph.D., the vast majority of physicists are now convinced that quantum foam exists, and that it is full of very small wormholes. It was predicted that, at such a tiny scale, the normal laws of physics would break down, causing the very structure of spacetime itself to turn into a chaotic, foamy mess. Spacetime would curve in on itself in many regions, temporarily forming connections between different regions of spacetime, i.e., wormholes.<br />
<br />
Now that we have an explanation as to what wormholes are, how they presumably come about, and why microscopic versions of them are predicted by physicists to exist at the smallest known scales in the universe, we can now delve into the real gist, the real meat and potatoes, of this article. And that is the phenomenon of people reporting seeing television series long before they actually aired, or were even produced, commonly associated with the phenomenon known as the Mandela Effect, which has been gaining attention in recent years, and how these microscopic wormholes might offer an explanation for this phenomenon.<br />
<br />
The Mandela Effect is a term coined by writer Fiona Broome about six years ago to describe a phenomenon she, and many others, experienced, of remembering the death of famed South African reformer, anti-apartheid activist, and politician Nelson Mandela while he was in prison in the Gregorian calendar decade of the 1980's, while, in reality, it is known that Mandela passed away on the (Gregorian calendar, base-ten) date Thursday, December 5, 2013. There are numerous other examples, perhaps one of the most widely-known being the tendency of a plethora of people to remember the title of the popular book series The Berensta/ein Bears being spelled "Berenstein", with a third "e", while the correct spelling is actually "Berenstain", with an "a" in place of that third "e".<br />
<br />
Some cases of the Mandela Effect I could find related to people claiming to have seen programming on television, including events on the news that had not yet happened, long before they aired, ranging from the aforementioned death of Nelson Mandela, whose funeral many people claim to have seen on television in the Gregorian calendar's 1980's decade, to television coverage of the death and funeral of noted evangelical preacher Billy Graham, whom, as of this writing, is still alive, to someone who claimed to have watched Leonardo DiCaprio win an award on television a week before he actually won said award.<br />
<br />
What really intrigued me about the Billy Graham case was this: I could find three different people saying they watched news coverage of his death and funeral on television at at least three different times. One reported seeing it around Gregorian calendar base-ten year 2009, around the time of Senator Ted Kennedy's death, while another reported seeing it a few months before the death of Ronald Reagan, which would place it circa Gregorian base-ten year 2004, while another reported seeing it in Gregorian calendar base-ten year 2000. And all three of them gave a description that was startlingly, even eerily, similar; that they saw Bill Clinton and George W. Bush presenting their condolences at Graham's funeral. It really did seem like these three different people, despite having reportedly watched this programming at different times, were describing the same television programme.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, on Reddit, I was able to find a post from someone stating that they remembered watching an episode titled "And Then" of a TV series titled "Medium" in Gregorian base-ten year 2003, when they stated that they were ten years old, while, in reality, that series did not premiere on television until Gregorian base-ten year 2005, and that particular episode did not premiere on television until Gregorian base-ten year 2008, when they stated that they were fifteen years old. According to the poster, they remembered they saw the episode while they were sitting on the recliner in what was, at the time, the room in their house reserved for television. The poster says that, in 2004, the room was turned into a bedroom for their mother, and, by 2008, not only was that room no longer the TV room, but the recliner in that room was long gone. Always making sure to be critical and skeptical of all claims, with there always being a possibility that someone is just making up this story and attempting to pass it off as genuine, I looked through this Reddit user's other posts to try to gauge if their pattern of posting could be indicative of deception. I did not find any indication of this. On the contrary, I even found that they had started a thread in which they intended to critically investigate common urban legends, and, in this thread, this user even wrote a post debunking one such legend, about insects, common in their area. So this person not only appears completely honest, but also appears to be in possession of a critical, skeptical mindset. Not the kind of person easily given over to either hoaxing or credulous acceptance of the extraordinary as an explication for the mundane.<br />
<br />
I have devised a hypothesis, involving the tiny, sub-microscopic wormholes thought to exist by physics, to explain these seemingly anomalous occurrences of people reportedly seeing television series long before they officially aired. This hypothesis is that, while a television program is officially airing, and the television signal is travelling through the air and through cables to reach television sets around the world, some of the signal passes through these tiny wormholes, managing to make its way into different time periods through them. The reason why a television signal would be able to pass through these tiny wormholes, while a larger object would not, is simply due to the miniscule size of these wormholes. As they are vastly smaller than an atom, or even most subatomic particles, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for anything made of matter to pass through them. Meanwhile, a television signal is a massless wave, made up only of energy, so it would not have a problem navigating its way through these infinitesimally small rifts in spacetime.<br />
<br />
Although I have yet to encounter anyone else devising such a hypothesis with regard to television signals, in particular, I have come across an article by British astrophysicist John Gribbin, published in the base-ten Gregorian calendar month of January 2013, in which he writes about these tiny wormholes, and speculates that, although they are far too small for any matter to go through, perhaps information, such as signals transmitted between particles conveying how they are supposed to behave according to the laws of physics, could be constantly passing through these wormholes, which could provide an explanation as to how the entire universe, all known areas of space and time, seem to follow the same laws of physics. Gribbin ends his article by musing, "And there you have the ultimate paradox. It may be that we only actually have universal laws of physics because time travel is possible. In which case, it is hardly surprising that the laws of physics permit time travel."<br />
<br />
This is the sentiment by which I would like to conclude this foray into the realm of quantum physics and anomalous television programmes on a zoological blog -- which, in my view, constitutes an anomalous occurrence, in and of itself.<br />
<br />
References:<br />
<br />
Broome, Fiona. "Nelson Mandela Died in Prison?" Mandela Effect. 9 September 2010. Web. Accessed 27 December 2016. (http://www.mandelaeffect.com/nelson-mandela-died-in-prison/)<br />
<br />
Gribbin, John. "How to build a time machine." John Gribbin Science. 15 January 2013. Web. Accessed 27 December 2016. (https://www.johngribbinscience.wordpress.com/2013/01/16/how-to-build-a-time-machine/amp/)<br />
<br />
Parker, Barry R. (1991). "Cosmic Time Travel: A Scientific Odyssey." Plenum US/Springer Science+Media, LLC. Page 234. Print.<br />
<br />
Broome, Fiona. "Nelson Mandela – The Memories, So Far." Mandela Effect. 11 February 2013. Web. Accessed 27 December 2016. (http://www.mandelaeffect.com/nelson-mandela-the-memories-so-far/)<br />
<br />
Broome, Fiona. "Billy Graham's Funeral on TV." Mandela Effect. 25 April 2013. Web. Accessed 27 December 2016. (http://www.mandelaeffect.com/billy-grahams-funeral-on-tv/)<br />
<br />
"Not_Really_A_Name". "Saw an episode of a TV show 5 years before it aired." Reddit. 13 September 2016. Web. Accessed 27 December 2016. (https://www.reddit.com/r/Glitch_in_the_Matrix/comments/52lbij/saw_an_episode_of_a_tv_show_5_years_before_it/?utm_source=amp&utm_medium=comment_list)<br />
<br />Troodon Roarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06458650924508744077noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1028500056996350094.post-22324486858625179142016-08-26T20:20:00.001-05:002016-08-26T20:24:02.421-05:00Thomas Henry Huxley and the Dinosarian Affinities of Birds – A Response to Brian SwitekWhile browsing the paleontology blogosphere, I came across an article on Brian Switek's blog Laelaps in which he proclaimed that the view that Victorian Era naturalist Thomas Henry Huxley, known as Darwin's Bulldog, arrived at the conclusion that birds had evolved from dinosaurs, and, therefore, are dinosaurs, is a misinterpretation of Huxley's true views. According to Switek, Huxley thought that dinosaurs closely resembled, in anatomical form and structure, to those animals which he deemed as the actual ancestors of birds, which Huxley said had yet to be discovered at the time.
Curious, I subsequently read much of Huxley's writings on this topic, and, with all due respect to Mr. Switek, who I have to commend in the highest for his wonderful contributions to paleontology, I am afraid that it is Mr. Switek who has misinterpreted (or rather, more precisely, overlooked) some of Huxley's work. Huxley had used the phrase "intercalary type" to refer to an organism that approximated the form that the ancestor of another species took, but was not actually the direct ancestor, while he used the phrase "linear type" to refer to those organisms that, in his view, represented the actual ancestors of another species.<br />
<br />
I reproduce the following excerpt from one of Huxley's works, which Brian Switek had used in his article to show that Huxley did not think that dinosaurs had actually evolved into birds (Ornithoscelida is a broader grouping encompassing the Dinosauria which Huxley utilized at the time; I have intentionally bolded one portion to add emphasis to it):<br />
<br />
"When I addressed you in 1862, I should have been bold indeed had I suggested that palæontology would before long show us the possibility of a direct transition from the type of the lizard to that of the ostrich. At the present we have, in the <i>Ornithoscelida</i>, the intercalary type, which proves that transition to be something more than a possibility; but it is very doubtful whether <b>any of the genera of <i>Ornithoscelida</i> with which we are at present acquainted </b>are the actual linear types by which the transition from the lizard to the bird was effected. These, very probably, are still hidden from us in the older formations."<br />
<br />
In this statement, Huxley is merely saying that none of the specific genera of dinosaurs that were known at the time was the direct ancestor of birds. He is not saying, by any means, that dinosaurs in general were not the direct ancestor of birds.<br />
<br />
In fact, another excerpt from a September 20, 1876 lecture by Huxley demonstrates that Huxley did, indeed, consider dinosaurs (again, referred to as Ornithoscelidans) to be the direct ancestors of birds (parts that are in bold, are, again, intentionally bolded by me to furnish emphasis):<br />
<br />
"I conceive that such <b>linear forms</b>, constituting a series of natural gradations between the reptile and the bird, and enabling us to understand the manner in which the reptilian has been metamorphosed into the bird type, are really to be found among a group of ancient and extinct terrestrial reptiles known as the <i>Ornithoscelida</i>. The remains of these animals occur throughout the series of mesozoic formations, from the Trias to the chalk, and there are indications of their existence even in the later Palæozoic strata."<br />
<br />
So Huxley did, indeed, consider dinosaurs to be directly ancestral to birds. He just thought that none of the specific genera of dinosaurs that were currently known at the time were directly ancestral to birds. And, in that respect, he was, of course, correct. It is imperative that Huxley's research and writings be recognized for their several crowning achievements, this being but one of the most notable (another was his proposal that pterosaurs were endothermic, but that's a story for another day).<br />
<br />Troodon Roarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06458650924508744077noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1028500056996350094.post-31483910832568332922016-08-26T19:52:00.000-05:002016-08-26T19:52:04.657-05:00The Roots of Speculative Evolution: An AddendumI mentioned in my last article that speculative evolution dates back to 1915, when William Beebe came up with the idea of the Tetrapteryx. However, it turns out that even this was not the first creature of speculative evolution to find its way to fruition. Soon after publishing my previous article, I remembered that Antoon Cornelis Oudemans, in his 1892 book The Great Sea Serpent, devised a speculative unknown species of gigantic long-necked, long-tailed pinniped, which he christened Megophias megophias. I cannot believe I had forgotten it about it at the time. Megophias represents an example of a speculative cryptozoological creature, in the vein of such modern books as The Cryptozoologicon (2013). So not just speculative zoology, but speculative cryptozoology, at that, dates back to at least 1892.Troodon Roarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06458650924508744077noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1028500056996350094.post-75835205872931455522016-07-05T20:28:00.000-05:002016-07-08T13:03:57.172-05:00Feathered Dinosaurs and Speculative Evolution Date Back Far, Far Earlier Than You Probably ThinkThis article covers three topics that may seem disparate, but are actually intertwined. These three topics are feathered non-avialan dinosaurs, the possibly non-avialan dinosaurian nature of <i>Archaeopteryx</i>, and speculative evolution. I will cover the early histories of all three topics, and show that all three actually date back far earlier than is commonly thought.<br />
<br />
It is widely-known among paleontologists and paleontology aficionados that a close evolutionary relationship between birds and the, then-newly discovered, dinosaurs was proposed by English naturalist Thomas Henry Huxley (nicknamed "Darwin's Bulldog" due to his tenacious support of the latter's theory of evolution by natural selection) in the mid-19th century. No doubt bolstered by the discovery of a highly unusual animal in fossil form in Germany in 1861, just two years after the publication of Darwin's scientific manifesto, outlining his views on evolution, <i>On the Origin of Species</i>, which was christened <i>Archaeopteryx lithographica</i>, Huxley began to be struck by the staggering amount of similarities that existed between the two groups. The significance of <i>Archaeopteryx</i> was, of course, that its fossil appeared to preserve evidence that the animal was coated by a feathery plumage in life, while the skeleton displayed copious hallmarks of close affinity with members of the taxonomic Class Reptilia. If not for the presence of impressions indicative of the existence of a feathered integumentary system in the animal's fossil, it would undoubtedly have been classified as a small predatory dinosaur upon its discovery. It is quite telling that at least one specimen of <i>Archaeopteryx</i> was actually misidentified as a specimen of the contemporaneous small-bodied theropod dinosaur <i>Compsognathus</i> for many years. It is not for want of good reason that I make mention of <i>Compsognathus</i> at this juncture, for I will now initiate a discussion of this diminutive dinosaur, which, indeed, will allow me to segue into discussion of what constitutes the gist of this article.<br />
<br />
While I mentioned at the start that Huxley's proposal that birds are descendants of dinosaurs is well-known among paleontologists and paleontology aficionados, there exists another contribution by Huxley to the then-nascent study of dinosaur paleontology that is much less widely-known, but nevertheless, the implications of which for the history of dinosaur paleontology are equally as staggering, if not more so. In the 19th century, Thomas Henry Huxley speculated that the aforementioned small theropod dinosaur <i>Compsognathus</i> might have been feathered, and reflected that, if it was, it would be difficult to decide whether it ought to be deemed a bird-like reptile or a reptile-like bird.<br />
<br />
Yup. That's right. Indubitably talented researchers and paleo-artists such as Robert T. Bakker, Gregory S. Paul, Mike Hallett, and Sarah Landry might have speculated about and drawn feathered non-avian dinosaurs in the 1970s and 1980s, but by no means were they the first to do so. Unless a still earlier example is found, for now, that distinction goes to Huxley, who formulated the idea of a feathered <i>Compsognathus</i> more than a century prior to those aforementioned paleo-artists. But it wasn't just the concept of feathered non-avialan dinosaurs that dates back to far earlier than is conventionally assumed; so, too, does the concept of four-winged arboreal feathered reptiles lying close to the origin of birds, and, by extension, the field/genre of speculative evolution.<br />
<br />
In 1915, American naturalist William Beebe wrote an article in the scientific journal <i>Zoologica</i> in which he proposed the possible existence of a highly bizarre animal that he termed the Tetrapteryx, so named due to the fact that it was a creature on the cusp between reptiles and birds, much like <i>Archaeopteryx</i>, albeit with one exquisite twist: it found itself in possession of, not two, but four wings composed of feathers, a pair on the hind limbs, as well as on the front limbs. If this description is ringing a bell, there's a mighty good reason for that; the discovery of the four-winged dromaeosaurid theropod dinosaur <i>Microraptor</i> in 2003 showed that Beebe's speculative Tetrapteryx was presciently on-the-ball, and that it had been an unwise decision by mainstream science to shun his hypothesis for so long. Not only did Beebe successfully presage the discovery of a four-winged feathered dinosaur 88 years later, he even drew a picture of his speculative beast, which was published in his 1915 paper. If Beebe intended for his Tetrapteryx to be dinosaurian, which I cannot ascertain definitively from his writing, then his drawing would hold the distinction of being the first known depiction ever drawn of a feathered non-avialan dinosaur. But it doesn't even end there. There's more.<br />
<br />
William Beebe's Tetrapteryx is undoubtedly a product of speculative evolution, thereby invalidating the commonly-held notion among those involved in the field that Dougal Dixon "created" the field of speculative evolution in 1981 with the publication of his book<i> After Man: A Zoology of the Future</i>. Even without mentioning Beebe's Tetrapteryx at all, the publication of Gerolf Steiner's book <i>The Life and Times of the Rhinogrades</i> in 1961, in which an entire speculative order of mammals, Rhinogradentia, was envisioned is undoubtedly a work of speculative evolution, and it was published 20 years before Dixon's book. So the notion that Dougal Dixon "created" speculative evolution in 1981 is already known to be false due to the 1961 introduction of the Rhinogradentia. The 1915 introduction of the Tetrapteryx merely serves to push it further back still by 46 years. Speculative evolution, just like feathered non-avialan dinosaurs, likewise dates back to far earlier than is often assumed.<br />
<br />
As if that wasn't enough, there's still more. Even if Huxley might have speculated about the existence of feathered non-avialan dinosaurs in the 19th century, surely, it doesn't mean anything if no fossils of feathered non-avialan dinosaurs were known, right? Well, think again. First of all, as demonstrated by the successful prediction of the eventual discovery of <i>Microraptor</i> by the Tetrapteryx, speculation plays an important role in paleontology. There was also another case of a speculative anomalocarid presaging the eventual discovery of the fossil of a real one that resembled it greatly, and was, in fact, therefore named after the speculative creature. Even so, if it turns out that <i>Archaeopteryx</i> was, in fact, a non-avialan dinosaur, rather than a bird (as some paleontologists nowadays are starting to classify it as), then the first fossil of a feathered non-avialan dinosaur would have been unearthed back in 1861. But still, it wouldn't have been recognized as non-avialan until recently, right? Wrong. Back in 1935, a scientific paper appeared, written by Lowe et al., in which it is stated that the <i>Archaeopteryx</i> fossil shows almost no uniquely avian autapomorphies with the exception of its feathers, and that it could very well be regarded as an example of a small feathered non-avialan dinosaur. So if Lowe's views end up being vindicated by future science, then the first feathered non-avialan dinosaur to be discovered would have been discovered in 1861, and recognized for its non-avialan nature in 1935. The discoveries of feathered dinosaurs in China in the 1990s, widely hailed at the time, would no longer be so significant.<br />
<br />
By no means do I intend to diminish the research and work of Bakker, Paul, Hallett, Landry, et al. with regard to their research into and artistic depictions of feathered non-avialan dinosaurs, and Dixon with regard to his research into and artistic depictions of speculatively-evolved animals. These people have made great strides in advancing the concept of feathered non-avialan dinosaurs and speculative evolution, respectively, and should be commended in the highest for their valiant efforts to advance these areas of science. However, it should not be forgotten that Thomas Henry Huxley proposed the possibility of feathered non-avialan dinosaurs in the mid-19th century, that William Beebe possibly drew the first depiction of a feathered dinosaur, as well as the first example of a creature of speculative evolution, in the early 20th century, and that Lowe et al. genuinely entertained the notion that <i>Archaeopteryx </i>was a non-avialan feathered dinosaur, also in the early 20th century. It would be wise to repeat the words of George Santayana, which ring as true for paleontology and zoology as for any other disciplines: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." It is highly beneficial to the future of paleontology and zoology that Huxley, Beebe, and Lowe be given recognition for being the first to conceptualize feathered non-avialan dinosaurs, speculative evolution, and the possible non-avialan dinosaurian affinities of <i>Archaeopteryx</i>, respectively, the first two over a century ago, and the third over eighty years ago. Let's give these three great men their due so that we do not forget where our ideas came from, so that we can have a less nebulous idea of where to take them in the future.Troodon Roarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06458650924508744077noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1028500056996350094.post-32932626847372882712015-08-10T08:51:00.001-05:002015-08-10T08:51:29.727-05:00From Blobsquatches to Bodies: The Dawn of a New Era<span style="color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961); font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody; -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(130, 98, 83, 0.0980392); text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;">One of the quintessential aspects of cryptozoology as it is currently practiced by the majority of researchers worldwide is undoubtedly the tendency to rely on blurry, indistinct photographs and videos to provide evidence for the existence of cryptids. This tendency is so pervasive, in fact, that new words have been coined to describe it in recent years; for example, "blobsquatch" is a term used to describe an entity in an image or video that is alleged to be a Sasquatch, but is too blurry to identify properly. However, in my opinion, this confidence in photography is sadly misplaced.</span><div style="color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961); font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody; -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(130, 98, 83, 0.0980392); text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;"><br></div><div style="color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961); font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody; -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(130, 98, 83, 0.0980392); text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;">I propose that, instead of spending hours attempting to get a photo or a video of a mystery animal, cryptozoologists should instead focus their efforts on locating and retrieving tangible biological evidence, such as a carcass. Please note that I am not against cryptid photography; Pictures and videos can be very intriguing, and can be useful to cryptozoological investigators in the sense that they help to provide a general idea of what a creature looks like, and can serve as a framework to help cryptozoologists find physical evidence. However, it should be emphasized that pictures or videos, on their own, are insufficient evidence to prove the existence of a new species. The only thing that can do that is a type specimen, either dead or alive.</div><div style="color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961); font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody; -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(130, 98, 83, 0.0980392); text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;"><br></div><div style="color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961); font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody; -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(130, 98, 83, 0.0980392); text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;">So if cryptozoologists should not attempt to prove the existence of their elusive quarry using photographic and video evidence, then what should they be doing instead? In my opinion, they should be attempting to secure biological material (a carcass, a skeleton, a piece of tissue, a living animal, etc.) There are myriad methods of doing so, and innovative cryptozoologists can often devise their own unique methods. For example, as I mentioned in my last article, Roy Mackal devised a plan to use biopsy harpoons to obtain a tissue sample from one of the Loch Ness cryptids. While Mackal never had an opportunity to use the harpoons, they were still an important innovation in the hunt for Nessie, and I have a feeling that innovative devices such as biopsy harpoons might potentially represent the future of cryptozoology.</div><div style="color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961); font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody; -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(130, 98, 83, 0.0980392); text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;"><br></div><div style="color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961); font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody; -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(130, 98, 83, 0.0980392); text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;">With modern advances in genetics that have occurred since then (the human genome having been mapped in 2003, and many other species' genomes since then), it might even be possible to obtain a tissue sample from either a living animal or a carcass, and test its DNA to attempt to determine its zoological affinities.</div><div style="color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961); font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody; -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(130, 98, 83, 0.0980392); text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;"><br></div><div style="color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961); font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody; -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(130, 98, 83, 0.0980392); text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;">To reiterate, I propose that we should begin a new era in cryptozoology, where, instead of attempting to rely on blurry photographs and videos to prove the existence of cryptids, we focus on finding physical evidence, and using modern biological methods (such as DNA testing) to identify and classify them. It is the 21st century, and if we want cryptozoology to really come in from the cold (as Nature editor Henry Gee stated in 2004), then we need to start using up-to-date scientific methods in our search for cryptids. In other words, we should start thinking in terms of bodies, rather than blobsquatches. So if there are any cryptozoological researchers reading this article who still believe that blurry, indistinct photographs and videos such as blobsquatches are good evidence for the existence of cryptids, I urge you to reconsider your thoughts and begin searching for tangible biological evidence instead. From blobsquatches to bodies, a revolution is afoot, and I urge all cryptozoologists to join us.</div><div style="color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961); font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody; -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(130, 98, 83, 0.0980392); text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;"><br></div>Troodon Roarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06458650924508744077noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1028500056996350094.post-84200387989729625612015-07-28T21:19:00.001-05:002015-07-28T21:29:25.544-05:00The History of the Loch Ness Monster<span style="color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961); font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody; -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(130, 98, 83, 0.0980392); text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;">This article documents the history of the world's most famous lacustrine cryptid, Nessie of Loch Ness in the Scottish Highlands. Nessie has a long, fascinating, and oftentimes tumultuous history dating all the way back to the 6th century and continuing right up to the present day. In this article, which is organized by decade, I will cover the sightings and evidence (including photos and videos) that have been recorded, as well as the multifarious zoological hypotheses that have been advanced over the years to account for the data.</span><br style="color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961); font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody; -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(130, 98, 83, 0.0980392); text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;"><div style="color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961); font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody; -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(130, 98, 83, 0.0980392); text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;"><br></div><div style="color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961); font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody; -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(130, 98, 83, 0.0980392); text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;">Early sightings (pre-1930s):</div><div style="color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961); font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody; -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(130, 98, 83, 0.0980392); text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;"><br></div><div style="color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961); font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody; -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(130, 98, 83, 0.0980392); text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;">Contrary to statements commonly trotted out by skeptics and journalists, there have indeed been sightings of large, unusual, unidentified creatures in and around Loch Ness prior to the rash of sightings that catapulted the beast to worldwide fame in the early 1930s. The first reported sighting was by Saint Columba in either 565 A.D. or 580 A.D. in the River Ness. A ferocious water beast reportedly attempted to eat a man, but retreated after Columba invoked the sign of the cross.</div><div style="color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961); font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody; -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(130, 98, 83, 0.0980392); text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;">In 1696, it was reported by an English soldier stationed at Loch Ness that the local populace spoke of a "floating island" that was regularly seen in the loch. This so-called "island" was said to traverse the loch, the way a living creature would.</div><div style="color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961); font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody; -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(130, 98, 83, 0.0980392); text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;">Several sightings were also reported in the late 19th century.</div><div style="color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961); font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody; -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(130, 98, 83, 0.0980392); text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;">Loch Ness researcher Roland Watson has written a book about Nessie sightings prior to the 1930s titled The Water Horses of Loch Ness. For anyone seeking more detailed and comprehensive information on mysterious cryptozoological occurrences at Loch Ness in the pre-1930s era, the book can be purchased here: <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/books/dp/1461178193">http://www.amazon.co.uk/books/dp/1461178193</a> (I am not affiliated with or connected to the book, and I am adding this link merely for informational purposes).</div><div style="color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961); font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody; -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(130, 98, 83, 0.0980392); text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;"><br></div><div style="color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961); font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody; -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(130, 98, 83, 0.0980392); text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;">1930s: Nessie's Rise to Fame</div><div style="color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961); font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody; -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(130, 98, 83, 0.0980392); text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;"><br></div><div style="color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961); font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody; -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(130, 98, 83, 0.0980392); text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;">The beast rose to international notoriety after a flare of sightings occurred in 1933 following the construction of a new road next to the loch. In the 1930s, naturalists speculated upon the creature's identity. Dutch zoologist Anthonie Cornelis Oudemans suggested that the monster was a landlocked version of his hypothetical sea serpent, Megophias megophias, a giant long-necked, long-tailed pinniped which he had first hypothesized in his 1892 book The Great Sea Serpent. Meanwhile, Rupert T. Gould suggested that it may be something like a long-necked newt or salamander. A newspaper account stated that the monster "bore a striking resemblance to the supposedly-extinct plesiosaur." Others have suggested that the creature may be a gigantic eel. The plesiosaur hypothesis has, by far, been the most popular, and has permeated popular culture the most, but has received harsh criticism from the majority of the scientific community. The first photograph of the cryptid was taken by Hugh Grey on November 12, 1933, and has been dubbed the Grey Photo. The photo is blurry and indistinct, and some skeptics have suggested that it merely shows a dog swimming towards the camera while carrying a stick in its mouth. Conversely, cryptozoological researcher Roland Watson has conducted an in-depth, intensive analysis of the photo, and claims that, if the photo is magnified, what appears to be a head is visible on the far right side of the photo, with the mouth open wide in a gaping expression, and what appears to be a fish-like eye. Perhaps the most famous – and infamous – photo of the creature was taken by a gynecologist from London named Robert Kenneth Wilson on April 19, 1934. Known as the Surgeon's Photo, it shows a swan-like head and neck peering above the surface of the water. The photo became the definitive photo of the monster, and firmly cemented the image in the consciousness of the general public of a plesiosaur-like animal as the most likely identity for the creature, although it would eventually be exposed as a hoax 60 years later.</div><div style="color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961); font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody; -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(130, 98, 83, 0.0980392); text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;"><br></div><div style="color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961); font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody; -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(130, 98, 83, 0.0980392); text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;">1960s–1970s: The Golden Age/Nessie Renaissance</div><div style="color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961); font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody; -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(130, 98, 83, 0.0980392); text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;"><br></div><div style="color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961); font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody; -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(130, 98, 83, 0.0980392); text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;">In many ways, the 1960s and 1970s (especially the latter) can be thought of as the "Golden Age" of Nessie research, or a "Nessie Renaissance" (analogous to the Dinosaur Renaissance that occurred in paleontology at around the same time). In 1960, aeronautical engineer Tim Dinsdale recorded a film of a hump moving along the surface of the water and leaving a wake behind it. Skeptics have claimed that it shows a boat, with some even claiming that a man standing on the boat is vaguely visible. However, an analysis by JARIC claimed that the object was "animate". This film, although short and not very detailed, is often trotted out as evidence by supporters of the existence of the creature. </div><div style="color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961); font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody; -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(130, 98, 83, 0.0980392); text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;"><br></div><div style="color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961); font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody; -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(130, 98, 83, 0.0980392); text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;">Numerous expeditions have been organized throughout the decades to search for the creature. One of the largest and most intriguing was the Big Expedition of 1970, in which hydrophones were planted in Urquhart Bay to monitor any sounds or movements indicative of the presence of large animals. Clicking noises reminiscent of echolocation were recorded, followed by a swishing noise possibly suggesting the tail movements of a substantially-sized aquatic animal. According to biologist Roy P. Mackal of the University of Chicago, who was present on the expedition, out of the multitude of sounds known to be produced by known species of aquatic animals, none matched the mysterious recordings from the loch that were obtained on the expedition. Mackal would eventually write a book about the monsters, titled The Monsters of Loch Ness. Published in 1976, the book documented all of the evidence (photographic, film, and sonar), that had been accumulated up to that point, and then discussed the myriad expeditions and attempts to search for the monster. It then delved into a discussion of the most plausible candidates for the creature's identity, with mammalian, reptilian, amphibian, and piscean candidates all being considered. Each candidate was assessed in a checklist that compared its physical characteristics to those of the Loch Ness cryptids as deduced from eyewitness accounts, photos, and films. In the end, Mackal arrived at the conclusion that an unknown species of long-necked amphibian, possibly related to the large predatory embolomers that existed during the Carboniferous period some 300 million years ago, was the candidate that matched the evidence from Loch Ness the most, with a gigantic eel coming in at a close second. </div><div style="color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961); font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody; -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(130, 98, 83, 0.0980392); text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;"><br></div><div style="color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961); font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody; -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(130, 98, 83, 0.0980392); text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;">Another researcher who contributed much to the search for the Loch Ness Monster was Robert H. Rines, founder of the Academy of Applied Science, who led two expeditions to the loch in 1972 and 1975. These led to two of the clearest and highest-quality – yet also highly controversial – photos ever taken of the Loch Ness Monster. One of them shows a diamond-shaped object that resembles the flipper of a large aquatic animal. This came to be known as the "Flipper Photo". Another photo shows what appears to be a gargoyle-like head with horn-like protrusions. This came to be known as the "Gargoyle Head Photograph". Another photo shows what appears to be the head, neck and torso of a large, long-necked aquatic animal that superficially resembles a plesiosaur. This came to be known as the "Neck & Body Photograph". At the same time that these photos were taken, sonar contacts concurrently suggested the presence of large animate moving objects in the water. The photos and sonar contacts from the Rines expeditions led many scientists to tentatively accept the reality of the existence of a large unknown animal in the murky depths of Loch Ness. British naturalist Sir Peter Scott even bestowed upon the elusive beast a scientific name: Nessiteras rhombopteryx, which roughly translates to "the Ness wonder with the diamond-shaped fin", referring to the rhomboid appendage photographed by Rines' team in 1972. Critics charged that the binomial given to the beast by Scott could be interpreted as an anagram for "Monster hoax by Sir Peter S." Rines countered that it could also be interpreted as "Yes, both pix arre monsters." The conversation – and the ensuing controversy – over the Rines photos was the closest that the Loch Ness cryptids ever came to gaining official scientific recognition. </div><div style="color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961); font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody; -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(130, 98, 83, 0.0980392); text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;"><br></div><div style="color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961); font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody; -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(130, 98, 83, 0.0980392); text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;">1980s: Research Continues</div><div style="color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961); font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody; -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(130, 98, 83, 0.0980392); text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;"><br></div><div style="color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961); font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody; -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(130, 98, 83, 0.0980392); text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;">Meanwhile, expeditions and searches continued. In 1987, Operation Deepscan scanned the entire loch, and although some large anomalous sonar contacts were detected, the expedition did not yield spectacular results. </div><div style="color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961); font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody; -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(130, 98, 83, 0.0980392); text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;"><div><br></div><div>1990s–present: The Modern Era</div><div><br></div><div>Since the 1990s or so, activity at Loch Ness regarding Nessie has somewhat quieted down compared to earlier decades, with fewer sightings reported each year. In 2009, Robert Rines speculated that Nessies may have become extinct, possibly as a result of increasing pollution. He subsequently attempted to locate a body of one of the creatures at the bottom of the loch. While some interesting objects were photographed lying at the bottom of the loch, nothing definitive was found. Rines himself died on November 1, 2009, having left behind an astounding legacy of unparalleled exploration and insight into the Loch Ness phenomenon. </div><div><br></div><div>Meanwhile, research and controversy continued to surround the loch and its elusive denizen, and sightings and photos have continued to come in, showing that Rines might have been premature in declaring that Nessie has vacated the premises. There were several sightings in 2011, including a sighting by the Hargreaves on June 15 in which a head and neck were seen protruding out of the water. In August, Marcus Atkinson photographed a sonar trace that appeared to show a large, superficially serpentine object in the loch. It has been suggested that it could be a school of fish or a bloom of algae, although Roland Watson has stated that it is unlikely to be algae, as the water is too dark and murky for algae to be able to photosynthesize in water as deep as the area where the sonar trace was observed. </div><div><br></div><div>The George Edwards Controversy (2011–2014):</div><div> </div><div>In November 2011, George Edwards photographed what appeared to be a grey hump breaking the surface of the loch. In August of 2012, Edwards released his photo to the public. However, analysis by other Loch Ness researchers, including Steve Feltham and Steve Plambeck, quickly demonstrated that Edwards's photo was a hoax, and that he had really photographed a fibreglass model of Nessie that had been used in a 2011 documentary at the loch. In 2014, George Edwards filed a complaint to the Drumnadrochit Chamber of Commerce in which he stated that Nessie researchers Adrian Shine and Tony Harmsworth were harming the local tourist business, and recommended that Shine's Loch Ness Centre exhibition be shut down. Tony Harmsworth responded with a letter of his own in which he censured Edwards for his blatant hoaxes and misinformation (such as claiming that he discovered a nonexistent geological formation at the bottom of the loch called "Edwards Deep"), and said that Edwards's hoaxing was harming the reputation of the Loch Ness tourism industry by reinforcing the prevalent belief that Nessie is nothing but a scam invented to attract tourists. The Chamber of Commerce did not print Harmsworth's article, and instead printed an article about an award that Edwards had recently won. In response, Harmsworth resigned his position as Editor of the newsletter. The consternation and rivalry between Edwards and the other Nessie investigators received attention in local newspapers, with many headlines proclaiming that a war was being fought over tourism on the banks of Loch Ness. In my personal opinion, the entire Edwards affair is a sad waste of time that should never have occurred, and serious cryptozoological investigators into the Loch Ness phenomenon should just ignore it. It has done nothing but damage the reputation of serious cryptozoological research at Loch Ness even further and perpetuate the image in the general public's mind that the Loch Ness cryptid is nothing more than a marketing gimmick used to attract tourists to the loch.</div></div><div style="color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961); font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody; -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(130, 98, 83, 0.0980392); text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;"><br></div><div style="color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961); font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody; -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(130, 98, 83, 0.0980392); text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;">The Future:</div><div style="color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961); font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody; -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(130, 98, 83, 0.0980392); text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;"><br></div><div style="color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961); font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody; -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(130, 98, 83, 0.0980392); text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;">With the George Edwards controversy having recently concluded, the future of the Loch Ness cryptids is as unclear as the peat-stained waters of Loch Ness itself. I personally hope that there will be no more silly hoaxes or misleading claims in the future, and that investigators use proper scientific methodology in their search for the elusive beast. In my opinion, researchers should not attempt to take photographs or videos, as we already have dozens of those, and they have proved nothing. The only thing that will finally prove once and for all that an unknown animal really does exist in Loch Ness is tangible, physical evidence – a specimen. I personally think that Mackal's biopsy harpoons were an excellent idea, and I think it is a shame that Mackal's team never had an opportunity to use them. In the future, I think cryptozoological researchers operating at Loch Ness should attempt to use innovative tactics such as biopsy harpoons to obtain biological material (such as a carcass, a skeleton, or a tissue sample from a living animal). I sincerely hope that investigators will use rigorous scientific methodology to ensure that their findings are obtained and presented with adequate integrity. If that happens, then we have a much higher probability of obtaining a specimen. When that day finally comes, the hard work of the researchers who have painstakingly searched the dark depths of the loch for the past 80 years will not have been in vain, and one of the world's greatest and longest-enduring zoological mysteries will have been solved after being shrouded in ambiguity for nearly 1,500 years.</div>Troodon Roarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06458650924508744077noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1028500056996350094.post-1371142717770738132014-09-29T20:00:00.001-05:002014-09-29T20:07:34.657-05:00The Prehistoric Survivor Paradigm (PSP)One of the most common schools of thought within cryptozoology is a hypothesis known as the Prehistoric Survivor Paradigm (PSP). The PSP asserts that extant representatives of taxa presumed extinct are likely to be responsible for cryptid sightings. Some researchers, such as Roy Mackal, Karl Shuker, and Scott Mardis, have been sympathetic to the PSP, while others, such as Darren Naish, have been very critical of it. In this article, I will explain my views on the PSP.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
We will start with an overview of some of the prehistoric creatures that have been hypothesized to survive as cryptids. Various sightings of winged, superficially-reptilian flying creatures have prompted some to suggest that pterosaurs might still be alive, and are responsible for such reports. I find this hypothesis unlikely, not because I am too closed-minded to accept that large flying animals could have survived to the present without being discovered, but because the reports that we have simply do not match anything we know about pterosaur biology. Most reports are very vague, and describe generic bat or bird-like flying monsters. Pterosaurs were not flying monsters. They were highly-specialized, bizarre animals that probably did not resemble anything familiar to the average layperson. We now know that they were quadrupedal, probably had an endothermic physiology, and were covered in superficially fur-like integumentary structures known as pycnofibres. None of this matches up with the reports, and it is very suggestive that the reports seem to describe inaccurate depictions of pterosaurs -- i.e., the depictions that the average layperson seems to have in mind when they think of pterosaurs. Many of the reports also sound like either bats or birds.</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue Light', HelveticaNeue-Light, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">Taking this into account, I hypothesize that "pterosaur" sightings most-likely consist of misidentified bats and birds. However, it is possible that some of the bats and birds could potentially be unknown species.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue Light', HelveticaNeue-Light, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue Light', HelveticaNeue-Light, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">Another group of Mesozoic sauropsids said to have persisted discreetly into the 21st century is the sauropods. As anyone familiar with dinosaurs or cryptozoology will already know, an African cryptid known as the Mokele-Mbembe is thought by many to be a relict sauropod. I used to subscribe to this hypothesis in the past, but I have now realized that it is flawed. As with the pterosaurs, reports do not match up well with modern depictions of sauropod anatomy and behavior. Sauropods were terrestrial animals with legs held directly underneath their bodies. By contrast, Mokele-Mbembe is usually described as a semi-aquatic creature with legs on the sides of its body. This description is more reminiscent of a reptile such as a monitor lizard or a turtle, rather than a dinosaur. Therefore, if Mokele-Mbembe exists, I think it is unlikely to be a sauropod.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue Light', HelveticaNeue-Light, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue Light', HelveticaNeue-Light, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">At this point, it probably seems like I am anti-PSP. But in reality, nothing could be further from the truth. I strongly believe that science is all about pragmatism, not dogmatism or ideology, which are the domain of politics. Therefore, I take a pragmatic approach to my cryptozoological research, and the PSP is no exception.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue Light', HelveticaNeue-Light, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue Light', HelveticaNeue-Light, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">Case in point: Plesiosaurs.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue Light', HelveticaNeue-Light, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue Light, HelveticaNeue-Light, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">One of the most well-known hypotheses within cryptozoology is that plesiosaurs have survived to the present-day, and are responsible for reports of unidentified long-necked animals in oceans and lakes around the world. I used to think this hypothesis was unlikely, for various reasons. However, now that I have done some more research, I have arrived at a different conclusion. I now feel that the plesiosaur hypothesis fits well with the cryptozoological data, and is actually quite a plausible hypothesis. For more information on this matter, see the article that I wrote about plesiosaurs in May: http://www.mysteriouszoology.blogspot.com/2014/05/plesiosaurs.html</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue Light, HelveticaNeue-Light, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue Light, HelveticaNeue-Light, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">In addition to plesiosaurs, several other marine prehistoric survivors have also been proposed in the cryptozoological literature, including mosasaurs and archaeocete whales. I currently do not see any good evidence for these animals' continued existence, although I remain open-minded about the whole situation.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue Light, HelveticaNeue-Light, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue Light, HelveticaNeue-Light, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">To conclude this portion of the article, I currently find that, of all the proposed prehistoric survivors, plesiosaurs are the only ones that I think marshal a relatively compelling case. However, my opinion could very well change if further evidence comes to light in the future.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue Light, HelveticaNeue-Light, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue Light, HelveticaNeue-Light, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">I will now discuss my stance on the general concept of the PSP. One of the greatest criticisms of the PSP is that it is unreasonable to suggest that prehistoric taxa could have survived into the modern era without leaving a conspicuous fossil record between the time of their presumed extinction and the present-day. While this argument certainly does have merit, I don't think it completely invalidates the PSP. There are numerous examples of ghost lineages; gaps in the fossil record. While the lack of an intervening fossil record is, indeed, a major stumbling block for the PSP, I don't think it can be completely ruled out.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue Light, HelveticaNeue-Light, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue Light, HelveticaNeue-Light, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">So this is my opinion on the PSP. I believe that it can be useful, and should not be completely discarded. However, in most cases, it does not fit the available data.</span></div>
Troodon Roarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06458650924508744077noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1028500056996350094.post-37050311862283174362014-09-05T23:39:00.001-05:002014-09-06T20:17:40.364-05:00Dinosaur PornDISCLAIMER: This article is intended to be humorous. I do not, by any means, condone or support bestiality.<div><br></div><div>Two days ago, I wrote a very serious review of <i>Abominable Science</i>, so today I decided to have a little fun, and write a post that is paleontological in nature, rather than cryptozoological.<div><br></div><div>Many might not be aware of the fact that dinosaurian pornography has now been published. Ten novels featuring women having sex with dinosaurs are available for purchase on Amazon. They include <i>Taken by the T-Rex</i>, <i>Ravished by the Triceratops</i>, <i>The Balaur's Delight</i>, and <i>Running From the Raptor</i>, among other titles.</div><div><br></div><div>When I first read articles about these books, I was initially excited that dinosaurs were getting more attention in popular culture. However, I was pissed off when I saw one of the articles compare it to vampire and werewolf porn. Unlike vampires and werewolves, dinosaurs actually existed in the past, and still exist today in the form of birds. It is absolutely ludicrous to even mention them in the same sentence as mythical beasts such as werewolves and vampires.</div><div><br></div><div>In regard to the books themselves, there were some things I like about them, and some that I dislike. For example, I really admire the inclusion of <i>Balaur</i>, a recently-discovered dromaeosaur with two sickle-claws, in one of the books. It's nice to see a relatively obscure dinosaur get some attention.</div><div><br></div><div>On the other hand, there are also numerous things I was very disappointed with, including the inclusion of the pterodactyl. Pterodactyls are not dinosaurs; they are pterosaurs. There's nothing wrong with including the pterodactyl, but the author should have made it explicitly (no pun intended!) clear that pterosaurs are not dinosaurs, so as not to confuse readers.</div><div><br></div><div>The pterosaur also lacked pycnofibres, and likewise, the dinosaurs all lacked feathers. Velociraptor is known to have been fully covered in feathers, like a modern bird. And there is evidence that Tyrannosaurus rex might have also been at least somewhat feathered during some stage of its lifetime.</div><div><br></div><div>I think it's wonderful that dinosaur porn is being published, but these errors need to be addressed. If dinosaur pornographers wish to be taken seriously and have their work develop into a full-fledged, flourishing entertainment industry, then they need to make an effort to preserve scientific accuracy within their works.</div><div><br></div><div>I look forward to seeing more accurate dinosaur porn in the future. And perhaps pornographic movies and video games featuring scientifically-accurate dinosaurs might also be made.</div></div>Troodon Roarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06458650924508744077noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1028500056996350094.post-39875283615151942732014-09-03T20:29:00.003-05:002014-09-06T17:42:14.711-05:00A Review of The First Chapter of Abominable Science!In July 2013, a book called <i>Abominable Science! </i>was released. Written by prominent skeptics Daniel Loxton and Donald Prothero, it contained a critical treatment of cryptozoology. Several cryptids, including the Loch Ness Monster, Sea Serpents, Mokele-Mbembe, Bigfoot, and the Yeti were examined.<br>
<div>
After the book was published, the authors challenged cryptozoologists to read the book and respond to it. On the SkepticBlog website, the authors pointed out that several cryptozoologists wrote one-star reviews on Amazon that apparently focused on insignificant details, while failing to address the wider issues raised by the book.</div>
<div>
Well, call me crazy, but I have decided to take on the authors' challenge. I am going to give an honest, judicial review of <i>Abominable Science! </i>Before I start my review, I feel compelled to note that I did not read the entire book; I only read the introduction and the first chapter. So, since it would be dishonest of me to review the portions that I haven't read yet, I am only going to review those two parts.</div>
<div>
<br></div>
<div>
The introduction, "Show Me The Body", was written by Michael Shermer. It stated that the discovery of new species is plausible, but a body is required to prove their existence. I had no problem at all with the introduction; in fact, I completely agree with it.</div>
<div>
<br></div>
<div>
The first chapter, however, is a very different story. I detected many significant flaws in it. First of all, the authors noted that cryptozoology is not accepted by the scientific community, and then proceeded to list some exceptions: Roy Mackal, Darren Naish, Jeff Meldrum, etc. The entire premise struck me as flawed; it doesn't really matter whether or not something is accepted by the majority of the scientific community. Using the scientific community's approval to determine whether a field is acceptable or not is appealing to authority, which is a logical fallacy. It is also worth noting that several ideas, such as plate tectonics and the existence of meteorites, were not accepted by the scientific community in the past, but are common knowledge now. Now, I am not saying that cryptozoology is destined to become widely-accepted in the future; I'm just using these two examples to show that the appeal to authority is fatally flawed.</div>
<div>
<br></div>
<div>
The authors then discuss discovery curves in large marine animals, and cite a study by Woodley, Naish, and Shanahan that estimated the number of pinnipeds remaining to be discovered. They stated that, while the authors initially estimated a relatively high number of around 47 or so, they later retracted their estimates, and found that only a few species of pinnipeds remain to be discovered. While this is true, it is also worth noting that at least one of the authors of the study <i>actually used this argument to <b>support </b>cryptozoology! </i></div>
<div>
On Darren Naish's blog, Tetrapod Zoology, he stated that there might perhaps be one or two pinniped species remaining to be discovered, and that this -- surprisingly -- matched up with the cryptozoological literature on "Sea Serpents", which predicted that only one or two long-necked "Sea Serpent" species existed. (I am aware that Naish has now changed his opinion, but he supported it at the time that he participated in this particular study). So at least one of the authors felt that this study actually supported cryptozoology.</div>
<div>
So <i>Abominable Science! </i>apparently took this particular study out of context, and used it against cryptozoology.</div>
<div>
<br>
Another thing that caught my attention was when the authors claimed that the discovery of cryptids is implausible because all of the recently-discovered large species are similar to known species, are not radically different from most other animals, and are not very spectacular or striking. The authors claimed that the last spectacular, striking discoveries were the okapi, Komodo dragon, and mountain gorilla, and that these discoveries occurred more than 100 years ago, and in remote wilderness regions, not highly-populated regions like the Pacific Northwest and Loch Ness. They also point out that the aforementioned three creatures were eventually found and described, unlike cryptids such as Sasquatch and Nessie, which continue to elude detection after decades of searching.</div>
<div>
<br></div>
<div>
I have to concede that the authors do bring up a good point here; it is true that the majority of undiscovered species are probably going to end up being similar to already-discovered ones. However, this does not preclude the existence of a few radical unknown species.</div>
<div>
<br></div>
<div>
However, it is not true that the okapi, Komodo dragon, and mountain gorilla were the last large, spectacular discoveries. Since the 1990s, various large mammals have been discovered in Vu Quang, Vietnam. These include the Saola or Vu Quang Ox, discovered in 1992, and the Giant Muntjac, discovered in 1994. It is worth noting here that the Saola is actually a unique and specialized ungulate that displays characteristics of both antelopes and cattle. It is therefore placed in its own monotypic genus. Various other large, distinctive, and unusual mammals have also been reported from Vu Quang.</div><div><div>I also found it rather strange that the <span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue Light', HelveticaNeue-Light, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">Komodo dragon was used as an example of an unusual, spectacular species outside the normal range of zoological diversity, while the Saola wasn't mentioned at all.</span></div><div>The dragon belongs to the genus Varanus, which numerous smaller lizards belong to, and all varanids are believed to be genetically very similar. Apart from size, the Komodo dragon isn't really unique at all.</div><div>Meanwhile, the Saola is so unique that it is classified in its own monotypic genus, and, as I said, it shares characteristics of both bovines and antelopes.</div><div>And it was discovered 80 years after the Komodo dragon.</div>
<br>
In addition to the Vu Quang animals, there are also numerous other examples of substantially-sized animals that have been discovered recently. Since I can't possibly list them all here, I recommend that readers should peruse other resources for more information. <i>The Encyclopaedia of New and Rediscovered Animals</i>, published by Dr. Karl Shuker in 2012, is an excellent book about this topic. It contains information about practically all of the large, spectacular species that have been discovered in recent years.</div>
<div>
<br></div>
<div>
The time discrepancy of 100 years is somewhat of a red herring. As pointed out in an article on the Tetrapod Zoology blog, the vast majority of recently-discovered large mammals have been discovered using old-fashioned methods; in only a select few cases did modern technology play a significant role in their discovery. The same techniques that were used to discover large animals in the early 20th century are still being used today. It is true that the world's population has vastly increased over the past 100 years, but there is still plenty of unexplored wilderness left in the world. So the time difference doesn't even really matter as much as the authors think. But in any case, even if the time span did make a difference, we still have the various Vu Quang discoveries from the 1990s, as stated above.</div>
<div>
<br></div>
<div>
In regard to cryptids inhabiting highly-populated regions, I should note that the amount of uninhabited wilderness in western North America is vastly underestimated by many people. I do agree that there probably isn't enough wilderness in the eastern half of North America, but the western half still provides plenty of wilderness for large animals to be able to successfully remain hidden.</div>
<div>
And the Loch Ness example is also ineffective, simply due to the fact that the cryptids in Loch Ness, if they exist, do not have to inhabit the loch all the time. It is not necessary for an isolated breeding population to have existed in the loch for millennia. It is possible that individuals occasionally swim into the loch from the ocean, become trapped, and then spend the rest of their lives there. This could potentially apply to other reported lake cryptids, as well.<br>
<br>
And finally, it should be noted that not all new species are discovered quickly and easily, and in fact, this is supported by historical precedent. The Giant Forest Hog, <i>Hylochoerus meinertzhageni</i>, was first sighted in Liberia in 1688, but was not officially proven to exist until two specimens were found in Kenya in 1904, a whopping <i>216 </i>years after it was first sighted. For comparison, serious investigation of Sasquatch only began in the late 1950s (around 55 years ago), and serious investigation into Nessie sightings only began in the early 1930s (around 80 years ago).<br>
<br>
In conclusion, <i>Abominable Science! </i>sounds like it had great intentions, but it was ultimately poorly executed. In any case, I applaud the authors for bothering to write an entire book on cryptozoology; no matter what their opinions of the field are, it is refreshing to see that scientists are actually bothering to take a look at the field, rather than just ignoring it. I was ultimately disappointed with the parts of the book that I read, but I still give the authors credit for trying, and they do raise some good points.</div>
<div>
Therefore, if I had to rate the first chapter of the book on Amazon, I would probably give it 2.5 stars.</div>
<div>
<br></div>
<div>
In the future, I might read other sections of the book, and review them on this blog accordingly.<br>
<br>
References:<br>
<br>
<ul>
<li>Naish, Darren. (2009). <i>Statistics, seals, and sea monsters in the technical literature</i>. Tetrapod Zoology. http://www.scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2009/03/24/statistics-seals-sea-monsters/ Accessed September 4, 2014.</li><li>Eberhart, George M. (2002). <i>Mysterious Creatures: A Guide to Cryptozoology</i>. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, Inc. Print.</li>
<li>Naish, Darren. (2009). <i>Over 400 new mammal species have been named since 1993</i>. Tetrapod Zoology. http://www.scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2009/03/23/408-post-1993-mammal-species/ Accessed September 4, 2014.</li>
<li>Coleman, Loren and Clark, Jerome. (2012). <i>Cryptozoology A to Z: The Encyclopedia of Loch Monsters, Sasquatch, Chupacabras and Other Authentic Mysteries of Nature</i>. New York, NY: Fireside. Print.</li>
</ul>
<br>
<br></div>
<br>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxgXFRz3LPrU-ofeMAGFbxzWAz9lv9EcgjuNFV_kEN7KO6H_Q5bcT6QF7dmVw4KYXr4jyP5a8b-Qs7wXjNxK88NsTJpqD7DWjDXSJdGeO1Um49qBezPpaKjjrBTPOImWIzIaVQH9VJmng/s640/blogger-image-288236352.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxgXFRz3LPrU-ofeMAGFbxzWAz9lv9EcgjuNFV_kEN7KO6H_Q5bcT6QF7dmVw4KYXr4jyP5a8b-Qs7wXjNxK88NsTJpqD7DWjDXSJdGeO1Um49qBezPpaKjjrBTPOImWIzIaVQH9VJmng/s320/blogger-image-288236352.jpg" width="320"></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">This illustration from the Woodley et al. analysis shows several crypto-pinnipeds nonchalantly swimming alongside a human diver.<br>
<br></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Troodon Roarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06458650924508744077noreply@blogger.com3