Newsgroup sci.bio.paleontology 9275

Directory

ev-michael@nrm.se (Mike Noreen) writes:
: Unfortunately 'Wonderful Life' is full of errors. It is not one of
: Gould's finest - he misunderstands what a phylum is, and he suggests
: non-mendelian genetics to explain the cambrian explosion.
: 
: Also most of those 'new phyla' are now considered not to be - most of
: the discussed animals has been re-reevaluated.
: 
: Hopefully he has corrected this in his lectures, though - he sure got
: enough flak that he should've noticed it.
: 
Huh?  I didn't know that Gould had many errors in his book.  I know that 
there were many paleontologists that became quite angry with Gould for
sticking his two cents into the Burgess Shale.  Certainly, Gould had certain
opinions about the Burgess Shale, but I still doubt that anyone can say
they were errors.  I've only glanced at the book, but I imagine that all
Gould did was spawn a great debate in evolution theory.  In my opinion, I think
that there is still some debate about how the Burgess shale fits into
the scheme of things and I think it is premature to say that Gould was wrong
(just as it is premature to say that the other viewpoint about the Burgess
Shale is right).

In article <32862F96.174BDB3A@alcyone.com>, Erik Max Francis (max@alcyone.com) writes:
>
>Thus, my preferred definition of life is the thermodynamic one:  Any process
>which involves a steady, local decrease in entropy*.  That is, anything that
>gradually creates order from disorder would be considered alive.
>
Yuus ... perhaps add time factor , that is  ... steady, local,* temporary *
decrease in entropy. All known living organisms have finite life. So ... we
have life consists of small lumps of space-time within which entropy is
decreasing. The net effect of such lumps in general being to increase the 
overall entropy. Mmmm ...
Al. 

Jeff Suzuki wrote:
> Actually, you don't have to go that far.  If you require ability to
> procreate, mules are not alive.
Right.  Procreation is required at the species level for an _evolving_
lifeform.  It isn't required at the species level for life, and it
certainly isn't required at the individual level -- after all, then sterile
humans would not be considered alive.
> Another way to define living is thermodynamically: living organisms
> are self-organizing objects that can effect local decreases in
> entropy.  Of course, this eliminates fire, though still permits those
> pesky crystals....
Right.  This is the thermodynamic definition of life.  While it includes
some things that are not generally considered "alive," it does tend to
include interesting things, which is good enough for me.
-- 
                             Erik Max Francis | max@alcyone.com
                              Alcyone Systems | http://www.alcyone.com/max/
                         San Jose, California | 37 20 07 N 121 53 38 W
                                 &tSftDotIotE; | R^4: the 4th R is respect
         "But since when can wounded eyes see | If we weren't who we were"

David L Evens wrote:
> Isolated viri don't carry out any life processes, however.  They just sit
> there, close to chemically inert.
And there are spores and seeds that sit, inert, for years or decades, before
finding the right environment to come alive.  If viruses aren't alive, it's
probably not fair to consider those alive either.
-- 
                             Erik Max Francis | max@alcyone.com
                              Alcyone Systems | http://www.alcyone.com/max/
                         San Jose, California | 37 20 07 N 121 53 38 W
                                 &tSftDotIotE; | R^4: the 4th R is respect
         "But since when can wounded eyes see | If we weren't who we were"

Alastair Ward wrote:
> Yuus ... perhaps add time factor , that is  ... steady, local,* temporary *
> decrease in entropy. All known living organisms have finite life. So ... we
> have life consists of small lumps of space-time within which entropy is
> decreasing.
Why include the finite lifetime requirement?  The point here is to be as
general as possible (certainly that's the case if you're favoring the
thermodynamic definition over other, more traditional definitions, such as
the metabolic or physiological definitions), and just because all known life
has a finite lifespan doesn't mean that all life everywhere does.  (Yes, all
natural, evolving life probably will, but we're looking for generalized
definitions, not just natural life.)
Plus, there's a higher-order decrease in entropy all around the Earth due to
evolution.  This has no end in sight; it's hardly worth including a finite
time term in the criteria.
> The net effect of such lumps in general being to increase the
> overall entropy. Mmmm ...
The entropy of a closed system _always_ tends to increase; it doesn't matter
whether or not there are local eddies of decreasing entropy enclosed or not.
-- 
                             Erik Max Francis | max@alcyone.com
                              Alcyone Systems | http://www.alcyone.com/max/
                         San Jose, California | 37 20 07 N 121 53 38 W
                                 &tSftDotIotE; | R^4: the 4th R is respect
         "But since when can wounded eyes see | If we weren't who we were"

>Huh?  I didn't know that Gould had many errors in his book.  I know that 
>there were many paleontologists that became quite angry with Gould for
>sticking his two cents into the Burgess Shale.  Certainly, Gould had certain
Could someone provide details about the errors Gould is accused of
making, and provide a source? 
Also, how was Gould wrong about what a phylum is? I was taught that phyla
are real entities, as species are, rather than artifacts of classification.
Paul

This Sci-Fi movie needs a preamble. Play some real serious and pensive
music to this preamble.
  This story is dedicated to the fine geologists and paleontologists
who
wanted to impose either the meteorite theory or the vulcanism theory or
a 
combination of both as the only two acceptable theories for the cause
of the
dinosaur mass extinction at the end of the Cretaceous , and impose
strongly
upon the world public.
  Scientists also showed that the climate at the end of the Cretaceous
became 
colder as evidenced by the colder climate plant fossils. However, what 
scientists do not want to tell the world public, being kept in 'top
secret' 
security vaults is that two unknown source metallic objects were
discovered
both in the Permain stratigraphy and in the late Cretaceous
stratigraphy. 
    These metal objects have been hidden from the world public -- 
until now.
Time : For advanced aliens on Bu it was one light year after they
discovered controlled fusion energy. There civilization sent a space
ship in the shape of a rocket and about the size of the Earth's radius
to another pulsar signal.  For Earth, it was the Permian geological
time period.
Mission: The mission for the Bu rocket was to go to the Nascent star
system because the Nascent pulsar had radioed Bu of how to increase
space ship flight speed in trade for pulsar technology. Earth and the
Solar system was a stopping station between Bu and Nascent.
Pit stop on Earth: It is the Permain time period on Earth. Animals and
plants were coexisting nicely. Then this rocket space ship lands on
Earth. It is huge and has to land in the ocean. The Bu-s need more
lithium for their electrical systems. They make a quick analysis of
Earth's environment and decide that the quickest way to restock their
lithium supply is to run all of the big animals on Earth of that time
through their distillation tank. The Bu-s immediately set out to net
all of the Permain large sized animals and run them through their
distillation tank. In one end is fed all of these captured animals and
at the other end is seen a fractionalized form of lithium. Within a
month most all big animals on Earth are gone and the Bu-s have plenty
of lithium and take off to their rendevous with the Nascent pulsar
civilization.
Flashing Forward in Time to the Earth year 1972 when a paleontologist
working in the Permain stratigraphy finds a metal object imbedded in a
fossilized matrix of sea creatures that had become extinct in the
Permian. The metal looks like some sea netting.
Bu rendevous with Nascent : In the meeting with Nascent civilization
the Bu-s trade their secret of how to pulse millisecond pulsar machines
for the Nascent technology of faster rocketship flight.
Time: On Bu, they have increased their rocketship flight from the trade
in technology with the Nascent civilization. Both Bu and Nascent now
use millesecond pulsar machines for communication. Time on Earth is the
Cretaceous geological period. A Nascent rocketship is on its way to Bu
to exchange biologicals.
Pit stop on Earth: Again rocket spaceships are huge and they need pit
stops to refuel for lithium. Nascent rocket surveys Earth among the
planets of the Solar system and decides the quickest way to get more
lithium is to herd together all the large animals on Earth and to
fractionalize distill the lithium out of the animals. Here the movie
shows interesting encounters and engagements with the dinosaurs as they
are corralled and herded and killed and run through the distiller. Once
enough lithium has been gathered and the Nascents take off for Bu.
  The movie is made long with interesting sequences of the Permian
extinction of animals, and what the Permian animals looked like and
what animals became extinct. And long sequences of the dinosaur
extinction in the Cretaceous at the hands of advanced aliens. Use
animations such as in the 4 part series movie DINOSAURS which depicted
a t. rex fighting with a triceratops.
Flashing Forward in Time to the Earth year 1984 when a geologist
working in the near the KT boundary stratigraphy finds a metal objects
imbedded in a fossilized matrix of dinosaurs in Canada, a herd of
dinosaurs and found that the hearts of these dinosaurs were surgically
removed and that a strange knife of a metal was found in the bone
fossil matrix. 
  Show a biologist lecturer explaining that hearts are high in lithium
concentration.
  Show a chemist lecturer explaining that storing electrical energy is
most efficiently done via lithium battery storage.

Graham Shields wrote:
> 
> Phillip Bigelow  wrote:
> >Here is some additional information (with my comments) on that
> >Chinese theropod with some type of integument. This information
> >did not pop up on the thread we had on this a while ago, so I
> >thought I would post it.
> >The following information can be found in _Science News_
> >for October 26, 1996, p. 260.  Author is Richarad Monastersky
> >(earth science staff writer for _Science News_).
> >  
> I think the tone of this post leaves a great deal to be desired.
I think the tone of your response leaves a great deal to be desired,
too.  I spent a few minutes of my time typing that article in
to UseNet.  What have YOU contributed (of substance)
to sci.bio.paleontology lately?
 Personally, I tend to believe that the purported "feathers"
will indeed turn out to be feathers. That is, when the science
is eventually done.
 And keep in mind that most (MOST) of my post was paraphrasing
the _Science News_ article.
 You got a problem with the "tone" of my post?  Then have it
out with Richard Monastersky (the author of the article).
I thought my post was well ballanced and fair...I gave both
sides of the argument.
> I am also skeptical as to how you know that there are no vertebrate
> palaeontologists involved in Beijing and Nanjing:
Where the HELL did you dredge THAT up from my post?
Where in my post did I say that there were no vertebrate
paleontologists in China?  For the literary-impared, I
shall make it clearer:  The buerocracy of who is PRESENTLY
in charge of the specimen(s) (ie., that the present managers
of the fossil(s)are not vert. paleontologists) makes it only a 
matter of time before someone publishes on it.  The key word, 
Graham, is TIME. Learn to read.
Personally, I am sick of seeing all of the blather from
Ed, Ted, and even the Ed and Ted bashers.
It's responses like yours that don't further discussion at all.
You want more of Ted and Ed, and less of my science journal article
posts on paleontology?  Then keep it up, bub.
             
--
Hmmm...maybe you guys deserve a non-moderated newsgroup after all...

Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. wrote:
> 
Phillip Bigelow  wrote:
> > Dated at somewhere between 140 mya - 120 mya (therefore, pre-dating
> > Archeopteryx).  Apparently, much of the sedimentary rocks of Asia
> > are still not precisely chron-ed out.
> 
> First off, 140-120 POST-dates Archaeopteryx (which is from the Kimmeridgian,
> c. 154.7-152.1 Ma).  Secondly, the stratigraphy of that particular
> region of China has been chron-ed out (Larry Martin's workers found
> about 135 Ma),
It was a mistype from my reading the _Science News_ article and
typing at the same time.  The article did indeed say post-date.
However, the article DID say 120-140 mya. for the age of the seds.
For that, you must blame Richard Monastersky, not me.
                       

o-olave@isis.uniandes.edu.co (Oscar Javier Olave Munoz) wrote:
>i need help or information about the effect of homo sapiens in the midden
>and little fauna of northamerica and a list of (large) the species that
>extinct in this period...
>thanks
For small, medium and large, see "Pliestocene Mammals of North America" by 
Kurten and Anderson, (1980) Chapter 19, page 357 et seq.  

Ari Rothman  wrote:
>I have to draw exception to the current attitude that attributes mass
>extinctions to bolide impacts.  There is too little to no evidence of
>this in most mass extinctions.  The K-T extinction took millions of
>years  and can be tied to the draining of inlands seas, climatic changes
>and the preference for fossil collection in North America and Europe.  I
>am not saying a hit did not occur, only that it was not as fatal as some
>say.  Ask a turtle or lizard or alligator, all cold blooded, all
>survived.  Sorry I got off the subject.
I'm not at all patient with claims like this.  The climatic change,
inland seas, yada yada yada are just so stories. I cast a jaundiced
eye on the claim that the extinction took millions of years.  The
extinction of forams certainly did not take this long.  For larger
creatures, such as dinosaurs, the evidence at Hell Creek
is that they were doing fine to within 0.25 Ma of the boundary
(and perhaps much closer.)  And recall ammonites -- previously
claimed to have died out millions of years before the boundary,
until it was shown otherwise by fossils at another site.
Also, the evidence that an impact *did* occur is very
strong, so saying that something else killed off things only
makes the problem worse: how did the turtles, etc. survive
both that other cause, *and* the impact (an impact that
oh so coincidently occured just near the biggest extinction
in the last 100 Ma.)
     Paul Dietz
     dietz@interaccess.com
     "If you think even briefly about what the Federal
      budget will look like in 20 years, you immediately
      realize that we are drifting inexorably toward a
      crisis"
        -- Paul Krugman, in the NY Times Book Review

In article <32873F4C.7AA0@courier6.aero.org>, "Walter E. Shepherd"
 wrote:
[deleted]
> deal... nothing magical... but we are impressive... we are the
> cumulative experience of natures experiment... we stand on the shoulders
> of all species which have struggled to survive on this planet.
You lost me right there.  There's been too much evolution going on in
parallel for this to be true.  (i.e. not all other species are our
precursors.)  
--PKS
-- 
There's neither heaven nor hell
  Save that we grant ourselves.
There's neither fairness nor justice
  Save what we grant each other.
Peter Kwangjun Suk 
Musician, Computer Science Graduate Student
[finger suk@pobox.com for PGP public key]

In article <567lo2$84j@ccshst05.cs.uoguelph.ca>, devens@uoguelph.ca (David
L Evens) wrote:
> Peter Kwangjun Suk (suk@pobox.com) wrote:
> : In article <565qni$7og@ccshst05.cs.uoguelph.ca>, devens@uoguelph.ca (David
> : L Evens) wrote:
> 
> : > Erik Max Francis (max@alcyone.com) wrote:
> : > : Well, that's basically what it is right now.  Look at viruses, for
instance.
> : > : Half the scientists think they're alive, half think they're not. 
The most
> : > : common argument you'll hear against is that, "But they're nothing but
> : > : chemicals that perform interesting reactions!"  Well, no kidding, that's
> : > : what all life is.
> : > 
> : > Actually, the most common argument I've seen against considering viri to 
> : > be alive is that they MUST have living hosts to reproduce.  There exist 
> : > no possible set of natural environmental conditions that would allow 
> : > isolated viri to reproduce.
> 
> : Aren't cells the "natural environment" of virii?  If you "isolated" humans
> : in any number of ways, they'd also fail to reproduce.  (In a desert, for
> : example.)  
> 
> Isolated viri don't carry out any life processes, however.  They just sit 
> there, close to chemically inert.
Are dehydrated brine shrimp alive?  Do creatures that enter into severe
forms of suspended animation cease to be living creatures?  Not just
hibernation like arctic squirels, but becoming seriously rock-like. 
Apparently some bacteria can do this.  (This reminds me of a part of
Searle's chinese room:  What if the guy manipulating the chinese symbols
took a sabbatical?  During that time, the simulated intelligence would
cease to function.  What would happen to its consciousness?)
Somehow, temporary inertness doesn't strike me as a disqualification.  One
could imagine a species of self-reproducing machine that was capable of
having a "metabolism" comparable to life as we know it on Earth and of
being stone-cold inert.  
--PKS
-- 
There's neither heaven nor hell
  Save that we grant ourselves.
There's neither fairness nor justice
  Save what we grant each other.
Peter Kwangjun Suk 
Musician, Computer Science Graduate Student
[finger suk@pobox.com for PGP public key]

In article <3286B720.58CFCABE@alcyone.com>, Erik Max Francis
 wrote:
> Peter Kwangjun Suk wrote:
> 
> > In article <565qni$7og@ccshst05.cs.uoguelph.ca>, devens@uoguelph.ca (David
> > L Evens) wrote:
> >
> > > Actually, the most common argument I've seen against considering viri to
> > > be alive is that they MUST have living hosts to reproduce.  There exist
> > > no possible set of natural environmental conditions that would allow
> > > isolated viri to reproduce.
> > 
> > Aren't cells the "natural environment" of virii?  If you "isolated" humans
> > in any number of ways, they'd also fail to reproduce.  (In a desert, for
> > example.)
> 
> Yes.  If one's definition of life procludes reproducing in hosts, that's
> fine.  Parasites require host organisms to live, for instance.  I'd hardly
> say that doesn't make them alive.  I'd say living is a stronger indication
> of life than reproducing -- although both are required for fully-developed,
> evolving life -- but it seems strange to broadly say that viruses are not
> alive because of this.
A combination of the thermodynamic definition with a requirement for
reproduction and a capacity to "evolve" comes very close to a universal
definition of life.  So how about it?  I posit this as "THE definition". 
This would include viruses, but preclude candle flames and formaldehyde
blobs.  
Aside: I've heard of one researcher who challenged an older definition of
life by using chemical blobs.  (This definition had movement, excretion,
growth, and reproduction as four of the requirements.)  Apparently, these
blobs were not soluble in water and would move in room temperature water
in a way that seemed alive.  To top it off, the researcher prepared some
capsules that each contained a droplet of of the same substance stoppered
by a small pebble which in turn was held in place by a waxy seal.  When
the capsules were dropped into the water, some of them would come in
contact with the blob, which would dissolve the seal.  The stoppers would
pop off and sink while the capsules would fill up with water and also
sink.  The contents of the capsule would become part of the blob,
however.  When the blob got large enough this way, it would become
unstable and split into two blobs.  
Anyone see any holes in "THE definition" or in the story above?  (The
provenance of the story is my father, who is a very sharp pathologist.)
> The plural of _virus_ is _viruses_, by the way.
A pity.  I really like those 'ii' plurals.  I much prefer Elvii to
Elvises, for example.  
--PKS
-- 
There's neither heaven nor hell
  Save that we grant ourselves.
There's neither fairness nor justice
  Save what we grant each other.
Peter Kwangjun Suk 
Musician, Computer Science Graduate Student
[finger suk@pobox.com for PGP public key]

In article <3286B720.58CFCABE@alcyone.com>, Erik Max Francis
 wrote:
> Yes.  If one's definition of life procludes reproducing in hosts, that's
> fine.  Parasites require host organisms to live, for instance.  I'd hardly
> say that doesn't make them alive.  I'd say living is a stronger indication
> of life than reproducing -- although both are required for fully-developed,
> evolving life -- but it seems strange to broadly say that viruses are not
> alive because of this.
> 
> The plural of _virus_ is _viruses_, by the way.
(P.S.  It's "precludes", not "procludes"  ;-)
--PKS
-- 
There's neither heaven nor hell
  Save that we grant ourselves.
There's neither fairness nor justice
  Save what we grant each other.
Peter Kwangjun Suk 
Musician, Computer Science Graduate Student
[finger suk@pobox.com for PGP public key]

Steve Jones - JON  wrote in article
<32873968.6741@eurocontrol.fr>...
> Ed Conrad wrote:
> > 
> > scottb@ucr.campus.mci.net (Scott Begg) wrote:
> > 
> > >Strange... And how could a comparatively fragile bony structure like a
> > >human skull become fossilized  in a SOLID BOULDER without being filled
> > >or rendered solid itself?
> > 
> [.. insulting stuff removed ..]
> 
> > For crying out loud, Scotty, how the hell do I know?
> > Ask Macrae and Myers. They seem to have al the answers.
> 
> So you don't know how this happened then... but you refuse to listen to
> people who have studied in this field ?
> 
> Sounds a little strange to me, if I don't understand something I read up
> on it and learn, ask questions of those that have studied and expand my
> knowledge.  Never thought of pig-headed arrogance as an approach to
> learning before.
> 
> Steve Jones
Not clear what you mean here Steve. There is no skull. The people who have
studied it and myriad other rantings of Mr Ed have time and time again
shown what these are.
They are rocks. They are not skulls, bones, kidneys or anything else.

To ask: Are aliens intelligent? is like asking: Are aliens tall? We
should ask: How intelligent are they? (if they happen to exist). Man
is more intelligent than a mouse which is more intelligent than a
frog which is more intelligent than a worm. An alien may well be more
intelligent than man - we know if we ever see one.
'Life' is a somewhat similar thingy. A stone definitely has no
'life', a worm definitely has, but we can argue about a virus. So we
must not ask: Is something alive, but : How much alive is it? 
It appears, too, that life is always accompanied by a certain level
of intelligence. 'Intelligence', in a very broad sense, is actually 
one of the definitions of life. Even a virus can 'behave' in a way
which is quite uncommon among stones. We can not make a sharp
division between the 'behaviour' of a virus and the behaviour of man,
for we find an uninterrupted chain of intermediate behaviour between
these distant ends among living creatures. Bacteria 'behave' much
like viruses and apes behave much like men, and there are others
which cover the gap between bacteria and apes. 
The existence of extraterrestial life waits for evidence, we can not
prove it with what we know at present. Intelligence, instead, will
probably appear whenever life is given enough time; there is strong
proof for that. Let's take some of the highest levels of intelligence
on our planet today: Man, dog, elephants and dolphins among mammals,
ravens and big parrots among birds. In the mammalian branch, all four
groups have obviously developed their intelligence independently. Their
common ancestors were relatively small, primitive animals, possibly
not much more intelligent than the mouse today, probably less so. So,
dogs, elephants and dolphins each have 'nonhuman' intelligence. Yet,
we have no difficulties in seeing this intelligence, even if it is
lower than ours. 
Stronger proof comes from the birds. Our last common ancestor
with birds lived far before the time of dinos, relatively soon
after the vertebrates had climbed on dry land. That creature had
primitive brains and an intelligence - maybe - between that of frogs
and reptiles (though we can only extrapolate). In addition, the brain
structure of the birds is very different from ours; their 'small grey
cells' inhabit a quite different area of the basic vertebrate brain.
Obviously their intelligence has a completely separate origin
from ours. Yet, we consider ravens and parrots 'intelligent' animals
which behave 'sensibly' in unexpected situations. Their intelligence,
though definitely 'nonhuman', and lower than ours, is quite obvious
to us.
In summary, I believe that if life exists outside earth, intelligence
will exist, too. If we meet that life and that intelligence, we can
communicate. I do not believe on different 'kinds' of intelligence,
just different levels of it.
 __
Aila Korhonen in Finland                ailak@walrus.megabaud.fi