Print
Ancient serpent shows its leg
by BBC
As PZ says:
By Jonathan Amos
Science reporter, BBC News
Reposted from:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7339508.stm
Click on the link above for audio and video!
What was lost tens of millions of years ago is now found.
A fossil animal locked in Lebanese limestone has been shown to be an extremely precious discovery - a snake with two legs.
Scientists have only a handful of specimens that illustrate the evolutionary narrative that goes from ancient lizard to limbless modern serpent.
Researchers at the European Light Source (ESRF) in Grenoble, France, used intense X-rays to confirm that a creature imprinted on a rock, and with one visible leg, had another appendage buried just under the surface of the slab.
"We were sure he had two legs but it was great to see it, and we hope to find other characteristics that we couldn't see on the other limb," said Alexandra Houssaye from the National Museum of Natural History, Paris.
The 85cm-long (33in) creature, known as Eupodophis descouensi, comes from the Late Cretaceous, about 92 million years ago.
Unearthed near the village of al-Nammoura, it was originally described in 2000.
Its remains are divided across the two interior faces of a thin limestone block that has been broken apart.
A portion of the vertebral column is missing; and in the process of preservation, the "tail" has become detached and positioned near the head.
But it is the unmistakable leg bones - fibula, tibia and femur - that catch the eye. The stumpy hind-limb is only 2cm (0.8in) long, and was presumably utterly useless to the animal in life.
Current evidence suggests that snakes started to emerge less than 150 million years ago.
Two theories compete. One points to a land origin in which lizards started to burrow, and as they adapted to their subterranean existence, their legs were reduced and lost - first the forelimbs and then the hind-limbs.
The second theory considers the origin to be in water, from marine reptiles.
This makes the few known bipedal snakes in the fossil record hugely significant, because they could hold the clues that settle this particular debate.
- The top picture is a synchrotron view of the visible snake leg
- Synchrotron light in the bottom view illuminates the hidden limb
"Every detail can be very important in establishing the great relationships and that's why we must know them very well," explained Ms Houssaye.
"I wanted to study the inner structure of different bones and so for that you would usually use destructive methods; but given that this is the only specimen [of E. descouensi], it is totally impossible to do that.
"3D reconstruction techniques were the only solution. We needed a good resolution and only this machine can do that," she told BBC News.
That machine is the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility. This giant complex on the edge of the Alps produces an intense, high-energy light that can pierce just about any material, revealing its inner structure.
For this study, the fossil snake was clamped to an inclined table and rotated in front of the facility's brilliant X-ray beam.
In a process known as computed laminography, many hundreds of 2D images are produced which can be woven, with the aid of a smart algorithm, into a detailed 3D picture.
The finished product, which can be spun around on a computer screen, reveals details that will be measured in just millionths of a metre.
The E. descouensi investigation shows the second leg hidden inside the limestone is bent at the knee.
"We can even see ankle bones," ESRF's resident palaeontologist Paul Tafforeau said.
"In most cases, we can't find digits; but that may be because they are not preserved or because, as this is a vestigial leg, they were never present."
To modern eyes, it may seem strange to think of a snake with legs.
But look at some of the more primitive modern snakes, such as boas and pythons, and you'll see evidence of their legged ancestry - tiny "spurs" sited near their ends, which today are used as grippers during sex.
Jonathan.Amos-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk
Check it out: it's yet another transitional form, a 92 million year old snake with two hindlimbs. Cool! Just last week I was told that none of these things exist.
By Jonathan Amos
Science reporter, BBC News
Reposted from:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7339508.stm
Click on the link above for audio and video!
What was lost tens of millions of years ago is now found.
A fossil animal locked in Lebanese limestone has been shown to be an extremely precious discovery - a snake with two legs.
Scientists have only a handful of specimens that illustrate the evolutionary narrative that goes from ancient lizard to limbless modern serpent.
Researchers at the European Light Source (ESRF) in Grenoble, France, used intense X-rays to confirm that a creature imprinted on a rock, and with one visible leg, had another appendage buried just under the surface of the slab.
"We were sure he had two legs but it was great to see it, and we hope to find other characteristics that we couldn't see on the other limb," said Alexandra Houssaye from the National Museum of Natural History, Paris.
The 85cm-long (33in) creature, known as Eupodophis descouensi, comes from the Late Cretaceous, about 92 million years ago.
Unearthed near the village of al-Nammoura, it was originally described in 2000.
Its remains are divided across the two interior faces of a thin limestone block that has been broken apart.
A portion of the vertebral column is missing; and in the process of preservation, the "tail" has become detached and positioned near the head.
But it is the unmistakable leg bones - fibula, tibia and femur - that catch the eye. The stumpy hind-limb is only 2cm (0.8in) long, and was presumably utterly useless to the animal in life.
Current evidence suggests that snakes started to emerge less than 150 million years ago.
Two theories compete. One points to a land origin in which lizards started to burrow, and as they adapted to their subterranean existence, their legs were reduced and lost - first the forelimbs and then the hind-limbs.
The second theory considers the origin to be in water, from marine reptiles.
This makes the few known bipedal snakes in the fossil record hugely significant, because they could hold the clues that settle this particular debate.
- The top picture is a synchrotron view of the visible snake leg
- Synchrotron light in the bottom view illuminates the hidden limb
"Every detail can be very important in establishing the great relationships and that's why we must know them very well," explained Ms Houssaye.
"I wanted to study the inner structure of different bones and so for that you would usually use destructive methods; but given that this is the only specimen [of E. descouensi], it is totally impossible to do that.
"3D reconstruction techniques were the only solution. We needed a good resolution and only this machine can do that," she told BBC News.
That machine is the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility. This giant complex on the edge of the Alps produces an intense, high-energy light that can pierce just about any material, revealing its inner structure.
For this study, the fossil snake was clamped to an inclined table and rotated in front of the facility's brilliant X-ray beam.
In a process known as computed laminography, many hundreds of 2D images are produced which can be woven, with the aid of a smart algorithm, into a detailed 3D picture.
The finished product, which can be spun around on a computer screen, reveals details that will be measured in just millionths of a metre.
The E. descouensi investigation shows the second leg hidden inside the limestone is bent at the knee.
"We can even see ankle bones," ESRF's resident palaeontologist Paul Tafforeau said.
"In most cases, we can't find digits; but that may be because they are not preserved or because, as this is a vestigial leg, they were never present."
To modern eyes, it may seem strange to think of a snake with legs.
But look at some of the more primitive modern snakes, such as boas and pythons, and you'll see evidence of their legged ancestry - tiny "spurs" sited near their ends, which today are used as grippers during sex.
Jonathan.Amos-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Friday, April 11, 2008 | PermalinkComments 1 - 49 of 49 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #159317 by oshottan on April 12, 2008 at 12:09 am
no no no! This snake is much too old! It can't be 92 million years old, maybe 5,500 at the most! No one here believes that discredited lie about the Christian bible not being 100% accurate?Other Comments by oshottan
3. Comment #159326 by decius on April 12, 2008 at 12:54 am
SteveNThanks for your lucid and informative comment.
If I may hazard a speculation, the specimen should be checked for the remains of a larynx, whose presence will confirm beyond reasonable doubts your hypothesis and strengthen further the validity of Creation Science.
Bless ya
Other Comments by decius
4. Comment #159341 by Vadjong on April 12, 2008 at 1:41 am
To evolutionists this fossil is just another mildly fascinating example of a find that may help solve one of the gazillion little questions that they are professionally curious about.To genesisists it should be yet another worldview shattering blow, so the first posters here are quite right to focus their ridicule on that, even though the article is in itself fairly dry and factual to non-nerds.
BTW, Decius: no larynx will be found. Everybody knows snakes use hypnosis and telepathy !
Other Comments by Vadjong
5. Comment #159344 by riki on April 12, 2008 at 1:56 am
No amount of evidence would sway Creationists. They've got their own deluded agenda. Other Comments by riki
6. Comment #159398 by Jack Rawlinson on April 12, 2008 at 5:11 am
A 1. So where are the transitional forms that link the two-legged snake to the no-legged snake?
OR
2. That's not a transitional form. It's not a snake. Just a completely different animal that doesn't exist any more.
Genesis wins again!
Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson
7. Comment #159412 by MakingBelieve on April 12, 2008 at 6:34 am
I don't know why but I love that avatar, Riki! A head-banger (-bobber?) cat is a transitional form isn't it? Other Comments by MakingBelieve
8. Comment #159417 by Pattern Seeker on April 12, 2008 at 6:45 am
So does this mean that this species of snake had a leg up on the others? Other Comments by Pattern Seeker
9. Comment #159418 by Philip1978 on April 12, 2008 at 6:54 am
I wont believe its the original snake from the Bible till they confirm the vocal chords as well as the legs!:)
Other Comments by Philip1978
10. Comment #159428 by Roy_H on April 12, 2008 at 7:13 am
There was the recently discovered Tiktaalik and now another nail in the creationist's coffin lid YES!
Other Comments by Roy_H
11. Comment #159440 by aquilacane on April 12, 2008 at 7:46 am
People, people; this is obviously a test of faith. What, with the current religious climate and the rampant arrogance of atheists, this can only be seen as a test from god. The timing is perfect; a true believer will see the designed significance.IDiots
Other Comments by aquilacane
12. Comment #159454 by headcold on April 12, 2008 at 8:23 am
Let's not exclude the creation scientists.Check it out: it's yet another transitional form, a 92 million (or 6,000) year old snake with two hindlimbs. Cool! Just last week I was told that none of these things exist.
Other Comments by headcold
13. Comment #159469 by lozzer on April 12, 2008 at 8:51 am
Ah spurs used to be visible on my old Royal Python. Other Comments by lozzer
14. Comment #159491 by bluebird on April 12, 2008 at 9:59 am
Snakes in the grass, alas...... Another fabulous fossil find.
We own a red-tailed boa constrictor; it's fun to watch him cruise our backyard!!
During outdoor excursions, we have to watch out for these!
http://mdc.mo.gov/nathis/herpetol/snake/snake2.htm
EDIT: evotruth, nice Video...
Other Comments by bluebird
15. Comment #159493 by evotruth on April 12, 2008 at 10:07 am
I have an interesting video on youtube about Lizards , Snakes and Legs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VcABDFYRP4Other Comments by evotruth
16. Comment #159524 by Filius Nithardi on April 12, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Here are some nice photos of a Python's vestigial hind limbs:http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/articles/snake_vestigial_limb.html
Other Comments by Filius Nithardi
17. Comment #159532 by Double Bass Atheist on April 12, 2008 at 12:15 pm
It never seems to matter how many transitional fossils are discovered, IDiots will still just keep saying, "There have never been any transistional fossils found!" Other Comments by Double Bass Atheist
18. Comment #159536 by Verylee on April 12, 2008 at 12:28 pm
If these transitionals keep appearing, Dog itself will have pop up and show a leg, 'cos if jesus christ himself appeared he would be villified and ridiculed as a fake by all christians whatever their various denominations. Jesus had better not pop up in an islamic country, unless he wants to go thru all that again! Other Comments by Verylee
19. Comment #159560 by D'Arcy on April 12, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Perhaps in honour of ignorance this 2 legged snake should be named "Monty". No not the python, but the "full" variety. The bare nakedness of the creationists' lies is further exposed by this slithering Slytherin.
"Well what did the snakes ever do for us?"
"Apart from persuading humanity into original sin, and from then on biting us and generally making us scared, and helping provide evidence for the theory of evolution, ... not much really."
Other Comments by D'Arcy
20. Comment #159567 by Mitchell Gilks on April 12, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Kawaii! Hebi ashi ga kawaii desu. Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks
21. Comment #159578 by Geoff on April 12, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Wakarimasen, gomen nasai. Other Comments by Geoff
22. Comment #159581 by Friend Giskard on April 12, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Don't get too excited. This might be seen (not by me!) as confirmation of the Genesis story. It was only after the Fall that the serpent was made to crawl on its belly as a punishment. It obviously had legs before that, otherwise there would have been no punishment. Properly read, Genesis actually predicted this discovery.[watashi wa hebi no ashi ga kawaiku nai to omoimasu. (koko ni wa minna nihongo ga wakaru n'desu)]
*edited for grammatical gaffe.
Other Comments by Friend Giskard
23. Comment #159603 by HourglassMemory on April 12, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Roy_H"There was the recently discovered Tiktaalik and now another nail in the creationist's coffin lid
YES! "
I think the lid is nothing but nails.
Other Comments by HourglassMemory
24. Comment #159606 by Raiko on April 12, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Kawaii! Hebi ashi ga kawaii desu.
蛇の足がかわいいですが、無益な足も思える。
Other Comments by Raiko
25. Comment #159617 by DamnDirtyApe on April 12, 2008 at 4:21 pm
The folk who found this are Science heros.Super Synchrotron force: Assemble!
Other Comments by DamnDirtyApe
26. Comment #159627 by The Truth, the light on April 12, 2008 at 4:40 pm
I posted the article on a Christian Forum and here's the intelligent creationist response
OMG LMAO, are you serious !?
that little thing a leg ? it looks to me like the already existing little claws that modern snakes have and use for mating,, its just one bone sticking out either side, and its supposed to be a remnant of a leg ?
just picture that a snake with only 2 legs in the back, half slither half walk, ? lol get real, stop being so desperate its embarrassing.
Other Comments by The Truth, the light
27. Comment #159634 by Mitchell Gilks on April 12, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Geoff, I (hopefully marginally legibly) said "cute. Snake legs are cute". Though I'm certain I got the structure wrong.
My Japanese is pathetic, though I'm learning. Snakes are one of the animals of the zodiac, I know them, and I know the body parts. So I thought I'd attempt a sentence.
Raiko, I can't read a single Kanji symbol. I'm going to work on learning to speak Japanese before I work on learning to read it. I am extremely envious if you can read Kanji. There is a huge score of manga I'd love to be reading right now. It is the reason I want to learn Japanese, so I don't have to wait years after something comes out in english. Besides that, what you wrote didn't even come off properly, it looks like nonsense symbols to me "蛇ã®è¶³ã'ã‹ã‚ã„ã„ã§ã™ã'ã€ç„¡ç›Šãªè¶³ã‚‚æ€ãˆã‚‹ã€‚" . Otherwise I could have attempted to run it through a translator, though that likely wouldn't have worked, because I don't know how to seperate the words either. I haven't even attempted to learn anything about Kanji yet.
Curious, what did you say?
Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks
28. Comment #159639 by Mitchell Gilks on April 12, 2008 at 5:15 pm
watashi wa hebi no ashi ga kawaiku nai to omoimasu. (koko ni wa minna nihongo o wakaru n'desu)
Fried Griskard, I just noticed your imput, and I don't understand most of it. I think you are disagreeing with me, and saying that you don't think that snake legs are cute in the first part. I have no glue what the second thing you are saying is, I think it ends with asking if I understand. Which I don't..sumimasen. I understand the words watashi, as the most formal version of "I". Kawaiku nai to mean "note cute" and omoimasu to mean "I think". I thought that "wa" was used when refering to people, and "ga" used when refering to things...or is "wa" also used when refering to animals as well?
I'm incredibly knew to learn it. Which I'm sure you must have picked up from my inaccurate sentene.
Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks
29. Comment #159678 by dragonfirematrix on April 12, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Liberty University should require these findings to be taught as facts to their students in the religious science classes. It might bring light to their darkened education.
And on the eighth day, science said to the lost masses, "the first seven days are lies. I will reveal to you the truth. All you have to do is open your mind."
Other Comments by dragonfirematrix
30. Comment #159683 by Friend Giskard on April 12, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Fried Griskard, I just noticed your imput, and I don't understand most of it. I think you are disagreeing with me, and saying that you don't think that snake legs are cute in the first part. I have no glue what the second thing you are saying is, I think it ends with asking if I understand. Which I don't..sumimasen. I understand the words watashi, as the most formal version of "I". Kawaiku nai to mean "note cute" and omoimasu to mean "I think". I thought that "wa" was used when refering to people, and "ga" used when refering to things...or is "wa" also used when refering to animals as well?
I'm incredibly knew to learn it. Which I'm sure you must have picked up from my inaccurate sentene.
Hi Mitchell
In the brackets I just made the not very witty remark that hereabouts everyone understands Japanese.
[Since you are just starting out, I can't resist giving a little advice I wish I'd had when I was starting. {This is way off the topic of this thread so I'll keep it short} Do yourself a favor and go to http://kanji.koohii.com/
and start learning the kanji now at an easy rate of five or ten a day (while continuing your normal studies). It is not necessary to understand any Japanese to get through this stage, and by the time you are ready to start reading, 2000 or more kanji will already be familiar friends. Because I had no-one to give me this advice when I was starting out I had to put my Japanese studies on hold for months when I wanted to start reading just to get through this time consuming, exhausting and BORING task. Good luck with your studies.]
Other Comments by Friend Giskard
31. Comment #159690 by Double Bass Atheist on April 12, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Comment #159627 by The Truth, the light
I posted the article on a Christian Forum and here's the intelligent creationist response
OMG LMAO, are you serious !?
that little thing a leg ? it looks to me like the already existing little claws that modern snakes have and use for mating,, its just one bone sticking out either side, and its supposed to be a remnant of a leg ?
just picture that a snake with only 2 legs in the back, half slither half walk, ? lol get real, stop being so desperate its embarrassing.
Why is this not the slightest bit surprising...
Other Comments by Double Bass Atheist
32. Comment #159702 by PJG on April 12, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Comment #159627 by The Truth, the light
I posted the article on a Christian Forum and here's the intelligent creationist response
OMG LMAO, are you serious !?
that little thing a leg ? it looks to me like the already existing little claws that modern snakes have and use for mating,, its just one bone sticking out either side, and its supposed to be a remnant of a leg ?
just picture that a snake with only 2 legs in the back, half slither half walk, ? lol get real, stop being so desperate its embarrassing.
*Sigh *
Other Comments by PJG
33. Comment #159705 by Last Neandertal on April 12, 2008 at 10:46 pm
this contradicts the bible!
it MUST be wrong!!!!!! :O
Other Comments by Last Neandertal
34. Comment #159712 by Clive on April 12, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Don't vestigial legs appear occasionally in modern snakes?
Would this be a freak or part of the lineage?
Other Comments by Clive
35. Comment #159720 by Nails on April 13, 2008 at 1:11 am
Wicked pre-flood snake, that's all.
Dating is flawed so you guys don't really kmow how old it is
You do know that sin causes mutation, don't you?
* rolls eyes *
Other Comments by Nails
36. Comment #159727 by Koreman on April 13, 2008 at 2:09 am
@ #159705 by Last Neandertal on April 12, 2008 at 10:46 pmAnd what about those 8000 year old trees that have been discovered?
http://www.thelocal.se/11054.html
Other Comments by Koreman
37. Comment #159750 by Clive on April 13, 2008 at 3:14 am
"Dating is flawed so you guys don't really kmow how old it is" ??
How about 120 thousand layers of pollen/mud/pollen/mud??
that would take 114 thousand years more than some would have us believe!
Other Comments by Clive
38. Comment #159765 by Greyman on April 13, 2008 at 4:29 am
Clive, you may need to recalibrate your sarcasm detector.Other Comments by Greyman
39. Comment #159770 by Nighttripper on April 13, 2008 at 5:05 am
This is exciting stuff! Yet more evidence. Still it seems from the responses that people are more concerned with IDiots believing it, then being excited about the fact itself.But why would anybody care if Creationists and IDiots are going to buy it? As if it makes it less true if they don't... Who gives a damn if they believe it? Denying it is like denying an oncoming freight train, the jokes on them.
Other Comments by Nighttripper
40. Comment #159771 by rod-the-farmer on April 13, 2008 at 5:07 am
Creationist response....And where are the FOUR-legged snakes ? Bah humbug. We are still missing transitional fossils.
(sarcasm off)
Other Comments by rod-the-farmer
41. Comment #159780 by Raiko on April 13, 2008 at 6:13 am
Mitchell Gilks,that's so strange! The kanji look alright in "my comments", but now I went here and I can see they're all scrambled.
All I said was (probably not completely correct): "The snake's legs are cute, but probably useless." Nothing essential, I just wanted to properly reply to someone with a like-minded icon. Seems that failed. *laugh*
And where are the FOUR-legged snakes ? Bah humbug. We are still missing transitional fossils.
That really had me laughing. :D
Other Comments by Raiko
42. Comment #159796 by Border Collie on April 13, 2008 at 7:07 am
I was raised in screamer fundamentalist young earth creationist (YEC) Baptist churches in Texas, so I know where I'm coming from. And, I still walk among them every day. Trust me, their minds are permanently "memed" shut. We could find fossils of every so-called transitional form that ever existed and it would only cure (harden) the concrete of their minds further. Trying to drag them into the 21st century from previous centuries or taking issue with them only increases their resolve to remain blind and purge reason and rationality from the face of the Earth. When we're debating them, they've got us exactly where they want us ... delayed, stifled, distracted, angry, etc. I still say ... Let's use our intelligence and energy to do good science and reason, not argue with and debate the YECs. If it was simply a matter of intelligence, I'd say let's debate 'em. But, it's not. It's a matter of addiction (or meme/mind virus infection ... whichever you prefer) created by years and or decades of very strong emotional enemas administered by the church. Leave 'em behind. Let them wallow in their ignorance. It's Sunday morning in Texas and not a quarter mile from me at this moment there are over a thousand people attending a YEC church. In that church, I know for a fact, that the preacher is preaching against recycling/environmentalism, the evils of science, the satanism of evloution (and probably invoking Darwin and other names associated with this website) and on and on. I hear the church bells ringing.Other Comments by Border Collie
43. Comment #159931 by esuther on April 13, 2008 at 12:24 pm
VeryLee,>>>>Jesus had better not pop up in an islamic country, unless he wants to go thru all that again! <<<
I see your point VeryLee, but you miss the mark by assuming Islam would be more hostile to (the 'real')Jesus than the other two Abrahamitic religions. In fact, Islam recognizes Jesus as a prophet. Judaism does not recognize him at all. He would therefore be most unwelcome in any of the orthodox Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank. I daresay, he would seriously embarrass the folks in Rome too.
Come to think of it, probably in the prayer breakfasts in the White House too.
Other Comments by esuther
44. Comment #159955 by Teratornis on April 13, 2008 at 1:15 pm
In reply to comment #159796 by Border Collie:
I was raised in screamer fundamentalist young earth creationist (YEC) Baptist churches in Texas, so I know where I'm coming from. And, I still walk among them every day. Trust me, their minds are permanently "memed" shut.
In radical Islam, the people with truly closed minds are flying airplanes into buildings. The majority who aren't quite ready to put their money where their mouths are evidently have some lingering doubts. Otherwise, Islam would go extinct in one bloody generation. If the afterlife is really better than the current life, and committing suicide for Allah is really the way to get there, then logically it would make sense to get there as soon as possible.
If someone offered you a job at fifty times your present wage for half the work and better conditions all around, how long would you wait to accept it? A rational person would accept as soon as he determined the offer was genuine. That is, as soon as he believed the offer. Not many people turn down opportunities to become movie stars so they can wait tables instead. Waiting tables would strongly suggest someone does not have any offers to star in feature films.
Christianity and Islam portray the afterlife as incomparably better than the present life, raising the rather obvious question of why so many Christians and Muslims seem about as reluctant to die as atheists usually are.
When you were being raised in this culture, was there ever a time when your mind was "permanently" memed shut? Was there ever a time when inwardly you entertained more doubts than you let on?
We know of some former young earth creationists who accepted the scientific account of origins (waves hand). Can you think of anyone who went the other way? That is, someone who read, understood, and accepted a representative subset of evidences for biological evolution, and only then decided that young earth creationism explained the data better? For the most part, YEC depends on its marks not knowing the evidence.
In his Logic of Failure, Dietrich Dörner argues that most people perceive complex dynamic systems incorrectly. People tend to focus on the current state of the system, rather than on where the system is going.
For example, during the 1800s, the United States and the United Kingdom were comparable in strength, but the U.S. maintained a slightly higher annual growth rate for many decades. The difference in growth rates was so small as to have been almost unnoticeable from year to year, but by the mid-1900s the U.S. had become an enormously greater industrial and military power.
Students of biology will immediately note the similarity in how a small species evolves into a larger species over time. From generation to generation, the average gain in size will be less than the sampling error when you try to measure it. Only after multiple generations have elapsed does the increase become plainly apparent.
If it turns out that more young earth creationists convert to science than vice versa, and if this disparity holds up for a long time, then there is Darwinian selection against young earth creationism. It would be fitting if the very mechanism YEC denies leads to its (memetic) extinction.
The fact of biological extinction itself is quite a serious difficulty for YEC, which may be one reason why so many right-wing conservatives loudly deny that animals and plants are going extinct today. Of course even Ken Ham admits dinosaurs are gone now, but in the early days of paleontology the discovery that many species have gone extinct was hard for creationists to square with their world view. If God created everything, and it was "good," then how could entire species not be "good" enough to persist?
We could find fossils of every so-called transitional form that ever existed and it would only cure (harden) the concrete of their minds further.
Most religious people have doubts. How couldn't they, when religions ask people to believe things that were nonsensical even before modern science underscored the errors? The common response to doubt is to reassert belief more loudly and insistently. In a religious community, people put their faith in the apparent faith of the people around them, in an Emperor's New Clothes charade.
When you see this behavior, it is not a sign of strength, but of weakness. Minds are not like concrete, which sets into a form and then requires no further input of energy to maintain its form. Maintaining beliefs is like maintaining bodyweight - both require work. It's like the difference between hovering at altitude in a helicopter vs. sitting on a mountain. Both the helicopter and the mountain climber must work to gain altitude initially, but then the helicopter must constantly expend energy to hold position, while the climber can rest. As long as the helicopter is constantly supplied with fuel, it may seem as fixed and solid in its position as the mountain, but any number of things can interrupt the flow of fuel or the complex operation of the engine, pilot, and control systems.
At the risk of abusing the metaphor (I confess, I am metaphorically abusive) beliefs which rest solidly on facts are like the climber resting on the mountain. Only something like an avalanche or a careless fall can dislodge him. In contrast, beliefs supported by no facts are like the hovering helicopter, which must maintain an uninterrupted hard effort to stay aloft. The helicopter has more ways to fall out of the sky than the climber has to fall off the mountain. Having more facts is like the climber having a broader mountain with a gentler slope, making it all the easier to stay on. A position which is actually contrary to undeniable facts is like hovering in a helicopter with people shooting large-caliber weapons at you.
I've heard a statistic that 97% of diets "fail." Some obese people claim their excess weight bears no relation to their eating and activity. However, when it comes to losing weight, 100% of concentration camps succeed. As do 100% of famines. When camp guards or a natural event strictly limit a person's calorie intake, we see there is no "permanence" to weight gain. A person's weight is merely a transient reflection of his or her current energy balance, the integral of excess intake over expenditure and excretion during the previous years.
The human mind is an organ, therefore it actively metabolizes and requires continuous input to maintain itself. Bad ideas are no more permanent than 50 kg of excess fat. They both require proper conditions to acquire and maintain, but they are only as "permanent" as the conditions which gave rise to them.
Trying to drag them into the 21st century from previous centuries or taking issue with them only increases their resolve to remain blind and purge reason and rationality from the face of the Earth.
Sure, if you go in with a frontal assault. It's like trying to knock down someone's house with a bulldozer, vs. letting termites do the job slowly and quietly. There are ways to introduce facts and reason without triggering the immune response. Even a well-defended ant colony is vulnerable to parasitic beetles which give off the right chemicals to lull the soldier ants.
There are lots of people who wouldn't appreciate having you injure them with a nightstick, but they will pay money to be injured by recreational drugs or dangerous products.
In one of Stephen Jay Gould's essays he wrote about how the lowly earthworm slowly undermines and buries boulders and reshapes entire landscapes, simply by doing its largely unnoticeable work. Darwin's genius was to realize that a tiny force for change, if it continues long enough, can have enormous cumulative effects.
When we're debating them, they've got us exactly where they want us ... delayed, stifled, distracted, angry, etc.
Only if we fail to ask "What would Sam Harris do?" Ever see Sam get upset in a debate? Ever see Sam look particularly bothered? Me neither.
Obviously we shouldn't debate with anybody until we have first cultivated the necessary sangfroid - "imperturbability under great strain."
If we get upset when we read something that offends us, or when someone challenges our views, then we aren't ready to debate yet. Our thinking is still stuck firmly in the Pleistocene, when hungry cave bears and rival tribes were the main threats.
One way to maintain sangfroid is to realize the truth does not depend on the outcome of a particular debate. It might also help to get good at playing poker, although I can't say I've tried that.
One must not only know one's own position, but also the types of arguments the opponent will bring. It's like an (American) football coach studying film of the next team he will face. The better he understands the opposing team's strengths, weaknesses, and tendencies before the game, the better able he is to counter and exploit them. It's not enough for the coach to know his own game, he must know the opponent's game better.
Scientists, of course, focus on their own work, and generally aren't prepared for the arguments of the YECs. The YECs, for their part, don't actually do any of their own work. All they do is comb through the scientific literature looking for weaknesses to exploit. They are like a football coach who studies the opponent. So who will come off better in a debate? It doesn't take a Sun Tzu to answer that question.
I still say ... Let's use our intelligence and energy to do good science and reason, not argue with and debate the YECs. If it was simply a matter of intelligence, I'd say let's debate 'em. But, it's not. It's a matter of addiction (or meme/mind virus infection ... whichever you prefer) created by years and or decades of very strong emotional enemas administered by the church. Leave 'em behind. Let them wallow in their ignorance. It's Sunday morning in Texas and not a quarter mile from me at this moment there are over a thousand people attending a YEC church. In that church, I know for a fact, that the preacher is preaching against recycling/environmentalism, the evils of science, the satanism of evloution (and probably invoking Darwin and other names associated with this website) and on and on. I hear the church bells ringing.
If we lived in a preliterate society, the only way to spread ideas would be to speak them out loud. But today we have the glorious Internet, which reaches even to the darkest heart of Texas. The YEC community is not entirely self-sufficient. People who believe in YEC still find they have needs that they must look to outsiders to satisfy. Much of this looking will occur on the Internet. YECs are already inviting us into their homes and asking us for things.
We can expect the importance of the Internet to continue growing, pushed simultaneously by Moore's law driving down the cost of computing, and Hubbert's curve driving up the cost of physical travel. If we want to spread ideas, it's all about the Internet now.
And the Internet is all about kids. Adults use the Internet too, of course, but young people create the future, the future is online, and therefore the young embrace the online world to a greater degree than their parents or grandparents. To a steadily increasing extent, what people will believe in the future will be what they learn on the Internet.
The major religions currently on offer all evolved in a dark past of information poverty. Bad ideas had opportunities to speciate and incubate among isolated populations. First came writing, then moveable type, then analog broadcasting, and then digital communication. Today the Internet is bringing ideas into a proximity they never had before. This is like continental drift pushing all the separate continents and islands back together into one giant landmass, allowing all species to freely intermingle. The result of the ensuing bloodbath will likely be less diversity.
The Internet is the ideological battleground of the future; the battle will be won or lost on it. If we want to win, we need to educate ourselves in how to use the Internet to collaborate on building structures of knowledge.
This is why we should all study how Wikipedia works, to understand the process of how millions of mostly ordinary people are building it. Wikipedia is currently the most successful example of wiki technology and thus it has the most to teach us about how to collaborate. Most people who visit Wikipedia go only to read the articles, but the site has an even more valuable lesson to teach, namely the mechanisms which allow millions of distant strangers to collaborate together efficiently to build all that steadily improving content.
We can't all be like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, or Christopher Hitchens. What those guys do individually is beyond what most of us could duplicate personally. Even for someone who might have the necessary ability, figuring out how to get there is less than straightforward.
In contrast, helping out on Wikipedia is utterly straightforward. Wikipedia differs from most other major sites (e.g., Google, Yahoo, etc.) in that Wikipedia invites everyone to join, and provides complete do-it-yourself instructions, along with a huge community of volunteer users who help teach each other. Users at all levels of learning how to use the site are able to make their tiny earthworm-like contributions to a collaborative structure of knowledge. The whole site is editable, and all the instructions undergo repeated editing by people who use the instructions to learn to use the site, so as time goes on the instructions keep getting better. Already that is different than most instructions we read most of the time, which are written by professional writers writing on behalf of other people, whose needs they do not immediately sense.
While I love this site (richarddawkins.net), it is primarily a discussion site. We can each add our comments to the ever-growing pile of comments, but they mostly just accumulate into an undifferentiated mass of text, largely ignored and forgotten. The result has no coherent structure and does not build into an efficient resource for addressing future arguments.
On Wikipedia there are also lots of discussions, on "talk" pages associated with every page on the site. The idea is to discuss what's on a page, and then work the resulting ideas into the page. The process is similar to smelting ore into metal. One always needs a mechanism for dealing with the mess of raw material, but there must also be a mechanism for capturing the worthwhile bits and preserving them. The design of Wikipedia (and by extension, all wikis that run on the same MediaWiki software plus imitators) provides for both. Underlying the whole enterprise is the revision control system, which saves every change that every user makes, creating a ratcheting mechanism that makes it impossible for anyone to permanently destroy any improvements. (The "glass house built from super-strong glass.")
The future of belief will belong to whoever grasps the importance of wikis and learns to use them to greatest advantage. Rational people have an immediate head start because wikis were invented by people who think critically, and by their nature wikis reward critical thinking, fact-based reasoning, and the personal trait of sangfroid. All communication on wikis is in writing, and everything a person does becomes part of the permanent written record. It's harder to get away with rhetorical tricks and fallacies in writing, because other users have ample time to dissect every written statement to any degree. Someone exposed as a rhetorical trickster suffers damage to his username reputation as a result, and begins to be taken less seriously.
It's the online version of what Sam Harris talks about when he says it's OK to believe Elvis is alive if you like, but people who choose to believe things like that tend not to get promoted. This social enforcement of reasonableness happens much more efficiently on wikis, since it doesn't rely on physical proximity to people who can form opinions about you, and it doesn't rely on personal memory for people to keep score. If we want to live in a more reasonable world, we should try to move as much of the world into the wiki model as will fit.
Critical thinking with its fact-based reasoning seems to be about the only style of thinking which permits large groups of distant strangers to work together well remotely. Remote work seems almost certain to increase as petroleum production dwindles, so we can expect reality to favor critical thinking and punish irrational thinking more and more.
Other Comments by Teratornis
45. Comment #160631 by notsobad on April 14, 2008 at 8:45 am
BTW, there are other two known species of snake with legs: Haasiophis and Pachyrhachis. Other Comments by notsobad
46. Comment #161727 by kev_s on April 15, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Eve to snake: "So what's this sex thing then?"Snake: "Awww. Stop pulling my leg! You don't know?"
Other Comments by kev_s
47. Comment #170865 by shinewithjoy on April 28, 2008 at 5:37 am
If it took millions of years for snakes to develop legs, why haven't we found thousands and thousands of half developed legs on snakes? And how would half developed legs help a snake in the first place; wouldn't natural selection cause them to die off because added appendages cause an extra burden to carry?Other Comments by shinewithjoy
48. Comment #170870 by Quetzalcoatl on April 28, 2008 at 5:40 am
Shinewithjoy-
you've got it completely backwards. Snakes started out with legs, THEN gradually lost them over time.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
49. Comment #170884 by riandouglas on April 28, 2008 at 5:52 am
shinewithjoy: If it took millions of years for snakes to develop legs, why haven't we found thousands and thousands of half developed legs on snakes? And how would half developed legs help a snake in the first place; wouldn't natural selection cause them to die off because added appendages cause an extra burden to carry?
Would you care to discuss the evidence for and against your assertions?
How do you think ID answers these questions?
Do you think Yahweh created animals and man fully formed, from dust?
Other Comments by riandouglas
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Audio Books
The God Delusion
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
The Ancestor's Tale
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
On the Origin of Species
Read by
Richard Dawkins
Links:
Quote:
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesuswill be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
Thomas Jefferson
Other Recommended Reading
Why Darwin Matters
Michael Shermer
Read the 1st Chapter!
Richard Dawkins
Alan Grafen, Mark Ridley
The Blank Slate
Steven Pinker
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD (PAL Region 2 ONLY)
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #159309 by SteveN on April 11, 2008 at 11:34 pm
Oh! Oh! I know! It's the snake from the Garden of Eden. The one that God condemned to henceforth crawl on its belly in the dirt. Before that it walked on its hind legs. Once again science confirms the truth of the Bible. Hallelujah!
Other Comments by SteveN