Showing posts with label Media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Media. Show all posts

Thursday, July 9, 2009

Blogging "the Ediacaran Biota"

The Radio 4 program "In our Time" is running a program on "the Ediacaran Biota". I'm blogging this as initial thoughts right after the program. It can be heard here.

Oh dear. The photo that accompanies the show on the web site (shown here on the right) has a Dickinsonia costata, but it is upside down! The large segments are considered the head end. So this Dick is doing a head stand!

And it's bad start as they can't pronounce the name correctly. They are pronouncing it "Edi-aaa-car-raaan with long 'a' sounds. It's not pronounced like that. The term is an indigenous Australian word which is pronounced Edi-ak-ra, with the last 'a' pronounced like the last 'a' in Russia, and the middle 'a' not pronounced at all, or Edi-ak-ran with 'ran' pronounced as in "he ran away". All the 'a' sounds are harsh and short. The name means "reedy waterhole'" (Edi- means waterhole).

Ony one of the three guests has worked on Ediacaran fossils, and there are no Australians - they might have got at least one on the phone!

OK, there is a lot of talk about how the appearance of shelly fossils in the Cambrian is sudden, and that this was a problem for Darwin. This is misleading.

It has to be put in context.

The early mapping of what was recognised as the Cambrian rocks (from the name of the Latin name for Wales, where the section was mapped) and became the "Type Section" (the reference section agains which all other sections of the same age around the world are compared), did show that there was a rapid transition from 'barren' 'pre-Cambrian rocks to fossiliferous Cambrian rocks, replete with trilobites, sea shells and other relatively complex organisms.

This rapid transition is what they are talking about, and was the one familiar to Darwin - he actually traversed these Cambrian rocks with the Reverent Adam Sedgewick (who named the Cambrian Period and who was well aware that this represented the earliest evidence of life in the fossil record).

The important point here is that, yes fairly complex fossils appear quite abruptly in this rock section, BUT, the section is incomplete. Basically the section is missing a good deal of the earliest Cambrian rocks. In other words the basal rocks containing the emergence of the Cambrian biota are missing from this area. It's like starting a book at chapter 3 - the introductory chapters have been ripped out at this place.

Rock sections in other places around the world which contain the earliest Cambrian rocks, show a transition from trace fossils, to complex trace fossils to small shelly fossils which comprise bits of the armour of larger organisms, to full body fossils.

This transition has a lot to do with the acquisition of hard parts by organisms - by the process of biomineralisation, where calcium carbonate and calcium phosphate are incorporated into the outer tissues of organisms to produce hard shells (e.g. crabs do this after they molt).

So yes, Darwin conceded that such a rapid transition to complex fossils was a difficulty for his theory, but we now know that the rapid transition he was referring to is an artifact of an incomplete rock record in that area.

There are several references to the Ediacaran biota appearing right after the last major 'snowball Earth' glaciation in the pre-Cambrian. This is incorrect.

The last 'snowball Earth' glaciation ended about 650 million years ago, the earlest Ediacaran biotas appear some 50 million years after that and, in fact, there is some evidence for intervening glacial episodes - albeit not as extensive as the 'snowball earth' ones.

The answer to the question, "Is the Ediacaran biota a failed experiment?" was answered pretty well. Short answer - no.

Longer answer - they lasted for some 40 million years but the bulk of them were done in by a changing environment which took away the conditions required for their preservation as fossils, and the rise of predation (with the rise of mineralisation of tissues allowing jaw elements to be carbonate tipped). However a few groups survived to pass on their genetic legacy to future groups.

Summary, not a bad show all in all. Recommended if you are interested in the Ediacarans.

Sunday, January 25, 2009

New Scientist - creationist shills

I’ve refrained from commenting on the woeful New Scientist cover because I was so angry, and you shouldn’t post stuff when you are angry.

It’s been a few days, but I’m still angry, and comments by the New Scientist staff in a number of blogs, here, here and here, haven’t made things any better.

It’s clear from the comments that the intent of the cover was to sensationalise the story and sell copies, and that the ways in which the cover could be used against evolution were understood, but they didn’t care.

Good people are fighting long and hard to protect science education from the very real threat of creationist ignorance, and New Scientist hands the creationists a propaganda goldmine (as false as the cover is) that requires no misquoting or taking out of context.

The mealy-mouthed distancing from the cover in the editorial and article not only shows that New Scientist knew exactly what they were doing and how the cover could be used, but is also worthless, as the creationists will not read the editorial or the article, and the school boards, that the creationists will use this cover to attack the teaching of evolution with, will not read the editorial or the article.

So good luck with the new sales tactic of flogging your product on street corners with the hack rags, using their tactics, but I will not be buying New Scientist again. I prefer my science reporting with more journalistic integrity that New Scientist can muster.

But hey, there is a potential revenue stream from this. New Scientist could chase all the creationists that will be using this cover in presentations attacking evolution, and invoke copyright. I don’t know how much that’ll bring in, maybe as much as 30 pieces of silver.

Don’t buy New Scientist. Don’t support those that provide support for creationists.
Support those that are fighting to ensure the integrity of science education. Support the National Center for Science Education.

Monday, December 15, 2008

More denialism from The Australian

The Australian newspaper is Australian media's version of Fox News. Still in denial about it's beloved conservative government losing the last election, the paper continues it's denial of global warming. Tim Lambert over at Deltoid has this story, and more on The Australian's denialist past.

Thursday, December 4, 2008

Me on TV

The Emu Bay Shale fossil location, on Kangaroo Island in South Australia is a Cambrian Lagerstatten - a site of exceptional preservation (the subject of a future blog entry). I did my PhD on the fossils from this site a while ago, and it is currently being studied by an international team led by the South Australian Museum and the University of New England.

Earlier this year a good friend of mine Paul Willis, another ex-palaeontologist and now reporter on the Australian Broadcasting Company’s Catalyst science program, did a story on the deposit. The story can be seen here. I'm not sure if it will play for international viewers, but at least there's a good cover shot of me at the South Australian Museum with a wierd exotic creature, and an Anomalocaris model!

I think Paul wanted to do the story just so that he could say “the world’s oldest turd” on national televation.

The trilobites and Anomalocaris fossils featured here were collected from the site featured in the story.