Pterosaurs are pterosaurs

Recently a paper was published on a new pterosaur from the Dallas region of Texas (Myers, 2010). While an interesting find, I suggest you find the paper to read about it, I think the paper speaks for itself I wanted to blog about something else. I have read two different public articles about the paper and they both get it wrong.

The first one (found here) is a blog post from Scientific Blogging. Now I have stated in the past that I do enjoy the blogs on Scientific Blogging (see here, here, here, and here) but in this case they said something that made slap my own face.

The rare pterosaur — literally a winged lizard — is also one of the youngest members in the world of the family Ornithocheiridae, and only the second ornithocheirid ever documented in North America.

[emphasis mine]

Come on this is a scientific blog you are supposed to get this right. Lizards fall within the order Squamata and are more specifically within the Suborder of Lacertilia. While they are closely related to lizards, at least more so than they are to mammals, pterosaurs are not lizards. Pterosaurs are an order within the Archosaurs which actually puts them more closely related to crocodiles and dinosaurs than lizards.

So if a scientific blog can't get it right what chance do the nonscientific sources have? This next write up is from Fox News and was sent to me by my father. You don't have to get past the headline to see what is wrong with this article:

New Toothy, Flying Dino Discovered in Texas

Yes they call them dinosaurs and it gets better:

Evidence of these flying creatures has been rare in North America -- the newly identified Aetodactylus halli is only the second such dinosaur ever documented here, although toothed pterosaurs like it were common at the time elsewhere in the world.

Argh, come on people. While yes both dinosaurs and pterosaurs are members of Ornithodira they differ from there in many ways, not going to go in depth here because it would take to long, and some scientists say they shouldn't even be related this far down. This particular paragraph also makes it seem that pterosaurs, or worse yet dinosaurs, are rare in North America. If you read the actual paper neither one of those statements are what is argued in fact it they are just arguing that the ornithocheirid pterosaurs are rare in North America, in fact this is the second one of that clade found in North America. If they are arguing that dinosaurs are rare in Texas they are also wrong, also see Jacobs (1995).

So what conclusion can we draw from this? Scientists need to make sure that when interviewed we make sure to stress things like pterosaurs are not dinosaurs or lizards. We also need to make sure we do educated the general public when given the chance to point out things like this, because I am sure that most kids could tell you that pterosaurs are not dinosaurs nor are they lizards so we need to make sure we keep stressing this!

Sources

JACOBS, L. 1995. Lone Star Dinosaurs. Texas A& M University Press, College Station, 160 p.

MYERS, T. S. 2010. A new ornithocheirid pterosaur from the upper Cretaceous (Cenomanian-Turonian) Eagle Ford group of Texas. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 30(1):280-287.

Why Dinosaurs are not just big lizards, Part 2

Part 1, Part 3

So last time we talked about the obvious differences between dinosaurs and lizards in this one we will talk a little more in depth about these differences.

Stance

So we have all probably seen alligators and lizards walking if you haven't check out the videos below:



You will probably notice that they way that they are walking has their feet in a position that is not directly under their body. Now look at the way you or your dog/cat/other mammal walks you will notice that the feet of the mammals are placed directly under the body. This allows these organisms to better support their own body weight with less muscle work while at the same time extending the stride length of the animal so you increase the speed without lengthening the legs. So what does this have to do with dinosaurs? Well lets look at dinosaur's closest living relatives, the birds:



Look at where those legs are located, they are right under the body of the bird. If you want to do more just do a google image search for bird legs. Some of you might be saying, "Wait birds are very derived," or, "You are assuming evolution to be correct." The answer to both statements is yes, you will notice that all that we see of the bird leg is actually from the knee down, and yes, so lets just look at dinosaur stance itself.



So what do we notice in those two images? The first thing, and the one most important to this post is the location of the legs they are directly under the body of the dinosaurs. This is a drastic change from that of the lizards and represent a huge improvement in the way that these organisms moved and may have been one of the reasons they were able to conquer the world during the Mesozoic. You be asking why their legs are under them or how do we know this? We will talk about that next time. I can also hear the complaints now, well those are drawing/recreations they aren't proof! True so here try this:







There better?

Part 1, Part 3

Why Dinosaurs are not just big lizards, Part 1

Part 2, Part 3

So with the semester winding down I figured I would take the time to explain the why the common young earth creationists (hence forth known as YEC) use to explain the lack of dinosaurs on the planet now but exist in the fossil record:



Kent is the main person who proliferates this fallacy, although I am sure that Ken Ham does as well, but now that he is behind bars it hasn't been getting quite as much press. He does get one thing right and that is reptiles continue to grow their entire life but he is wrong that dinosaurs are just big lizards and over the next few day/weeks we will discuss why. I will link all of these together so you can pick up from any part of the series and get to any other part. This first one should be pretty obvious to all parties concerned:

Physical Apperance

So while there may be some dinosaurs that happen to look like lizards the majority of them look nothing like lizards. Tell me if you have ever seen a lizard that looks like any of these:



Ok so maybe some people have seen the last one:



Lizards or snakes or crocdiles would have to do some major changes during growth in order for this to happen and since the lizards are able to reproduce without these changes it should be pretty obvious that these are not in fact just big lizards.

But even if you exclude dinosaurs and talk about other prehistoric reptiles you might have somethings that are similar to modern lizards and crocs, not counting ancient lizards and crocs,(see here among others) the more famous prehistoric reptiles look nothing like what we have today. So what looks like these YECs:



Although this one some people might say still exists:



Part 2, Part 3

Satire at its finest

So while trying to accomplish the general truck load of stuff you have to accomplish at the end of every semester add too that trying to get Thesis proposals finalized I have found very little time to do much else. So I daily take a coffee break and read the school newspaper, as I am sure you have figured out by now. Well today I came across this article and while I recommend you read the whole thing let me point out one section that really got my attention, let me preface this by saying that for the whole month of April we are supposed to get 1.29 inches of rain and as of writing this article we had received 4.56 inches and most of that was over a 4 day period (source):

Thirdly, they proclaim the rest of the civilized world has it. Clearly not, as Lubbock has not implemented them.

One Lubbock resident obviously disagrees as well. “Real American cities don’t need such tomfoolery like science on our roads. The internal combustion engine in my Hummer, powered by foreign liquids found under the Earth’s crust only needs a flat stretch of formulated asphalt to work. Science has its place: where I’m not.”

I’m also skeptical. Anything that uses the laws of physics to move water from a dangerous spot to a basin seems like it could be witchcraft, which is why I call upon whoever is in charge of the Tech roads to ban these contraptions from our university’s streets. They should continue to do important things, like arresting that bicycle for not parking on a university-approved bike rack, regardless if there are no open spots or ticketing that car that has been parked in the 30-minute zone for 32 minutes.

I was still unsure, although I was leaning toward it being, if it was satire or not till I reached this point. After reading this it took everything in me to not just start cracking up. This is how a lot of America feels and that is what makes this funny. This opinion has been taken on publicly by Gov. Sarah Palin when she was addressing global climate change and said that we [Americans] don't need, "this snake oil science stuff" (source).

Satire at its best should make us think about ourselves and our surroundings but do so in a slightly funny way that points out how funny some of what we believe actually is. Unfortunately many people become so ingrained with a belief system that even when you point out some of the more ridiculous parts of it, and every system has them, people accuse you of trying to offend them. I don't know that this piece was aimed at the right audience some will get it some won't for sure but the people who will see it probably won't get that it isn't just saying that we need drainage here in Lubbock, we do, but will miss the broader point he is trying to make. I agree this is far from a great piece of literature that will be studied for years to come but the point still comes across pretty darn well.

For a good satirical YouTuber who angers a lot of Christians go here!

Under God in the Pledge

So while reading the school paper yesterday I came across an opinion article written by one of the more liberal writers for the paper (typically the antithesis of Mr. Long). Well apparently in West Texas even the liberals are pretty freaking conservative. The article (found here) discusses why the "under God" portion of the pledge should not be removed. Originally I was going to break this down point by point but the commenters on the article did it pretty well already so I will just address one thing that drew my ire more than the rest. After discussing how the pledge was originally written to be used by any country that wanted it he says this:

Still, identifying with Christian beliefs myself, I’m sure some of you who do not are saying, “Well of course you see it that way.” My response to those people is quite simple: At any time you are free to leave the United States.

Despite my religious views or those of the next man, I think some have failed to realize this isn’t an issue of religion; it’s an issue of patriotism. The pledge was not designed to pay tribute to God or any other higher power. It was adopted with the intentions of its use being to express pride and support of our country. When the pledge is said, we face a flag, not an alter [sic].

This issue is far from an issue of patriotism. I love this country and am always grateful to those who have sacrificed so I can live here in peace and drink excess of coffee and do what I want, to a certain extent obviously. But your God and my God may very well difference this country was founded on freedom of religion (regardless of what the Texas School Board thinks). In fact the First Amendment to the Constitution in what we call the Bill of Rights says this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;[...]

There have been court cases to back this up since then including Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994) in which the Justice David Souter when writing the opinion of the majority said, "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion." Even as recently as 2007 court cases have supported this, see Inouye v Kemna. So Mr. Irby if you would prefer to live in a country that has an established religion then you are currently living in the wrong one. This is a democracy as you point out but we have rules in place to prevent:

Nor should a country founded on the basis of democracy be made to deny the wishes of the majority given that accommodating these wishes hurts no one, but denying them is in essence denying our country’s foundation and principles upon which it was built.

We have these rules to prevent this majority or mob rule from interfering on the rights of the minorities!