Pet Velociraptor is Back!

Yes, this has been yet another abandoned Blog here on the Intarwebz... and that's my fault. But, we're back, and better than ever! (Okay, so pretty much exactly the same as ever, but I got carried away). Since the blog was updated, there have been some sizable changes in my life, and I'll be addressing them here as I get back into the swing of all things blogorhythmic.

The biggest change of all is - at this point in time - a very small thing, but in June will be making a big debut on the world, and especially on my and Kelli's life. So, what does this mean to you, my captive audience? Expect a new quasi-regular feature on Pet Velociraptor, one that has caused me to dust off my tablet and drawing programs. More to come on that in the future.

Anyway, I'm back to the blogosphere (or should that be "trapped in the blogosphere"?), and I'll do my best to keep things fresh, and keep you all entertained. In the meantime, check out Kelli's blog at http://outofdetroit.blogspot.com/ . She's behind on updating it, but we'll cut her some slack, as she's currently growing a human.

For the honor of the Neighborhood of Make-Believe!

This is a cc of a post I wrote on Facebook this evening, in discussion of the Republican proposed budget's planned curtailment of subsidy for Public Broadcasting (Primarily NPR radio and PBS television). I initially posted a video of Mr. Rogers making the case for funding before congress, and I urged people to contact their representatives in support of continuing funding. A friend had posted the following:

"Why? Why should the American Taxpayer pay for radio on TV? Let them be privately sponsored like everybody else."

So, I thought about what he had said, and I brainstormed some thoughts with the spousal unit (who is so sharp lately, since she's thinking for two), and I formulated a response. I'm sorry that it's so long, but I tried to keep it fairly straight forward. I would appreciate any comments (in agreement or dissent) you may have.

In the first place, NPR and PBS are not "like everybody else". They exist as a public service, not a for-profit enterprise. And this is greatly to the public good. For-profit media cannot - by its very nature - offer impartiality, as its goal inevitably becomes the increase of the corporate coffers. GE Westinghouse owns CBS and a large portion of NBC (49%, while Comcast owns the remaining majority), and ABC is owned by Disney. Meanwhile, PBS is "owned" by the people of the United States. Imagine a situation where GE was acting against the interests of the people (say, not-so-hypothetically, mass production and unregulated dumping of PCBs); do you think, for a second, that NBC or CBS would freely report stories that would damage their parent company? At the least, this represents a conflict of interest, and at worst - a situation begging for a cover-up.

Secondly, "private" sponsorship for public broadcasting is not a feasible option, simply due to the nature of the programming on PBS or NPR. These programs are, by and large, not commercial in nature. Take "Mr. Rogers Neighborhood", for example. The very slow pace and calming feel that made the show a classic and foundational program for children could not have possibly remained in place had the half hour program been interrupted for commercials or permeated with product placement. The "McNeil Lehrer News Hour" is able to maintain its momentum of spirited and respectful debate without the commercial interruption that would reduce thoughtful commentary to sound bytes. NPR's "All Things Considered", while informative and often quite entertaining, is not conducive to commercialization. This lack of exploitability for commercial purposes allows public broadcasting to offer programming that other avenues would not even give a second glance. We can see what happens when a broadcasting entity attempts to commercialize content by looking at what has happened in recent days with both the Discovery and History cable networks. Programming of educational and intellectual value that cannot be commercialized is discarded in favor of pandering sideshows like "Pawn Stars" or "The Deadliest Catch".

Finally, governmental subsidy of public broadcasting represents a valuable and necessary Investment in both the current and future growth of the nation. Since the programming is free of both corporate and commercial obligations, it is free to focus on its two main tasks: informing and educating the public. Consumers of public broadcasting have been shown in studies to be better informed on current events (both domestic and global) than those whose news came from the 3 major corporate (and commercial) networks. It can clearly be argued that - by fostering a better informed and aware society - public broadcasting avenues offer a return on any investment of tax revenue. When we further look at public broadcasting (in especial, PBS television), the benefits are even clearer. At a time when our public schools are struggling to properly teach or engage students in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM), PBS TV sparks interest in these high-need areas with outstanding programming such as "NOVA", "Nature", Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson's "ScienceNow", and "Frontline". I personally know that my life-long love of science was fostered by these and similar programs. If the United States is to compete in a 21st century global economy, the small investment of subsidizing such programming will reap dividends in the next generation of engineers, scientists and industrial entrepreneurs.

I do, however, agree with the spirit of your argument for the American Taxpayer, and feel strongly that we should demand the highest value return on our investment that can be reasonably and ethically gained. In light of that, I encourage you to direct your complaints at programs that truly do not benefit the public at large. I suggest 3 specific items: the F-35 (or Joint Strike Fighter), the Gerald R. Ford class super-carrier, and foreign aid money to Israel. 

The F-35 fighter jet program was not requested or commissioned by any branch of the US military as necessary and will cost taxpayers over 382 Billion dollars before a single airframe can be operationally deployed. The proposed jet offers little to no improvement over existing (and far cheaper) models in operational capabilities. The program was pushed through the Pentagon by Lockheed Martin - not to assist or improve the military, but to increase the company's profits through a large taxpayer-funded government contract.

The Gerald R. Ford class Aircraft Carrier is another proposed system that is grossly overreaching. These updates to the Nimitz-class carriers will cost in excess of 10.5 Billion dollars apiece, and they're planning on building TEN of them. I can tell you from my time in the Navy that our carrier fleet represents strategic overkill and redundancy. There are a grand total of TWO aircraft carriers being operated by non-allied navies worldwide, and one of those is in dock as a floating theme park. This hearkens back to the days of stockpiled nuclear weapons which could destroy all life on earth hundreds of times over. After the first few of these are built, the law of diminishing returns takes over and excessive additional commissioning of carriers does nothing to improve our global position short of giving the Pentagon a shiny new toy,

US aid to Israel represents the largest single amount of our foreign aid budget, a staggering 3.1 Billion dollars on average annually over the years 2000-2007. The overwhelming majority of that aid is in military grant, which increases tensions in a region that hardly needs such escalation. This aid also foments a large portion of the antipathy held in many islamic nations toward the United States.  I challenge you to show me a tangible, capital return on the investment of so many taxpayer dollars into this aid program.

These three programs (and there were many more I could have chosen) expend billions of taxpayer money for minimal return on investment. By comparison, the governmental subsidy to public broadcasting is a mere 422 million dollars, with observable and provable beneficial return to the public on that investment.

An excellent resource (Credit Reddit) on YEC Geology and Catastrophism

In my daily poking around in the reddit.com hivemind, I occasionally find something of true brilliance and usefulness. One such item showed up in my feed this evening; a response to the all-too-common attacks on geological dating techniques (much more frequent than the dating techniques of geologists) levied by proponents of Young Earth Creationism. This set of links, along with a few suggested laboratories for teaching children springs from one of my almae matres, Indiana University.
Young Earth Creationism (YEC) is more or less predicated on the old geological interpretation of catastrophism, basically saying that most, if not all, of the geological phenomena and strata we now see were laid down in the Genesis flood. It is easy to see the appeal of this idea if one is trying to accommodate the literal Genesis account into the natural evidence. It is not a new idea, stemming in part from Cuvier (Although his viewpoint was far from a supernatural one, and his work was greatly amended and altered by Jameson to indicate support for a flood event origin). The problem with it is two-fold. First off, as scientists (and, for that matter, intelligent human beings), our hackles should be raised instinctively by the thought of tailoring our evidence to a specific conclusion, rather than the other way around. Secondly, the vast evidence simply does not support catastrophism, especially a flood-based viewpoint of it. Even William Buckland, a proponent of flood-theory who sought it as evidence of the genesis account, eventually abandoned it when the evidence didn't support it.

So, why do YEC's like Ken Hamm want this so badly? It's a clear assault on Evolutionary biology. If we can show a possibility that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, and all the strata and geology that we now see occurred suddenly, then there simply isn't enough time for the mechanisms of natural evolution to occur. That's what the argument is. Pity for them that the rocks don't support their point of view.

T-Rex was the rugby team from "Alive"!

In this study from Yale, it is revealed that there are examples of Tyrannosaur bones which show bite marks from other Tyrannosaurs. Cannibalism in predators is far from unknown. However, this doesn't really give us any new insight on the issue of whether T. rex was a hunting predator or a scavenger. The bite marks appear to have been made post-mortem, and while analogous cannibalism occurs in the modern day after conflict between individuals, the fact that the bites are on extremities rather than on the core (where meat would be more plentiful) may imply that the marks are a result of scavenging post-mortem. So, we're left with more data (which is never a bad thing), but no clear balance one way or the other on the predator/scavenger debate.

Why is this important? Well, in propounding his own theory, Bill Watterson of "Calvin and Hobbes" gave us the best theory of all:

ID hits the UK.

Lest we think that the conflict over Intelligent Design is a specifically American problem, there comes this story out of Scotland.   The group's director doesn't even attempt to hide the eventual goal:

"... Dr Alastair Noble, told the Sunday Herald it was “inevitable” the debate would make its way into schools"

Intelligent Design is not science. Never has been, never will be. It's tantamount to arguing that since we don't understand something, a Wizard did it (to quote the Simpsons). The most compelling argument the ID folks have leveled follows these lines: To disprove the Theory of Evolution, all we have to do is show an instance of a biological structure which could not have arisen through natural means. Two immediate problems arise: first off, no such structure has been found. Michael Behe *OSoD* posited two major ones: The flagellum and the human clotting factor. Dr. Kenneth Miller devotes a chapter to each of these, showing how both could have arisen through natural selection and natural means (If I have a chance, I'll devote posts to this in more depth in the future). Secondly, even if they could disprove that element of Darwinian thought, we would not automatically assume that scriptural-based ID is the correct "Theory". It's not a binary system. If you are unfamiliar with this aspect of the debate, I recommend reading up on FSM-ism, a proposed alternative to ID. It has the same level of validity.

The president of the ID front in the linked article tips the balance to infuriating with the following quote, which frustrates me on multiple levels:

“Genesis chapter 1-11, which indeed many Darwinists and evolutionists say is myth or legend, I believe is historical, and it is cited 107 times in the New Testament, and Jesus refers himself to the early chapters of Genesis at least 25 times.”

Logically, his argument can be reduced to 'The account is consistent with other elements of the same account'. If I were to claim that I had spent my weekend on Mars, and point to the fact that I talked later about how I got to Mars in my Magical Raptor-crewed Rocket Ship as supporting data for the assertion that I went, this would be logically consistent to the same level as Professor Norman Nevin's assertion above. It would not, however, confer any level of validity to my claim of interplanetary excursion. Logically speaking, a statement cannot prove itself.

Additionally, I bristle at his implication that it is a sign of a lack of faith for someone to read the Genesis account as a mythology. In the biblical account, as in the naturalistic model, no human could have first-hand experiential knowledge of those events prior to the 6th day of creation. The Mosaic accounts in the book of Genesis are written as an explanation for the mysteries of the natural world where no explanation is readily available. That should sound pretty darn close to a definition for a mythology.

Of course, the creationists and ID folks have in their back pocket the greatest rhetorical cheat code of all time: an omnipotent designer could have, by nature, done anything. But that's not a logical or scientific argument. It's a cop-out, and - worst of all - one that eliminates, rather than expands, the debate.

All right, this is just making me more upset. I'm off to train my Raptor Rocket Crew. The weekend's only five days away.

Petvelociraptor is infested! (Rebuttal Project)

No, it's not a virus or anything in the strictest sense, but I have noticed that since I wrote This Blog Entry, mentioning Michael Behe *Obligatory spit of disgust* and the Intelligent Design movement, Google ads have been bombarding the blog with ads for the Discovery Institute, and other Creationist think tanks. Many of these tout "Scientifically based" tracts and brochures you can order for free or a nominal fee. These are nothing more than propaganda, intended to do two things: cloud the issue for people who are still confused, and preach to the choir to buttress the already brainwashed and ignorant. Usually, this should be beneath our notice, but people are listening to this hogwash couched in science-y phrasing. So, I have decided to take on the challenge. I have been requesting copies (under the pseudonym Darwin X. Huxley) of these pamphlets from each group that has shown up in the ad feed, and will be attempting to slog through them line by line, posting scientific (and in some instances, theological) rebuttals to each of the arguments made. I plan on asking for outside help if I need it from people with more specialized knowledge. This is a battle of the highest order, one of science vs. willful ignorance. These people would be a quaint curiosity if not for one thing... school boards. There's a powerful movement in this country to pack school boards with science deniers, and Kitzmiller was just a first salvo.

So, Petvelociraptor is wading into the fray, line by line. Stay tuned.

Heloderma suspectum in the classroom!

While it's not exactly "Raptors in the Kitchen", today, in Community Ecology, Dr. Beck brought in his office-mate, a male gila monster named Jorge. Of particular interest to me was the reaction of my classmates. When they had been presented with a Northern Pacific Rattlesnake (Crotalus oreganus), the vast majority recoiled. Yet, Jorge was instantly surrounded by intrigued students. Why the recoil for the snake (which was much more securely controlled), and not for the venomous lizard (whose venom "makes you wish you were dead")? It has to come down to some basal-level aversion to snakes. I just don't understand it. All animals (especially the venomous ones) should be handled properly and with a proper modicum of respect. No animal should be feared.
(Picture off of Wikipedia )