The Cabbages of Doom

Courtesy of sciencegasm. Remember this when you see any cute Easter chicks*...

[*Yes, I know it’s not a baby chicken. Some kind of gull, maybe?]

Today we went to see The Grand Budapest Hotel.

The adventures of Gustave H, a legendary concierge at a famous European hotel between the wars, and Zero Moustafa, the lobby boy who becomes his most trusted friend.

I won’t give any spoilers here but just say that it's thoroughly entertaining, I really enjoyed it and it’s well worth a watch.

There’s quite a lot of competition at the cinema at the moment, with Captain America (also good) and the Lego Movie (which looks good) among others. One, I won’t be watching is Noah - a movie that I don’t really understand why it was made. If you want to save some money and get the "real" Noah myth, you can do far worse than combining it with another current movie and checking out lego Noah over at The Brick Testament!

As well as the animals going in two by two - dinosaurs included, which should keep the Creationists happy - I particularly like the scene with all the animals crammed into the ark. I’m not sure that even cute lego figures make the story any less horrific, though.

When one pictures fossil hunters, one normally imagines someone carefully chipping and brushing away at some exposed rock. The picture that springs to mind is rarely someone sitting on a box of explosives. With Professor Mike Archer at UNSW, however, that’s exactly what you get.

I first found out about Mike’s extraordinary approach to fossil hunting at the UNSW family BBQ a couple of weeks ago. As described in the Australian Wildlife notes on Riversleigh, a world heritage fossil site in north-western Queensland: (my emphasis)

As water dissolves the rock, bones and teeth can be seen protruding from the rock. Releasing them from the rock is not so easy. Quarrying techniques must be used, including the occasional use of light explosives. Many of the areas are so inaccessible that the larger rocks have to be broken up with sledge hammers, bagged and labeled and lifted out by helicopter.

Once they finally reach the laboratory, the fossils are freed by dissolving away the surrounding limestone with dilute acetic acid. After treatment with preservatives, the fossils are then ready for study by scientists.

This approach has reaped rewards, including the recently reported giant toothed platypus fossil.

Another example of dramatic palaeontology doing the rounds is the amazing set of dinosaur footprints in a Bolivian quarry, which presumably were unmasked by something similarly explosive.

Opponents of evolution often point erroneously at the gappy nature of the fossil record, conveniently ignoring that not only do past organisms need to have been subject to the relatively rare conditions that result in fossilisation but then that bit of rock needs to be exposed again and then someone needs to find it before it’s destroyed! Given of all this, I think that the fossil record is actually remarkably complete! (Not to mention, of course, that even as more and more fossils get added, the fossil record is entirely consistent with evolution and extremely inconsistent with a recent global flood or Young Earth Creationism.)

Around this time last year, the sad news came out that South Korean textbook publishers were removing examples of evolution following pressure from Creationists. [Soo Bin Park (2012) South Korea surrenders to creationist demands. Nature 486:14.] One of the examples to be dropped was Archaeopteryx, on the grounds that it might not be an ancestral bird after all. I am not sure how they will respond to last week's news that recent research puts Archaeopteryx back in the bird lineage, as opposed to being "just another feathered dinosaur". (Just‽)

The study in question, A Jurassic avialan dinosaur from China resolves the early phylogenetic history of birds [Godefroit et al., Nature (2013) doi:10.1038/nature12168], describes a 170-million-year-old fossil (below). Twenty million years or so older than Archaeopteryx, Aurornis xui is touted as the earliest definite early bird. (Artist's reconstruction, above.) Furthermore, the traits it shared by the two seem to put Archaeopteryx fully back within the ancestral avian lineage.

The authors include one of my Southampton colleagues, Gareth Dyke, and you can hear him discuss the paper on the Nature Podcast at the Nature News article, New contender for first bird. You can also read a summary in the Science news of the week - Science 340:1024-1025, Earliest Birdie? [Pictures from the linked Nature and Science news items.]

Of course, whether or not Archaeopteryx is an ancestral bird or not, that does not alter the irrefutable fact that birds did evolve from dinosaurs. The real solution to the challenge by Creationists should not have been to take Archaeopteryx out of the textbook but to put more fossils into the textbook. Teach the actual "controversy", such as it is: from which dinosaurs did birds evolve?

Another ArtStudio creation, this is an attempt to combine two of my favourite things - Aboriginal art and dinosaurs! Given that I am not Aboriginal, I can't really call it Aboriginal art but I don't know what the technical name for this style is.

Earlier this week, we visited Oxford and went to the Oxford University Museum of Natural History. (I blogged earlier about on one of their beetle exhibits.) The original plan had been to visit this Museum and the attached Pitt Rivers Museum and then visit the Ashmolean Museum of Art & Archaeology. We never made it to the Ashmolean.

There are so many great things about this museum that I will have to spread them over several posts (and save the Pitt Rivers for one of its own). The thing that struck me above and beyond everything else, though, is how it managed to be a pretty comprehensive Natural History museum looking at the global scale but, at the same time, managed to be all about Oxford and have a real local flavour. I guess it helps that Oxford is a world-renowned seat of learning and that many of the scientists making the big world-changing discoveries were at Oxford. Even so, it was great to see fossils etc. from nearby and see how the local geology helped shaped thoughts about geological time etc.

For a start, the building itself has historical significance as it was the site of the famous 1860 debate about evolution featuring Thomas Huxley and Samuel Wilberforce. There are lot of legends associated with that debate and, not having been there, I don't know what actually happened but it is certainly clear that evolution and its supporters have subsequently been thoroughly and (scientifically at least) entirely vindicated. This, perhaps, explains why the statue of Darwin inside is leaning against the pillar so nonchalantly!

The inside of the building is also pretty impressive and really beautiful. Many of the pillars are constructed from different rocks (more on that another day) and have different, distinctive patterns. The displays are also really well laid out and manage to cram a lot in to the building without feeling cramped or crowded.

You get welcomed with the impressive dinosaurs upon entry. The Iguanodon and Tyrannosaurus are not from Oxford but many of the other dinosaur bones and footprints features in the exhibit are local or feature identifications by local Oxford-based scientists. The centre of the room is dominated by these and other animal skeletons etc. and lots of the displays also have interesting regular history along with the natural history. I also like the way that you are able to touch some of the animals and minerals - although obviously nothing too fragile.

Natural History is not just about biology/evolution and there is also a bunch of great stuff on geology - something that I find increasingly interesting the older I get. I am always struck by how much sense the scientific geological explanation makes of different rock formations, strata and fossil patterns. You have to be pretty determined not to accept it.

I won't waffle on here as you can find out lots more at the the museum website. I will post a couple more of my favourite exhibits over the coming days, though. Having browsed the website, however, I do realise that I will have to go back as I managed to miss one of the most famous exhibits - the Oxford Dodo. Given that their logo is a dodo, I'm not sure how I missed this other than the obvious distraction of having so many other interesting things to look at!

Sue is a Tyrannosaurus in The Field Museum - the largest specimen found to date, I believe. (Obviously, there are more Sues than this, but it is the Tyrannosaurus Sue to which I refer.) She is pretty big as you might imagine. (At 12.8m long, I doubt that any of the other Sues are bigger than her.) Sue's head has a display case all to itself in the museum (shown) and the one on the rest of the skeleton is a reconstruction (as are many of the other bones).

Right now, I am drinking from a Sue mug, bought in the afore-mentioned Field Museum. Like Sue herself, this is rather giant. Nice.