Why are there no dragons?

For Darwin Day, it seems appropriate to write a post about evolutiion.

Evolution seems to have produced a wide range of surprising abilities.  In many cases the same ability has come about separately in different species at different times.

Sight seems to have evolved in tens of separate ways.  Many creatures share the optical band that humans are able to sense (around the part of the spectrum where the atmosphere has the lowest absorption), but other creatures have developed to use infra-red and ultra-violet.  Some are very sensitive to the polarisation of light and others like us are almost completely unaware of it.

Sonar seems also to have evolved in about four separate ways.  Even in mammals like whales and bats there is nothing in common between their organs to suggest common evolution.

More surprisingly, electricity has been co-opted by completely unrelated species of fish, and Bombardier beetles have even evolved ways of creating explosions by secreting fluids which are unstable together.

But what of things that seem never to have evolved?

No animal has naturally evolved radar.  Perhaps the other options are good enough for short distances but much cheaper in terms of energy.

But fire is another property that is noticeably and more surprisingly absent from the animal kingdom.  This is the stuff of legend, with fire-breathing dragons being common in folk-lore.  Nobody serious suggests that these creatures really lived, even though there are creatures that create fuel (as cattle create methane in large quantities) and as we have already seen, electricity is generated at the voltages needed to make sparks to ignite the fuel.  The potential was there.  So why are there no dragons?

Epimenides brings a paradox to the bible

Those who claim the infallibility of the bible might not have noticed something hidden in the book of Titus.  It is a version of a paradox attributed to a Cretian called Epimenides.  It is said that he made one immortal statement:

"All Cretians are liars."

As the Wikipedia article says, a paradox of self-reference arises when one considers whether it is possible for Epimenides, as a Cretian to have spoken the truth. 

In the book of Titus it appears in this form:

One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.

This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;
Titus 1: 12-13 (Authorised Version)


So are people from Crete always liars or is this one telling the truth?  When verse 13 says that this witness (evidence) is true, which part is true?  They can't both be true can they.

It seems that the Epimenides Paradox was regarded as a bit of a joke in the first century, and it is surprising to find a joke in the bible, even if when one is quite well hidden from modern eyes.

Dogma against alleged dogma - from The Pope

If the pope preaches that agnosticism contains its own dogmas, does that make it an example of someone using dogma to fight another dogma, or is it just a fallacious claim that is unsupportable.

In his January 5th statement, The Pope stated "Today’s regnant agnosticism has its own dogmas and is extremely intolerant regarding anything that would question it and the criteria it employs".

Let's think about that.  Can it logically be true?  If agnosticism is the state of claiming that you can't (or don't) know whether to believe in God, wouldn't the people who are agnostic want to ask questions and wouldn't they be interested in any questions that shed light on the situation?  It is only by a process of discussion that they can get off the fence on one side or another, and surely that is something quite important.

In other words, even more than usual, The Pope is preaching nonsense that is unsupportable by evidence of any kind.

This is another of those cases of Christianity claiming to be the victim, when in fact it is preying on other innocent victims for the sole benefit of the priestly class.  All Christianity works towards this aim, but the Roman Catholic Church's work is particularly egregious.

One also has to ask the question - does the wise old Pope confuse agnosticism with atheism or secularism?  He might perceive all three as threats.  I wonder why he singled out agnosticism.

Perhaps he is even more afraid of atheism and didn't dare to use the word.

Words Google doesn't know

There can't be very many words that the almost omnipotent and omniscient Google doesn't know - or so you would assume.

But I have noticed that some of the terms that I commonly use when blogging on Google's own (admirable) product, Blogger, are not known to Google's own spelling checker (and yes, blogging is one of them, as are blog, blogspot and Blogger).

Amazingly, Google is another, whether used as a verb or a noun.  It doesn't discriminate only against itself and its own product, Youtube.  One of its great rivals Facebook is also flagged as an error, as are well known internet memes such as Wikipedia, Skype and Reddit.

Technical terms such as rss, podcast, homeopathy, do not pass the test but perhaps that is understandable.  Surprisingly neither do skeptic nor skepticism (which in the spirit of modern language are increasingly spelt this way in UK English).  I can accept that it does not like words coming from other languages, such as qu'ran, kitman and taqiyyah, but the common word offensive also gets flagged, with the strange and surely non-existent alternative of 'offencive' being offered!

It can be forgiven for noticing people's names like Dawkins.

But there is one case where it should definitely be congratulated!  It objects to Skepchick, and I have to say that I can only agree with it.  I object to that horrible name too.

Its just wrong!


You might have noticed some related posts:
Paula Kirby on feminism in 'the movement'
The Watson inconsistency and the real outrage!

Small note for the sake of completeness.  I use the English (UK) setting, and my claims are correct on the day of writing.

Here be dragons

A year or two ago I came across this wonderful introduction to Critical Thinking.  It was produced by the great Brian Dunning, the host and creator of one of the very best skeptical podcasts, Skeptoid.com.

At 41 minutes in length, you might need to schedule a little quality time to concentrate on "Here be Dragons" which is available at that link in a variety of formats.  I very much doubt that you will be disappointed, however often you have seen it before.

And if you have never listened to the Skeptoid podcast then it is definitely time to start now.

Monty Python's Universe Song

Thanks to Sarah who suggested that this was a good addition to the post about Dr Who and time travel.

She also suggested a link to a nice Facebook page about the earth moving through space. You can see it on the Facebook page for Something Surprising on 10th Sept 2011.

How does Dr Who do this?

Have you ever wanted to travel in time?  The idea seems quite attractive in spite of  the obvious potential paradoxes.

On top of the 'usual' risk of accidentally (or purposefully) killing one of your own ancestors and thus forcing yourself not to have existed, or the freak accident of reappearing inside a wall that somebody built while you were not looking, there is another subtlety that most people don't think about.

Not only do you have to find a way to travel in time, you also have to plan to travel in the three spatial dimensions and three complex rotations in order to land in the same place on the same planet.  Think about it.  The earth is speeding through space on its orbit around the sun, rotating as it goes.  The sun is circling the centre of the galaxy, and the galaxy itself is moving.

So imagine yourself getting into a time machine in your house and just going back or forwards 10 seconds to try the new 'toy' out.  Surely no paradoxes can be caused by that.  Other family members probably wouldn't even notice.

However, think how far your house has traveled through space in that 10 seconds.  When you re-materialise you will be in the vacuum of space with no way to return.

It might be OK if you are cocooned in the tardis with a friendly Time Lord, but for us lesser mortals it will be much less comfortable.

Time travel seems too risky.  Making the machine itself almost seems easy compared with the problem of trying to get to the right place, the right way up.


Added 10th September:
See Monty Python's Universe Song and a further link to a nice Facebook page about how fast the earth is moving through space. 


Small note: I seem to remember Asimov using this idea in one of his novels.  Its not new - but just an unusual thought.