We’ve noted a number of times here on WEIT the great things that have been done using camera traps to survey rare and endangered species, especially felids. Age Kridalaksana of the Center for International Forestry Research has gotten pictures and produced a video of his successful search for the Javan leopard, Panthera pardus melas (see also the video on conservation challenges in Indonesia). He got photos of three leopards, one of which was melanic. The  Javan population is thought to be about 250 adults.

Javan leopard, Panthera pardus melas, by Age Kridalaksana.

The large mammals of the big Indonesian islands of Sumatra, Java, and Borneo are very interesting biogeographically. At the peak of the last glaciation, all of these islands (which lie on the continental shelf) were united to the mainland  (see previous WEIT coverage on this here), so at that time large mammals could wander across all three islands. As the waters rose from the melting glaciers and the lands were cut off, species went extinct on the newly forming islands. It’s not easy to predict where a given species would survive. For the three big cats, each has a different distribution pattern: the leopard only on Java, the tiger on Sumatra and Java (and Bali), and the clouded leopard on Sumatra and Borneo. There are old stories of tigers on Borneo, but specimens can be obtained from the other islands by trade, so its survival there into historic times has never been verified.

As might be expected given its isolation from the main range on the mainland, the Javan leopard is a genetically well marked subspecies (see reference below).

h/t Mongabay

_________________________________________________________________

Banks, E.A. 1931. A popular account of the mammals of Borneo. Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 9(2):1-139.

Uphyrkina, O., W.E. Johnson, H. Quigley, D. Miquelle, L. Marker, M. Bush and S.J. O’Brien. 2001. Phylogenetics, genome diversity and origin of modern leopard, Panthera pardus. Molecular Ecology 10:2617–2633. (pdf)

Send me a picture of you making a cat beard with your moggie; if you’re a winner (there will be only one), you get an autographed book with a picture of your cat drawn in.

WARNING!!!: You know the risks you’re taking by doing this.

You can see more cat beards at The Laughing Squid, which also provides moar links:

Cat Beards is a purrrfect photo meme where people position their cat’s chin in front of their own face and make it look as if they have a furry beard, mouth and all. Some of the photos have been around for a few years, but the meme has only recently really taken off. You can view more photos of mutant cat beard people online at Cat-Beard.com, Know Your Meme and by searching around in the Instagram tag #CatBeard.

You can make a ‘stache, too!:

h/t: Su, Richard

In response to trending hashtags #PrayForOklahoma and #PrayersForOklahoma, the proud atheist popularized hashtag #ActuallyDoSomethingForOklahoma, suggesting his 4.6 million followers give $10 to the American Red Cross’ disaster relief efforts.

Gervais, who reguarly spars with believers, began his growing online movement by responding to an MTV News tweet reading, “Beyonce, Rihanna & Katy Perry send prayers to #Oklahoma #PrayForOklahoma.”

“I feel like an idiot now,” he tweeted on Tuesday morning. “I only sent money.”

Gervais’ message has been retweeted 14,140 times. Predictably, however, #PrayForOklahoma is currently winning out as one of the social media site’s top-ten trending topics.

I wonder if these prayer-tweeters actually think that they’re really accomplishing anything, or merely that they get to feel they’re doing something without having to exert themselves in the least. After all, if prayerful intercession works, why did God send the tornado to Oklahoma in the first place?

I’ve given my mite, and I suggest you follow Gervais by donating to the Red Cross Disaster Relief Fund here (I couldn’t find a place to channel funds directly to Oklahoma).

h/t: Diane G.

1. “Are Hedin’s teaching practices unconstitutional? Jerry Coyne, a University of Chicago professor, thinks so, and has pushed for Hedin’s removal from BSU. In an April 25 blog post, Coyne claimed that Hedin’s class material is an unlawful infringement on the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.”

I never called for Hedin’s dismissal; what I want is for him to stop teaching Christianity to his students under the rubric of science. If Ball State stops him, that’s fine. If they don’t, they should be taken to court. In neither case will he be fired.

2. “Casey Luskin, an attorney working for the Discovery Institute, explains that this controversy was first sparked by only a few angry atheists, and he suggests that the majority of college students are more than willing to engage in honest, open discussions on the different scientific theories.”

The controversy came to my attention when one student, who took Hedin’s course but is not an atheist, complained to one of my acquaintances about Hedin’s cramming Jesus down the students’ throats. That, and some information provided by my acquaintance, is what “sparked the controversy.” Nota bene: the original complaint didn’t come from an atheist.

3 & 4. “Hedin has also asked students to read books written by notable scientists who disagree with the evolutionary theory, such as Stephen Meyer and Michael Behe, both of whom are supporters of the intelligent design movement.”

The “notable scientist” part is laughable. Behe isn’t notable, but notorious, and Meyer isn’t even a scientist, though he got a bachelor’s degree in science (his Ph.D. was in the history and philosophy of science).

Meanwhile, the BSU student paper, the Daily Unified, has a far more objective story, and doesn’t get anything wrong.  And it has this telling quote from a student who took Hedin’s class. Apparently, contrary to Hedin’s chair, there wasn’t much “open discussion” about religion in the class (my emphasis):

Fifth-year senior criminology major Jake Owens said he was in Hedin’s astronomy 100 class in the Fall Semester of 2011 and that he wasn’t bothered when Hedin brought up religion.

“He brought it up a lot when he would get into the constellations and how amazing the universe was,” he said. “He didn’t bring it up, obviously, when he was going into the scientific aspects.”

But Owens, who identified himself as a Christian, said Hedin did not open religion up to discussion in his class..

“I hate to say it, but it was more of a preaching type of thing,” Owens said. “It wasn’t like he said it and then opened it up to say, ‘Does anybody else have an opinion on this?’ If I remember correctly, some people did say things, whether they agreed or disagreed, but he didn’t really open it up for discussion.”

Meanwhile, while a few of Hedin’s colleagues and students are defending his class, others disagree (see the comments following the Muncie Star Press piece on Hedin).  Here’s another religious student who went public about his discomfort with Hedin’s proselytizing:

I’m not asking for Hedin to be fired, but his Science Crusade for Jesus simply has to stop.  If a First Amendment case has yet to be adjudicated in a public university, then I say that it’s time. The matter is not whether a class is elective, but whether students who take a class (and some really have no choice) can be subject to religious proselytizing by a government employee. I say “no way”! This may not be the case to adjudicate, for we need students to be plaintiffs in the case, and I haven’t seen any yet, but if the courts haven’t settled whether the First Amendment doesn’t apply to public universities, it’s about time.

Meanwhile, some LOLs from the Muncie paper’s comments (there are some good and heartening comments there, too):

But this is my absolute favorite. Read it slowly to savor every misguided word:

OMG.  ”Science ONLY teaches us how silly we are!”  Ten to one Mr. Castor uses a cellphone, takes antibiotics when he has an infection, and benefits immensely from all the benefits of science that, he says, don’t exist. Without science, Castor would have a life expectancy of about 35 years.

The song is a rocker, and exemplifies my concept of “soul,” which equates to “fervent emotionality”.

Wonder wrote it, too—in collaboration with his mother and two other people. As Wikipedia notes, he implied that it was one of his own favorites:

When asked in a 1968 interview which of his songs stood out in his mind, Wonder answered “I Was Made to Love Her because it’s a true song.”The song features Wonder’s harmonica solo in the introduction. The song also features strings following the bridge section. The song also features the use of an Electric Sitar in the opening and repeated throughout the verse. The last lyric line “You know Stevie won’t ever leave you”, refers to the singer himself.

Note that the song contains the word “chicken” (“I was knee-high to a chicken”), which, as far as I know, has appeared only two other times in pop music. Can you name those two songs? (There may be more.)

[UPDATE: There clearly are; I don't know any of the songs suggested in the first dozen comments below.]

This version is live, but obviously lip-synched:

p.s. My second favorite song by Stevie Wonder is “Isn’t she lovely?” with that fantastic harmonica solo. But I don’t consider that a soul song. You can hear a short but great live version here.

The flyer is below, and the website for the course is here. I’m told that there are only a few slots left.

Besides the photography instruction, of course, there’s plenty of chances to learn natural history from experienced field biologists. Here, for example, is a photo Wild took during the last class (the caption from PopSci):

In the jungles of Belize last January, entomologist Alex Wild noticed something odd about the trap-jaw ants passing through his outdoor insect photography class: They all had shrunken heads and swollen abdomens. A day after making the observation, Wild and his students came upon an ant with a worm bursting out of its side. Parasites were at work. Nematode worms enter the ants as larvae and grow inside the ants’ body cavity, siphoning off nutrients and distorting their hosts’ natural anatomy. When the eight-inch-long nematodes are ready to mate a few weeks later, they push their way out of their half-inch-long hosts, killing them.

]]> http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/05/22/insect-photography-workshop-in-belize/feed/ 10 whyevolutionistrue BelizeFlier1 Antbig http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/05/22/lee-strobel-endorses-ball-states-teaching-of-creationism-in-a-science-class/ http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/05/22/lee-strobel-endorses-ball-states-teaching-of-creationism-in-a-science-class/#comments Wed, 22 May 2013 15:06:29 +0000 whyevolutionistrue http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/?p=88904 ]]> Lee Strobel is a Christian apologist and author whose book, The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence that Points Toward God,  is on Dr. Eric Hedin’s reading list for his creationism-infested “science” course at Ball State University. Strobel claims that he was once an atheist, but that the evidence turned him religious.

Wikipedia characterizes the book thusly, which is perfectly in line with the other books on Hedin’s one-sided creationist reading list:

The Case for a Creator consists of interviews with intelligent design advocates and Christian apologists who argue for the existence of a creator. Critics of the book accuse it of bias, which they assert is contrary to the book’s own claims of being neutral and scientifically rigorous.

The advocates interviewed in the chapters and their topic(s) of discussion are as follows:

• Intelligent design advocate and Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture(CSC) fellow Jonathan Wells presents a case against evolution;
• Philosopher of science Stephen C. Meyer discusses the relationship between science and religion, as well as the origin of life, arguing against the likelihood of abiogenesis without the assistance of a creator;
• Philosopher of religion William Lane Craig discusses the Big Bang and argues for a creator as first cause, using the Kalam cosmological argument;
• International Society for Complexity, Information and Design fellow and philosopher Robin Collins discusses the anthropic principle and argues that the universe must be designed by a creator;
• Guillermo Gonzalez (astronomer) and Jay Richards (theologian) present a case that the Rare Earth hypothesis supports intelligent design;
• Biochemist Michael Behe discusses irreducible complexity in biology as an argument for a creator; and,
• Philosopher and theologian J.P. Moreland examines the supposed existence of consciousness separate from the brain, including near-death experiences, as an argument for a creator.

It’s no surprise, then, that over at the wonderfully-named site For God’s Glory Alone Ministry (article expanded from one in The Christian Post) Strobel is quoted as saying that Hedin’s course is great, for it provides the opportunity fo the kids to see all sides:

“I believe we should give teachers, scientists, and students the right to pursue the evidence wherever it takes them – even if it takes them to the politically incorrect conclusion that there’s an Intelligent Designer,” Strobel told The Christian Post via email. “In other words, let’s test the evidence in the marketplace of ideas.

The two problems are these: intelligent design (and also old-earth creationism, also on Hedin’s reading list in the form of books by Hugh Ross), has already been tested in the marketplace, and scientists aren’t buying it. And, of course, Hedin’s course doesn’t present the alternative view that has been tested in the marketplace, and won: modern evolutionary biology.  The man is intellectually dishonest, but of course that’s what creationists must do to get their ideas into the classroom (we’ll see how long Hedin is able to get away with this).

Strobel, who apparently hasn’t really looked at Hedin’s class, nevertheless teaches something similar.  His defense of this strategy is, really, indistinguishable from the views of P. Z. Myers and Larry Moran, both of whom have—while criticizing content of Hedin’s course—argued that it should nevertheless continue to be taught because eliminating it would violate “academic freedom.” The words in bold below perfectly express P.Z.’s and Larry’s views. I wonder if they realize that their views are perfectly consonant with the creationist call to “teach the controversy” on the college level.

Strobel, whose book, The Case for a Creator, is on the course reading list, says that he doesn’t have any specific knowledge about Hedin’s class, but said, “In my view, a fair teaching of cosmology, physics, biochemistry, biological information and human consciousness tends to point quite naturally toward an Intelligent Designer. Students should be allowed to draw their own conclusions based on the evidence. I certainly don’t see any First Amendment prohibition against free academic inquiry, especially in an elective course like this. I hope students will be able to consider all aspects of scientific evidence and not be unfairly prohibited from considering certain evidence just because some critics don’t like its implications.”

He added, “For me, it was a surface-level understanding of science that paved my path into atheism, but it was a more thorough and open-minded investigation of the broad spectrum of evidence that ultimately led me to conclude there’s a a Creator, as I describe in my book The Case for a Creator.”

LOL! If Ball State keeps this up, their graduation photo will look like this:

“We’re happy you’re here. You guys did a great job,” Blitzer said to Rebecca Vitsmun, who escaped from her house with her 19-month-old son right before the twister tore through it. “You’ve gotta thank the Lord, right? Do you thank the Lord for that split-second decision?”

Vitsmun hesitates for a moment and smiles. “I — I’m actually an atheist,” she said, laughing off the awkward moment.

“You are. All right. But you made the right call,” Blitzer said.

“We are here, and I don’t blame anyone for thanking the Lord,” Vitsmun said.

In Oklahoma! What better sign of the increasing nonbelief in the U.S., and of people’s willingness to go public with it? Kudos to Vitsmun, and a warning to newspeople: don’t assume everyone believes in God.

What would really have been nice is if Vitsmun had replied, “What? You mean the Lord who killed those twenty-odd people?”

Both Gaye and Terrell died young. Gaye was killed by his own father a day before he turned 45. Terrell (see below) was, when she recorded this song, already ill from the brain tumor that would kill her at age 24.

Wikipedia notes about this song:

. . . it became one of the few Motown recordings of the 1960s that was not recorded with the familiar “Motown sound“. Instead, “You’re All I Need to Get By” had a more soulful and gospel-oriented theme surrounding it, that was influenced by the writers, who also sing background vocals on the recording, sharing vocals in a church choir in New York. The lead vocals were recorded separately by the two singers and combined during the mixing process, reportedly to cut studio time, and give time for Terrell, who was using a wheelchair, to recover from surgery to repair the malignant brain tumor that would ultimately cause her death in 1970.

Gaye and Terrell did several nice songs together; my second favorite is “Ain’t nothing like the real thing” (1968), which you can hear here. It was also written by Ashford and Simpson.