Friday, April 15, 2011
How Did Dinosaurs Have Sex? Dino-style. By Brian Palmer
Posted Wednesday, April 13, 2011, at 6:33 PM ET
The American Museum of Natural History in New York will unveil an exhibition of the world's largest dinosaurs this Saturday. Some visitors may wonder how the creatures could ever eat enough to sustain their size, but the Explainer's mind is in the Jurassic gutter. How did those monsters manage to have sex?
From behind, probably. Paleontologists know very little about how dinosaurs mated, because soft tissue rarely appears in fossils. (They figured out how to determine dinosaur gender only a few years ago: Females had a special calcium reservoir to help with eggshell formation.) It is highly probable that dinosaurs had a cloaca—as do most birds and reptiles—which is a single opening for urination, defecation, and reproduction. If that's the case, we might speculate that the male and female would have aligned their cloacae such that the male's penis could emerge to penetrate the female cloaca. (It's also possible that dinosaurs had no penises, and, like some birds, reproduced by squirting semen from one cloaca at another.) Modern ornithologists and herpetologists call this a "cloacal kiss." Beyond that, it's all conjecture. Paleontologists can only guess about mating positions, duration, and behavior. The majority view seems to be that large males like the Mamenchisaurus—a 60-foot-long behemoth featured in the new exhibition—probably mounted from behind, like modern giraffes and elephants.
RELATED IN SLATE
Brian Palmer speculated about the taste of dinosaur meat and wondered how many times paleontologists are going to find the missing link. Kim Gittleson explained how they manage to keep digging up new dinosaur bones.
There was probably a courtship ritual among dinosaurs, involving signature body features. Last year, a group of paleontologists showed that the enormous fins on the back of pterosaurs and pelycosaurs were most likely there to attract mates, because they seem to have grown larger and larger through the generations. Similarly, some researchers think sauropods like the apatosaurus (which was once called the brontosaurus) grew long necks for mating displays rather than to reach the high leaves. Male triceratops may have locked their massive horns for the right to mate.
Advertisement
Unfortunately, we know almost nothing about the size of other, more intimate dinosaur parts. The ratio of penis length to body size varies so widely among dinosaur relatives that it's hard to make a solid guess about a dinosaur's endowment. Some ducks, for example, are just a couple of feet long, but have 7-inch penises. On the other hand, crocodiles that grow to 15 feet sport just a 4-inch organ. If you applied those ratios to the 40-foot-long body of a Tyrannosaurus rex, you'd get a penis of anywhere between 10 inches and 12 feet.
Paleontologists have spent a lot of time musing about dinosaur sex positions, and they can't agree on very much. For example, even though sex for large, long-necked dinosaurs probably looked something like giraffe mating, there's a dispute as to what the male did with its head. Some researchers believe he couldn't have maintained adequate blood supply to the brain with it so high off the ground, so he must have gotten into some kind of high-pelvis, low-neck position. Others believe he could have held his head up high and proud during his few moments of glory.
Then there's the weight issue. While elephant females are perfectly capable of supporting a good portion of the male's 15,000 pounds, the largest dinosaurs weighed 100,000 pounds. For that reason, a small number of paleontologists believe the larger species probably had sex in the water, where the male's buoyancy would take some stress off his partner.
The rear-mount hypothesis has its detractors. Some point out that neither elephants nor giraffes sport long, thick tails to obstruct male access. Others note that the spikes, spines, and plates that some females had all over their backs would have made the position unpleasant or impossible. These paleontologists suggest that the dinosaurs may have laid down on their sides and mated belly-to-belly. Or they could have faced opposite directions and backed into each other. The male may even have rested three legs on the female and wrapped his tail under hers.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Monday, April 11, 2011
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Friday, April 8, 2011
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
WHEEW!! What a day!
Employees who work with computers must have an eye medical visit every few years. OK, I suppose it is good that they worry about
our health. But the doctor who examined me is a fool. Since they could not see
well at the bottom of my pupils that shrink when hit with a bright light (I would like to see theirs) gave me a massive dose of ATHROPINE in the eyes to freeze my pupils open. I
say, Athropine is poisonous. Just one dose just a bit too strong and you're in the arms of Jesus
Now, as I got back to work I saw all suffused in a halo of light, as if I were in
Paradise-but it was not at all pleasant. I was sick. I more or less managed to return
to work and do something . But, guys, I thought of dying. Isn't there an episode of Columbo where a doctor kills
someone with atropine? Well, I felt as the victim in that episode. I felt like I escaped from
an assassination attempt. The next time you know what I'll tell the girls of Medical Surveillance? If some problem should arise, I let you know.
our health. But the doctor who examined me is a fool. Since they could not see
well at the bottom of my pupils that shrink when hit with a bright light (I would like to see theirs) gave me a massive dose of ATHROPINE in the eyes to freeze my pupils open. I
say, Athropine is poisonous. Just one dose just a bit too strong and you're in the arms of Jesus
Now, as I got back to work I saw all suffused in a halo of light, as if I were in
Paradise-but it was not at all pleasant. I was sick. I more or less managed to return
to work and do something . But, guys, I thought of dying. Isn't there an episode of Columbo where a doctor kills
someone with atropine? Well, I felt as the victim in that episode. I felt like I escaped from
an assassination attempt. The next time you know what I'll tell the girls of Medical Surveillance? If some problem should arise, I let you know.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Jesus as an openly gay man What if the newly found codices provided evidence of Jesus's same-sex activity?
* Comment is free
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/apr/04/jesus-gay-man-codices?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+theguardian%2Fcommentisfree%2Frss+%28Comment+is+free%29
The question: What would you add to the Bible?
The most astounding finding from the newly discovered lead codices is that Jesus Christ was unambiguously and openly gay. He and his disciples formed a same-sex coterie, bound by feelings of love and mutual support. There are recorded instances of same-sex activity – the "beloved disciple" plays a significant role – and there is affirmation of the joys of friendship and of living and loving together.
A whole new complexion is given to that rather puzzling passage where Jesus exhorts his followers to break family ties: "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14, 26). It seems clear now that this is less a negative repudiation of family and more a positive exhortation to join in affirmation of a gay lifestyle and love.
There is at least one new parable, that of the two young men. There are clear echoes of the relationship between David and Jonathan, for Jesus speaks of one young man having his soul "knit with the soul" of the other, and loving him "as his own soul". Intriguing is evidence that the Catholics might be closer to the truth about the status of Mary, the mother of Jesus, than are the Protestants. She has a much bigger role in the life of Jesus than many hitherto expected, with Jesus frequently returning home and making much of her.
Conversely, there is at least one incident when Jesus quarrels violently with Joseph, who shows great hostility and makes wild claims about "manliness". Before, one might have thought that, given Mary's virginity, Joseph's attitude was reflecting the ambiguities of his status in the family; but now it seems more probable that we have here a classic example of the Freudian triangle: over-possessive mother, hostile father, gay son.
Why have we known so little about all of this before? A newly discovered Pauline epistle, appropriately to the Athenians, suggests a major Platonic influence, particularly of the Republic. The classically educated Paul, who was himself gay, saw that same-sex activity was inimical to the success of Christianity in the highly homophobic societies in which he lived. Hence, same-sex affections and activity were concealed, to be known to and practised by only the leaders in secret – the guardians of Christianity as one might say. Obviously, this is a tradition that has flourished and lasted. It is not by chance that John Henry Newman is being made a saint.
Finally, the most important news is that nothing in the newly discovered codices challenges in any way the essential message of Christianity. Jesus was the messiah; he died on the cross for our sins; and through his death and resurrection made possible our eternal salvation. Our overriding obligation is to love God and we do this by loving our neighbours as ourselves. Christianity will never be the same again. Christianity will go on completely unchanged.
Tell that to the "God Hates this and that" Phelps' Roadside Freakshow...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/apr/04/jesus-gay-man-codices?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+theguardian%2Fcommentisfree%2Frss+%28Comment+is+free%29
The question: What would you add to the Bible?
The most astounding finding from the newly discovered lead codices is that Jesus Christ was unambiguously and openly gay. He and his disciples formed a same-sex coterie, bound by feelings of love and mutual support. There are recorded instances of same-sex activity – the "beloved disciple" plays a significant role – and there is affirmation of the joys of friendship and of living and loving together.
A whole new complexion is given to that rather puzzling passage where Jesus exhorts his followers to break family ties: "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14, 26). It seems clear now that this is less a negative repudiation of family and more a positive exhortation to join in affirmation of a gay lifestyle and love.
There is at least one new parable, that of the two young men. There are clear echoes of the relationship between David and Jonathan, for Jesus speaks of one young man having his soul "knit with the soul" of the other, and loving him "as his own soul". Intriguing is evidence that the Catholics might be closer to the truth about the status of Mary, the mother of Jesus, than are the Protestants. She has a much bigger role in the life of Jesus than many hitherto expected, with Jesus frequently returning home and making much of her.
Conversely, there is at least one incident when Jesus quarrels violently with Joseph, who shows great hostility and makes wild claims about "manliness". Before, one might have thought that, given Mary's virginity, Joseph's attitude was reflecting the ambiguities of his status in the family; but now it seems more probable that we have here a classic example of the Freudian triangle: over-possessive mother, hostile father, gay son.
Why have we known so little about all of this before? A newly discovered Pauline epistle, appropriately to the Athenians, suggests a major Platonic influence, particularly of the Republic. The classically educated Paul, who was himself gay, saw that same-sex activity was inimical to the success of Christianity in the highly homophobic societies in which he lived. Hence, same-sex affections and activity were concealed, to be known to and practised by only the leaders in secret – the guardians of Christianity as one might say. Obviously, this is a tradition that has flourished and lasted. It is not by chance that John Henry Newman is being made a saint.
Finally, the most important news is that nothing in the newly discovered codices challenges in any way the essential message of Christianity. Jesus was the messiah; he died on the cross for our sins; and through his death and resurrection made possible our eternal salvation. Our overriding obligation is to love God and we do this by loving our neighbours as ourselves. Christianity will never be the same again. Christianity will go on completely unchanged.
Tell that to the "God Hates this and that" Phelps' Roadside Freakshow...
Monday, April 4, 2011
The Bogus "Religious Freedom" Ruse of Modern Day Pharisee Christians
From the Blog of Michael in Norfolk
Yesterday afternoon the boyfriend and I attended the funeral of one of his elderly clients in a beautiful old church in downtown Hampton. One of the banners hanging in the sanctuary had the statement "Love One Another as I Have Loved You." From what I know of this church, many of its members do indeed work to follow this motto which, if applied universally would transform society. Sadly, the professional Christian set and modern day Pharisees among conservative denominations - the Christianists if you will - act as if they have never heard the passage. Instead, their public pronouncements are almost without exception focused on hatred. Hatred towards gays. Hatred towards minorities. Hatred towards non-Christians. Hatred towards Hispanics and immigrants. It truly is all about who and what they hate. Closely tied to this underlying theme of hatred is a contempt for the right of others to hold different religious beliefs. Or - God forbid - wish to live their lives as they decide and not as the Christianists would dictate. This contempt carries over into the disingenuous mantra that gay rights is a threat to religious freedom. If anyone threatens religious freedom, its the ever lying Christianists. Alex Blaze at The Bilerico Project looks at this devious and knowingly disingenuous refrain. Here are some highlights:
*
The point, time and time again, isn't about increasing freedom for everyone or even increasing religious freedom for everyone, but making sure that people deemed sufficiently Real American can't be criticized or forced to act with any decency to people deemed less American.
*
The jingoism is made obvious by the fact that the people who say that, say, a high school counselor who doesn't want to treat queer students should be allowed to keep their job because of religious freedom are the very same people who oppose the construction of Muslim community centers
*
Their appeal isn't to a higher principle when they say that LGBT rights mean less religious freedom - their appeal is for Americans to stop thinking and support the people who look and act most like them. Bryan Fischer, a rightwing crank and neo-Know Nothing, argued just that last week when he said that the First Amendment doesn't cover Muslims, just Christians.
*
His opinion is, of course, based on faulty data. He cites a fictional story about Thomas Jefferson realizing that Islam was going to destroy America and says that that means the Founders didn't want Islam protected by the First Amendment.
*
But being right or wrong isn't important here since most of Fischer's audience isn't going to look up what Jefferson thought about Islam. The reason I bring this up is that Fischer just plain says what we've been accusing the Religious Right of believing: that religious freedom is important to them insofar as it benefits them, not anyone else.
*
He put it right out there that claims for religious freedom are in fact about promoting Christianity. Last I checked, that was against the Constitution. Maybe someone should tell these folks.
For religious bigot "Religious Freedom means to be able to impose their narrow view on everyone else. Freedom from them to take it away from others. They can shove it!
Yesterday afternoon the boyfriend and I attended the funeral of one of his elderly clients in a beautiful old church in downtown Hampton. One of the banners hanging in the sanctuary had the statement "Love One Another as I Have Loved You." From what I know of this church, many of its members do indeed work to follow this motto which, if applied universally would transform society. Sadly, the professional Christian set and modern day Pharisees among conservative denominations - the Christianists if you will - act as if they have never heard the passage. Instead, their public pronouncements are almost without exception focused on hatred. Hatred towards gays. Hatred towards minorities. Hatred towards non-Christians. Hatred towards Hispanics and immigrants. It truly is all about who and what they hate. Closely tied to this underlying theme of hatred is a contempt for the right of others to hold different religious beliefs. Or - God forbid - wish to live their lives as they decide and not as the Christianists would dictate. This contempt carries over into the disingenuous mantra that gay rights is a threat to religious freedom. If anyone threatens religious freedom, its the ever lying Christianists. Alex Blaze at The Bilerico Project looks at this devious and knowingly disingenuous refrain. Here are some highlights:
*
The point, time and time again, isn't about increasing freedom for everyone or even increasing religious freedom for everyone, but making sure that people deemed sufficiently Real American can't be criticized or forced to act with any decency to people deemed less American.
*
The jingoism is made obvious by the fact that the people who say that, say, a high school counselor who doesn't want to treat queer students should be allowed to keep their job because of religious freedom are the very same people who oppose the construction of Muslim community centers
*
Their appeal isn't to a higher principle when they say that LGBT rights mean less religious freedom - their appeal is for Americans to stop thinking and support the people who look and act most like them. Bryan Fischer, a rightwing crank and neo-Know Nothing, argued just that last week when he said that the First Amendment doesn't cover Muslims, just Christians.
*
His opinion is, of course, based on faulty data. He cites a fictional story about Thomas Jefferson realizing that Islam was going to destroy America and says that that means the Founders didn't want Islam protected by the First Amendment.
*
But being right or wrong isn't important here since most of Fischer's audience isn't going to look up what Jefferson thought about Islam. The reason I bring this up is that Fischer just plain says what we've been accusing the Religious Right of believing: that religious freedom is important to them insofar as it benefits them, not anyone else.
*
He put it right out there that claims for religious freedom are in fact about promoting Christianity. Last I checked, that was against the Constitution. Maybe someone should tell these folks.
For religious bigot "Religious Freedom means to be able to impose their narrow view on everyone else. Freedom from them to take it away from others. They can shove it!
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Friday, April 1, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)