Kirsten: (Laughs)
Justin: Well, frogs have the bulgy eyes; they’ve got the longer legs because they do the hopping…
Kirsten: Mm hmm.
Justin: And toads are like walkers…
Kirsten: Yes.
Justin: …and they squatter and they’ve got more recessed eyes and then there’re bumpy, frogs are slimy…
Kirsten: SLIMY!
Justin: Whatever, maybe slick, not bumpy-ish…
Kirsten: Right, they exist in wetter areas.
Justin: Yes.
Kirsten: Yes, they like the water!
Oh it’s 9 o’clock. I was going to totally bring up a story…
Justin: Good… go ahead!
Kirsten: But it’s time for our break…
Justin: Oh, wait, it’ll be over in a minute! What have we got to lose?
Kirsten: (Laughs) Hmm, not much… Giant horny meat-eating dinosaurs found in Niger.
Justin: Wow!
Kirsten: Yes. The bones of two massive meat-eating carnivorous dinosaurs, that may have competed like lions and hyenas do today, were found by University of Chicago paleontologists.
One of the dinosaurs is called “Kryptops palaios” or “Old Hidden Face” because they had horns all over its face. It was very horny. They published this in the journal “Acta Palaeontologica Polonica”.
And the other one they called “Fierce-Eyed Dawn Shark” or “Eocarcharia dinops”. It had razor sharp teeth and a heavy bony brow that they think they used to smack into their competitors. They think that Eocarcharia dinops head-butted other males or its competitors to get them out of the way.
They existed at a time when Africa, India and Antarctica were all connected by land bridges and before dinosaurs became isolated. Before Africa was isolated, and the dinosaurs ended up following separate paths in their isolated land areas.
They say it’s a very important slice in geological time when they don’t yet fully comprehend how dinosaurs, on the southern continents were evolving back then. So this is an important data point towards a deeper understanding of what happened. And this expedition has much, much more coming from it. They found all these bones back in 2000 during an expedition to the Niger desert and they haven’t even released half of what was found there!
Justin: Wow!
Kirsten: So there’s a whole bunch of new discoveries that are still going to be coming out in the news in the future. So yes, very exciting, lots to learn and I think it’s time for our break.
Justin: Take us to the break Kirsten!
Kirsten: Take us to the break!
Justin: Take us to the break…
Kirsten: Take us to the chorus. (Laughs) We’ll be back in just one minute. Stay tuned for more This Week in Science, after this!
(Music)
Kirsten: Welcome back! This is This Week In Science. We’re here for the rest of this lovely hour of Science. We had a few emails…
Justin: (Laughs) Few?
Kirsten: Yes. In the last couple of weeks, after two weeks ago, there were few topics that were brought up relating to science and religion. And we got some responses to the comments that were made on the show and I think we’re going to address a couple of the things that were said.
Justin: You can read them, if you want. I don’t know if I really want to read…
Kirsten: Read them?
Justin: You want to read that what they were saying?
Kirsten: Yes, so okay. Justin. Justin.
Justin: Let me preface it real quick. I was quoting the Pope, and he was talking about genetic research, stem-cell research and stuff.
And he said when human beings in the weakest most defenseless state of their existence are selected, abandoned, killed or used as pure biological material, how can we deny that they’re being treated as not some one but as some thing?
And I said that if only he were speaking about the young men and women of the world enlisted in military service, and not of ten celled blastocyst in Petri dishes I would agree with him completely.
This is the statement that has invoked more negative responses from our listening audience than anything I’ve ever said in the past…
Kirsten: (Laughs)
Justin: …which by itself is very impressive.
Kirsten: It’s quite impressive. Yes.
Justin: It is. I’ve outdone even myself for now and it’s really – it was actually some religious consternation about comparisons of religion and science.
Kirsten: So, the two topics that were brought up were the “stem-cell” issue with the “cloning” issue and what the Pope had to say. And then there was also the “Creationist Journal” that’s coming out as a Science Journal.
Justin: But that was not the one I got most response for…
Kirsten: Yes, but then both got responses. And to address the statement that was made was that the young men and women in the military were weak and defenseless as if they were ten celled blastocysts.
But I think in my interpretation of what you were saying is that the men and women – if you in the military, you would be saying that they were being treated not like some “one” but some “thing”, and being sent to battle. And that not the people themselves as working for the military, they themselves are not weak defenseless, but in the position that they’ve been sent…
Justin: Actually, you’re close…
Kirsten: I’m close.
Justin: You’re trying to alibi but…
Kirsten: (Laughs) like what did you mean?
Justin: He was talking about human beings in the weakest and most defenseless state of their existence. And to me that’s youth. That’s all young people at their weakest most defenseless state of their life especially in context of a war.
And I was talking also not about the U.S. military specifically, okay? I was talking about their enemies too. I don’t think their enemies should be involved in the military conflict. It’s a very idealist sort of pacifist point of view. But yes, it’s one of those if there wasn’t any war then nobody would have to go to war, correct?
Kirsten: Yes.
Justin: So it wouldn’t need anybody but I do believe that there is a defenselessness of youth that allows young people to go to war because they’re doing so with complete lack of perspective of old age. And this is something that is hard to explain but there’s bravery, there’s loyalty to your country, and patriotism, their sacrifices, all these things that people feel when they…
Kirsten: Enlist… and go. Yes, and it’s an honorable thing to do.
Justin: Absolutely it’s very honorable to be a red coat, to be a confederate, to be a Nazi, to be Vietcong. It’s very honorable to be an Iraqi insurgent. It’s very honorable to be Taliban. It’s very honorable to be a U.S. soldier. I’m talking about all military forces. It’s very honorable when you’re doing in most of the cases. There’re some cases at the point of the bayonet, but in most cases you feel a sense of duty and sense of honor in enlisting in whatever military.
But it’s these young people who enlist and go to war and die, who could otherwise live long enough to become trading partners, allies or be even family members with those who used be your enemy.
They end up leaving the planet before peace is reached. So they never get to see that part of the world. So that’s why when I think about war, when I think about youth being involved, I think about how many of us who have kids, would say, “You know what? I’m going to turn my kids in. I’m going to sacrifice my kids being on the planet so I can go back and fight in Vietnam because I think that would be great”. No, nobody does that. You’re not sacrificing just yourself; you’re sacrificing your children’s lives and their future, your whole future.
There’s a personal perspective too when I’m hearing about these kids who are 19, dying. I mean it doesn’t have to be the Iraq situation; it could be in any battle. Even throughout time, I can go back in time and talk about some Greek war with a bunch of 18 year olds dying. I’m like jeez, that’s too tough cause when I was 19; I wasn’t getting killed in war zone.
When I was 19, I was hanging out with the Denny’s waitress in a motel room overlooking the Santa Cruz beach boardwalk. And I was having a good time. And I think that’s what all 19 year olds should be doing. Well, not all of you, not necessarily specifically. But, if it’s in contrast to being in a war zone, I think it’s a much better way for us to be on the planet, fair enough?
Kirsten: Yes, and I hope that the people who wrote in, commenting, and who did not write in, but were thinking about the comments that were made during that show, if you would like to keep up this conversation email Justin, email me, and my…
Justin: Everybody sent it to take Kirsten. Poor Kirsten had a…
Kirsten: Yes. (Laughs) It’s “justin@thisweekinscience.com”, type “TWIS” in the subject
Justin: I know humanity can’t be trusted to be peaceful and that there will be militaries because history has proven this over and over again. But if I was the leader of a major religion I think I’d go out of my way at least to make the point of bringing up the possibility of peace-on-earth, goodwill towards man once in a while and really going after things like war and military. I would if I was – and I think that was the part of what I was contrasting.
Granted that I am atheist too. And the world is like my church. To try to put into context, when a non-atheist can understand what its like to be an actual atheist, it’s like you believe in God but because you are an atheist, you believe that God is an atheist too.
And it might make sense to some people because there are not a lot of folks who’re of one religion and go like, “Yes, I go to the church every Sunday.” But you know I think that this new cat, I think that’s the real deal. If you’re an atheist it’s the same as having a religion.
Kirsten: Because it’s your belief in how the universe happens to work.
Justin: And as the world is my church then, the reality around me, the universe, the exploration of that becomes something sacred, which is Science is something sacred to me.
Kirsten: I want to say also so the other issue that people were concerned with; Science talking about the Creation Journal, and that we were not being open minded and allowing for this kind of a journal and I guess razzing it a little bit; I personally just want to say that Science has a set of tools. And if you go changing those tools, you are no longer doing Science. There’s a certain way that Science works.
Science is very open-minded in the sense of how many things it looks at and what Science investigates. Science investigates the universe. It’s a tool kit for understanding the world around us and the Creation Journal, by not following the letters of the tool-kit, not using the tools in the tool-kit; they’re changing the tool kit. And thus it’s not Science.
And so, you can’t say let’s be open minded and allow this other perspective. It’s like I am happy to allow any researcher out there who happens to have a creationist’ view point to do studies in the scientific method and follow the scientific process of getting peer review by the scientific community. And if their research stands up to the test of the scientific community and the Science tool-kit, then sure, that evidence is valid. But if they go around about way and try and –