Dinosaurs from Wikipedia
Evolutionary biologists discuss several theories, but the problem is a psychological one. As evolutionary biologists deny progress, they cannot draw a simple conclusion: As a rule, the dominance of the retarded dinosaurs had been undermined by more advanced mammals and birds. If this rule is accepted, it doesn’t matter any more too much which event actually caused extinction. There were probably several processes that contributed: shortage of food, diseases, and defeat in competition, for instance. Maybe catastrophic events accelerated these processes, but they didn’t cause them alone. That’s for sure.
Given the plasticity of all life forms, dinosaurs could have adapted to environmental changes even if catastrophic, but what they couldn’t adapt to were the already more adapted mammal competitors. As for instance, mammals and birds were able to maintain body temperature, they were capable to stay active at night, when dinosaurs became lazy and slow according to falling body temperature. In these situations dinosaurs became easy prey to mammals and birds.
If accepted, progress is able to explain a multitude of phenomena: In transportation, why we use diesel and electricity instead of steam engines, in technology, why we use to replace old and slow computers, in sociology, why slavery had to be replaced by feudalism and later on by capitalism, and in biology, why ferns had been replaced by angiosperms. As they instinctively block out any idea of progress, evolutionary biologists seek rescue in less scientific rather religious, biotheistic, explanations, in which catastrophic events play the role of a Deus ex Machina, a natural creator.
We remember Tom Sawyer had to paint a fence. He didn’t do it but for a little fee he allowed others to do it for him. The principle is to provide a framework and let others fill in the tidious work, and if you are lucky enough, you can even charge them for doing so. That principle proved its worth not only in Tom Sawyer’s but also in other success stories: Facebook, YouTube, and many others.
Now the same is being tried by biomedical companies that gather biological data and expertise. Well known examples of that type are 23andMe and Personal Genome Project. In a recent newsletter also Illumina claimed its share.
Last year’s Nobel peace prize decision caused a lot of discussions as did this year’s.
I still love most the comments made by an author that I cited last year already. As this year’s Nobel price decision supported his theory, I was eager to learn it, and here it is:
Today there is a discernible trend to award the Nobel Peace Prize, firstly to Western Alpha Males such as Bush, Blair, Obama etc. seeking to promote pseudo-democracies in the developing countries via Barbaric Imperialism of Regime changes framed on its infinite Wars of Civilisations.
Secondly, the Nobel Peace prizes could be awarded to its Acolytes of dubious characters, purporting to support the pseudo-democratic ideology such as Liu the pro-democracy hero of TianAnMen, the Theocratic Serf keeper Daliar, Al Queda Jihadist Rubiyar etc.
Well, I fell his new theory, though meant to be more precise, rather digresses, and I stick to my own (fauceir based) theory of female prejudice. Admittedly it seems too simple for anyone to accept, but remember parsimony.
Improbable Research publishes the this year’s Ig® Nobel Prize.
What excites me most is that after the Dunning–Kruger effect with the Peter Principle, the discovery of an other psycho-sociological phenomenon has been rewarded. Recently a paper on democratic elections tackles a similar problem why democratic principles result in leaders that are only slightly better than average, which goes into the direction of the Dilbert Principle.