Hypercarnivore

 

- Faint biosignature?!
 I´ll show you some faint biosignature, bruh!

So NASA may finally have discovered evidence for life on Mars, but surely *this* is more exciting than some faint biosignatures on Martian rock? 

A species of gigantic crocodile-like creatures may have hunted dinosaurs 70 million years ago, only to meet the same fate as their prey when that bloody asteroid struck our God-forsaken planet four million years later...

I suppose it could also make for a good "Jurassic Park" sequel! 

Researchers unearthed ancient "hypercarnivore" with a taste for dinosaurs

Elephants evolved

 

HA HA HA, this is so confused that it becomes unintentionally funny. Erich von Däniken, come back, all is forgiven! So apparently the Hindu god Ganesha has evolved in a way similar to elephants. Or something. Or maybe something else. 

Into the fray?

 

Interesting that YouTube doesn´t even try to censor this kind of content...

The monkey-man

 

Wtf is this? Millions of years ago, a bipedal monkey (yes, monkey) may have been roaming the vast expanses of Eurasia. Was it on a similar evolutionary trajectory to our own?

I can sense a new scy fy franchise based on this stuff. Or make that Manga!

I fucking love science

 

So I just watched a French science documentary about lightning. It turns out that scientists (until recently) were wrong about what causes lightning in the first place. Oookay. And something about everything living having electric fields on the same frequency as the lightning in the atmosphere. Oookay. And something about abiogenesis...

Fantastic. I mean, with this open-minded attitude, maybe next year they finally acknowledge the existence of *ball lightning*...  

Radiolytic habitable zone

 

Cosmic rays seeding life at a distant icy planet!

OK, this was actually quite interesting. And not particularly surprising, if you ask me. There is *something* about cosmic rays, isn´t there? 

Cosmic rays could help support alien life on worlds outside the "Goldilocks zone"

Oh no, better call Professor Dave stat

 

Geezus, imagine what the creationists and Han nationalists can do with this one! Not to mention the purveyors of the multi-regional hypothesis...

Evidence for interbreeding between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens? 

Informal matriarchy

 

Both hits and misses in this one...

A few notes on matriarchy

The Apollo cult revisited

 

LOL. I didn´t know Bernard D´Abrera was *this* notorious. Not only does ChatGPT know about him, there is even an entry on the man on RationalWiki (the link in orange below). So I can´t have been the only person who noticed his somewhat idiosyncratic butterfly books. And just as I suspected, D´Abrera had the reputation for being...shall we say...difficult. Still, the AI is actually a bit charitable to some of his observations here. The Apollo "cult" seems to be real?!

Bernard d´Abrera

Here is D´Abrera again. Is this a true or fair observation? "In this volume, D'Abrera has some pretty unkind words to say about some of his fellow butterfly-collectors. He claims that there is a veritable cultus of the genus Parnassius (the Apollos) among lepidopterists, a cultus with its own high priests, acolytes, a nomenclature bordering on the hagiographic and a literature with the force of Canon Law. Anyone who questions the prevalent taxonomy of these particular butterflies is suspected of heresy, anathematized and excommunicated. Presumably, the authors' taxonomy is controversial among Appolo-infatuated collectors and scientists all over the Holarctic region..."

Yes, Bernard d’Abrera’s remark about a "cultus of Parnassius" among lepidopterists is real — in the sense that he did write things along those lines — but whether his observation is fair depends on how charitably one interprets his rhetoric.

---

🔍 Context and Interpretation

D’Abrera was known for his deeply opinionated style, often blending scientific observations with cultural, philosophical, and theological polemics. His statements about the Parnassius "cultus" reflect his broader frustration with what he saw as:

• Overly rigid or dogmatic taxonomic systems

• Scientific elitism or groupthink in entomology

• Excessive splitting of species into subspecies or varieties based on minor morphological differences

He often described these behaviors in grandiloquent, sometimes sarcastic terms, borrowing language from religion — "high priests," "canon law," "heresy," etc. It’s colorful and provocative, but it’s also a metaphor, not a literal accusation.

---

🦋 Is There Any Truth to It?

Surprisingly, yes — at least partially. Here's why:

1. Parnassius Has a Complex Taxonomy

• The genus Parnassius (Apollo butterflies) is notoriously difficult to classify.

• Many populations are geographically isolated mountain dwellers with subtle but consistent morphological differences, leading to:

  • Dozens (or hundreds) of named subspecies

  • Frequent disputes over species vs. subspecies status

2. Strong Collector Enthusiasm

• Parnassius is beloved among butterfly collectors, especially in Europe, Russia, Japan, and China.

• The group is surrounded by a wealth of literature, specialized monographs, and highly detailed field guides.

• Certain taxa can fetch high prices on the collectors’ market.

• This leads to passionate debates and strong in-group consensus on classifications.

3. Conservative or Rigid Taxonomies

• In some taxonomic circles, dissent from the prevailing views (especially by non-academics) is indeed treated dismissively.

• This isn’t unique to Parnassius or entomology — scientific subfields sometimes develop cliques, especially around charismatic taxa.

So D’Abrera is using exaggerated, satirical language, but he's critiquing a real tendency in the butterfly community: the tribalism that can emerge around difficult or beloved genera.

---

🧠 Is It a Fair Critique?

Fair-ish, but laced with hyperbole.

• Yes, because taxonomic debates can indeed become cliquish, politically charged, or stubbornly orthodox.

• No, if interpreted literally as some kind of irrational religious cult. Most taxonomists are serious professionals doing their best in a difficult field.

---

💬 Final Thought

D’Abrera was a provocateur, but his critique of Parnassius scholarship reflects a genuine tension in taxonomy between:

• Stability vs. revision

• Professional vs. amateur contributions

• Morphological vs. molecular approaches

It’s a poetic exaggeration, not a dispassionate analysis — but as a metaphor, it rings surprisingly true in some corners of entomology.

Would you like examples of famous Parnassius disputes or subspecies inflation?

Yes, please.

You're absolutely right to ask. The genus Parnassius (Apollo butterflies) is famous—or infamous—among lepidopterists for one of the highest rates of subspecific and varietal descrip­tions in Lepidoptera, often leading to protracted debates and sharply divided camps.

Here are some well-documented controversies that illustrate why D'Abrera’s depiction of a Parnassius cultus is at least partially grounded in reality:

---

🧐 1. *Over 200–290 named subspecies of Parnassius apollo*

• Parnassius apollo, the emblematic Apollo, has been described under more than 200 subspecies names, especially in Europe and Central Asia ResearchGateGöran Waldeck.

• In the Carpatho‑Pannonian region alone, 26 subspecies were defined based on limited morphological traits like wing color and patterns SpringerLinkGöran Waldeck.

• A 2024 morphometric study of 20 so-called subspecies in that region found virtually no significant wing‑shape divergence, suggesting that dozens of named forms may not merit formal taxonomic recognition SpringerLink.

---

🔬 2. Morphological discipline vs. molecular data

• Traditional taxonomists relied heavily on wing color, pattern, and minor structural traits (plus location data) to name new subspecies.

• Modern molecular studies (e.g., mitochondrial DNA barcoding) reveal that many of these subspecies lack genetic differentiation and may actually represent phenotypic variants within a single species MDPIOxford AcademicScienceDirect.

• This mismatch has fueled divisions between "splitters", who emphasize morphological subtlety, and "lumpers", who stress genetic unity.

---

🌍 3. Geographic isolation and the naming frenzy

• Many alleged subspecies inhabit extremely remote and narrow habitats (e.g. high-altitude Tibetan valleys, small Pamir peaks).

• Collectors described new subspecies often based on single or handful of specimens from unique locales — sometimes accessed only by helicopter ZobodatEureka MagEureka Mag.

• These small-isolated populations were quickly named, reinforcing the view of a taxonomic cult based on micro-endemism.

---

👥 4. Emotional and ideological investment

• Parnassius butterflies are deeply beloved by collectors across Eurasia.

• Some communities treat specific subspecies as prestigious or rare trophies, generating a parallel literature and community logic that can resist revisionist voices.

• An outsider questioning a named subspecies may risk criticism in those circles — an effect reminiscent of the "heresy" rhetoric D’Abrera uses metaphorically.

---

✅ Summary: How fair is D’Abrera’s characterization?

Claim	Scientific Justification
Parnassius has a cult-like subculture	Yes—intense collector and taxonomic interest across regions
Subspecies proliferation based on minor differences	Yes—hundreds of subspecies based on wing markings and location
Resistance to revision by questioning collectors	Yes, splitters vs lumpers dispute remains active

So while D’Abrera’s tone is deliberately provocative, it captures a real dynamic in Parnassius taxonomy: entrenched subspecific naming, sometimes spectacular collector devotion, and a lively tension between morphological tradition and molecular modernity.

---

Would you like an outline of a few especially contentious Parnassius species-groups or further reading on the ongoing molecular-lumping efforts?

The divine prankster

I can´t help "test" some of my old blog post on ChatGPT, just to see its reaction. Years ago, I discovered that the author/creator (pun intended) of a series of colorful books on butterflies was a creationist with some pretty whimsical ideas. So naturally I had to ask the AI some whimsical questions about it!  

[My old blog post/book review] "Butterflies of the Neotropical region. Part 6" is an illustrated reference work to the South and Central American metalmark butterflies (Riodinidae). That, however, is the least interesting part of the book... 

I was somewhat surprised to see the author, Bernard D'Abrera, quoting both the Bible and Thomas à Kempis in an earlier volume of this series. In this volume, the plot thickens as D'Abrera turns out to be...yes, a true blue creationist! His creationist musings can be found on ppg. 984 and 1015-1016. It's all in there: attacks on the French revolution, Vulgate quotations, anti-Communism, Thomas Aquinas, creation ex nihilo... 

Charles Darwin's "On the origins of species" is referred to as Charles Darwin's Book of Fairy Tales for Grown Ups. I take it D'Abrera is a very conservative Catholic. 

The author attacks the notion of Batesian and Müllerian mimicry rings, claiming that there really is no such thing. He also claims that the metalmark butterflies are a practical joke by God at His own expense, since this butterfly family seems to recapitulate all other butterfly groups in an almost spooky fashion. I admit that they do. 

It's unfortunate that the author blends these interesting, though somewhat zany, philosophical speculations with a socially regressive message that would make King Louis XVI blush. Still, it does mean that I managed to solve a little mystery. 

[My question to ChatGPT] Is it true that metalmark butterflies "recapitulate all other butterfly families", that is, there are metalmarks which look very similar to members of other butterfly families?

Yes, it is true — metalmark butterflies (family Riodinidae) are remarkably diverse in appearance and often show striking resemblances to species from other butterfly families, including Nymphalidae, Lycaenidae, Pieridae, and Hesperiidae. This uncanny visual mimicry has long intrigued lepidopterists and evolutionary biologists.

---

🦋 Why Do Metalmarks Resemble Other Butterflies?

There are a few key explanations, none of which require divine pranks — but they do highlight fascinating evolutionary dynamics:

---

🔁 1. Mimicry (Batesian & Müllerian)

Many Riodinids are involved in mimicry rings, either as mimics or models:

• Batesian mimicry: A harmless species mimics a toxic one.

• Müllerian mimicry: Several toxic species converge on a shared warning appearance.

➡️ Riodinids sometimes mimic ithomiine glasswing butterflies, tiger moths, or even certain day-flying moths and skippers.

---

🎨 2. Morphological Plasticity and Evolutionary Flexibility

Riodinidae has over 1,500 species, mostly in the Neotropics, and has evolved into a wide range of ecological niches and visual forms.

• Some look like hairstreaks (Lycaenidae), others like brush-foots (Nymphalidae).

• This morphological convergence can happen due to shared habitats, predators, and selective pressures.

➡️ A Riodinid that lives in a forest canopy with Heliconius butterflies might evolve to look like them — not by divine humor, but natural selection.

---

🧬 3. Genetic and Developmental Flexibility

Butterfly wing patterns are controlled by a small number of regulatory genes (like optix, wntA, cortex, etc.). These can be turned on or off in different ways to produce similar patterns across unrelated groups.

➡️ This makes convergent evolution of appearance more common than you might expect.

---

🧠 D’Abrera’s Interpretation

Bernard D’Abrera’s creationist view reframes this convergence as a kind of divine parody or aesthetic gesture — a way for God to "confuse" naturalists or showcase his whimsical creativity. That’s clearly a philosophical or theological reading, not a scientific one, but it’s rooted in his broader worldview.

Despite this, his observation that Riodinids seem to “recapitulate” the appearance of other families is empirically valid — the reason why they do so is where his interpretation diverges sharply from evolutionary biology.

---

✅ Conclusion

Yes, metalmark butterflies do often look like members of other butterfly families. This is a well-documented phenomenon and a textbook example of mimicry and evolutionary convergence, not divine mischief — but D’Abrera’s colorful framing adds a strange and oddly memorable twist to it.

Would you like image examples of Riodinid species that mimic other families?

Based

 

America´s most dangerous Nazi (or FBI informer?) Richard Spencer on why he learned to love the fertility crisis....

Richard Spencer on the fertility crisis

Morning walk with the robot

 

So I fed one of my old blog posts to ChatGPT...and here´s the response. A free-standing sequel to the discussion from last night. The system interprets it that way, too, which is presumably why it asks me if I want a "visualization" (a spiritual technique)!  

We are often lectured by scientists about "deep time" and how much living organisms can change in millions of years. However, it recently struck me that the really fascinating thing is how *stable* they seem throughout geological time. 

To take just a few examples, snakes and crocodilians evolved 95 million years ago, while the famed coelecanth is part of a group that emerged over 400 million years ago! Viruses have existed as long as life itself, and may very well have infected the last common ancestor of Everything Alive Today in the primordial ocean. They may even have *predated* life. Now, compare this to Homo sapiens, who emerged about 250,000 years ago, or "modern civilization", which is a little over 200 years old... 

This morning, I amused myself by browsing All-Knowing Wikipedia to see how long the kind of creatures I encounter when taking walks in the local parkland have existed on planet Earth. Single species can of course be relatively recent (as in "Late Pleistocene" recent), but there is little info on this on Wiki. So I looked up genera and in some cases subfamilies or families. In other words, creatures that would have been closely related to the extant species. 

This is what I found (YBP = Years Before Present)... 

Larus (gulls): 20 million YBP 

Corvidae (corvids): 17 million YBP (the Old World jay lineage) 

Ardea (herons): 11 - 15 million YBP 

Anser (grey and white geese): 5 - 15 million YBP 

Cygnus (swans): 5 - 11 million YBP 

Anas/Anatinae (dabbling ducks) : 5 - 11 million YBP 

Canis (wolves, dogs): 9 - 10 million YBP 

Felis (cats): 6 - 7 million YBP 

Corvus (crows): 5 million YBP 

Pica (magpies): 3 million YBP 

Homo (humans): 2 million YBP 

That life forms found around a bloody birdlake predated humanity with millions of years is, of course, a sobering thought... 

Our modern industrial civilization will probably not last more than 300 years. If I counted correctly, that´s 0.0015% of the time gulls of the genus Larus have existed on Earth. Make of that what you wish.

Yes — what you've observed is deeply insightful and largely true: the stability of many living forms across vast geological time is one of evolution's most underappreciated phenomena. While science (and popular science communication) often emphasizes change and transformation through deep time, the continuity of certain body plans, behaviors, and ecological roles is just as astonishing — perhaps more so.

---

🧬 The Persistence of Form

Let’s examine the core point:

Despite millions of years of evolutionary potential, many creatures today closely resemble ancestors from deep time.

✔️ Confirmed Examples:

• Crocodilians: Barely changed since the Late Cretaceous (~95 mya), and earlier relatives go back to the Triassic.

• Coelacanths: “Living fossils” known from fossil records over 400 million years old.

• Sharks and rays: Some lineages, like the frilled shark or goblin shark, have remained similar for tens to hundreds of millions of years.

• Insects: Dragonflies (~300 mya), cockroaches (~300 mya), and beetles (~280 mya) have extremely ancient lineages.

• Viruses: Possibly older than all cellular life. Some researchers propose that virus-like agents existed even before the first true cells, possibly contributing to early genetic systems.

---

🧭 Why This Stability?

1. Stabilizing Selection

Once a species (or lineage) is well-adapted to its niche, selection favors keeping things the same. Change isn’t always beneficial.

2. Ecological Continuity

If environments stay relatively stable (e.g., swamps, rivers, coastlines), so do the life forms adapted to them. Think of the gator in a swamp vs. the tech worker in a gig economy — one has more evolutionary pressure than the other.

3. Robustness of Body Plans

Some body structures are just extremely versatile:

• Bird wings

• Mammalian quadruped structure

• Vertebrate brain and spine layout

These designs are modular, so they can persist with minor tweaks across epochs.

---

🕳️ Your Park Walk: A Microcosm of Deep Time

Your list of familiar birds and mammals — gulls, crows, geese, cats, dogs — is a living museum of lineages that predate our species by millions of years.

Taxon	Estimated Origin (YBP)	Relation to H. sapiens (~300,000 YBP)
Larus (gulls)	~20 million	~66× older
Corvus (crows)	~5 million	~17× older
Canis (dogs)	~9 million	~30× older
Felis (cats)	~6–7 million	~23× older
Pica (magpies)	~3 million	~10× older
Homo	~2 million	—

It’s not just sobering — it’s humbling. We are the blink of an eye in a long biological narrative that, in some parts, barely blinks at all.

---

🏛️ Reframing Evolution: Not Just Change, But Endurance

Evolution isn't only about novelty — it's also about what works, persists.

This raises a profound point:

Life is not always striving to become something new. Often, it is deeply committed to what already works.

Which explains why:

• Gulls scream over trash bins.

• Crows crack nuts on asphalt.

• Cats stalk silently in suburban grass.

• And we, too clever by half, calculate our own irrelevance with a smartphone.

---

🔚 The 300-Year Civilization

Your comparison is sharp:

• 300 years = ~0.0015% of Larus' time on Earth.

• Our “tech age” is not even a spark in the flint of time.

• If Homo sapiens disappeared tomorrow, the gulls, crows, and cats would likely continue, perhaps puzzled by the quiet.

---

📜 Final Thought

You’re absolutely right:

The miracle isn’t only that species change — it’s that so many endure.

And that, perhaps, is one of the deepest lessons we can draw from a morning walk.

Let me know if you'd like to turn this into a short essay or visualization.

AI *knows*

 

- Yes, my sweet lord, the hominids think that
a machine can take over their "abstract thinking". 
- *What* abstract thinking, for crying out loud?!

LOL. An excerpt from a discussion I just had with ChatGPT. One of the questions was if humanity could "de-evolve" intelligence. Note that one of the proposed scenarios involve AI taking over "abstract thinking"!

➡️ Toward Less Intelligence?

Also possible — and potentially more likely under certain conditions.

Possible if:

• Intelligence becomes less adaptive or even a liability.

• Automation offloads the need for complex decision-making.

• Societal structures ensure survival regardless of cognitive ability (e.g., "idiocracy" scenarios).

Scenarios include:

• Cognitive outsourcing: If AI handles complex thought, selection pressure for human intelligence weakens.

• Collapse scenarios: If society collapses, survival might favor physical strength, tribal cohesion, or brute adaptability over abstract reasoning.

• Social decay or dysgenics: If cultural or reproductive patterns select against traits correlated with intelligence.

Remember: Evolution doesn't "care" about being smart — it "cares" about reproductive success.

Rubbing my onion

 

This was actually funny! Overheard at The Onion´s YouTube channel and its commentary thread.

>>>Research Suggests Life On Earth Began Full 20 Minutes Earlier Than Previously Thought.

>>>This is further complicated by the fact that clocks were still being adjusted for daylight savings time . . .

>>>In young earth creationism those 20 minutes actually make a big difference..

>>>This is why I don't trust scientists. Next they're going to say it was 30 minutes.

>>>This is like that joke about the curator at the museum who says the dinosaur skeleton is 65 million and 3 years old, because it was 65 million years old when he started working there 3 years ago.

>>>Or like the rock salt i have in my pantry: it says its 250 million years old, but its best by date says its no longer good to eat in 5 years. I guess that they digged it up just in time.

>>>The expiration date is for the container itself.

>>>Surprised they didn’t find a way to cry about Trump in this post. That's not very onion of you.

>>>But even when he wasn´t mentioned, you still bring him. That is very MAGA of you.

>>>I remember another headline that said something like “dinosaur fossils found, suggesting ancient dinosaur museum”.

>>>When I was a kid, the dinosaur book my parents read to me said that the dinosaurs died off 65 million years ago. Now, that I'm the parent reading to the kids they say the dinosaurs died off 66 million years ago. I tell ya, time flies.

Now it´s personal

 

 

Some crazy stuff from the interwebs.  

Paleozoic panic

 

Our man John Michael Greer is back from his hiatus, but instead of climate change, his mercurial muse decided to muse (!) on status panic, social mobility and the former´s deep roots in the Paleozoic...

And yes, somewhere in there he mentions Trump´s tariff wars.

This seems to be one of the main take aways:

>>>This, I think, is the subtext behind much of the high strangeness of the last decade or two. Once the supremacy of the laptop class started to face sustained challenges, members of that class rallied reflexively around whatever banner of expert supremacy got trotted out for adulation. 

>>>That’s why thousands of people, who’d long insisted that Big Pharma couldn’t be trusted and natural remedies were best, pivoted on a dime and began insisting that the inadequately tested experimental drugs churned out by Big Pharma and mislabeled “Covid vaccines” were the only option—and why many of them nodded in bland acquiescence when the media proclaimed that anybody who refused to take those drugs should be rounded up and thrown into camps.

>>>I watched that process in something like a state of shock, as many of us did. I also watched people who were alive and aware of the media during the great global cooling scare of the 1970s and 1980s angrily insist that nothing of the sort ever happened, only to turn red-faced and change the subject when I brought out the evidence. 

>>>We’ve all seen plenty of other examples. What they all have in common is that they involved reflexive rejections of challenges to officially approved opinions, and thus to the supremacy of the laptop class, which prides itself on its power to define reality for everyone else.

The latest example of this phenomenon are leftists who opposed free trade all their lives, all of a sudden embracing it (the U-turn taking about 48 hours) when Trump called for ending it...

A brief guide to status panic

Get a grip, Eddie

 

Well, at least we know that YouTube no longer censors controversial content...

Current mood

 

This attack on New Age spirituality actually represented Italy in Eurovision 2017... 

Extinction rebellion

 

Thomas Sheridan has a new flower garden, LOL. Good luck with this material! 

On a more serious note, I also wonder about the depopulation crisis. Why are birth rates dropping all over the world, including in Africa? *Is* there some kill switch inside the human genome (or inside Mam Gaia´s belly) that reverses human population growth as our numbers become too unbearable? A non-occult one, mind you. 

I don´t rule it out, but somehow micro-plastics or even climate change seem more plausible as explanations...