Daily Archives: March 29, 2017

Promo To many Internet users it must look as if ransomware arrived out of the blue. Pioneers such as Cryzip started circulating at very low levels in the UK as early as 2006 and yet it wasnt until 2013 that this type of malware suddenly spiked with the appearance of its first big global superstar, CryptoLocker.

CryptoLocker, and its follow-up rival CryptoWall, were an object lesson in what made ransomware potent. Delivered using simple attachment and eschewing fancy evasion techniques, the modus operandi wasted no time finding and encrypting its victims data. The social engineering was brilliant - did the user want their data back badly enough to pay a Bitcoin ransom?

At first, the targets were consumers but the genius of ransomware was that anyone could be a victim, including SMEs and even departments in larger organisations. Unfortunately, a lot of security companies were caught as unawares as their customers, stuck in a reactive model of security that made assumptions about how malware was evolving.

For ransomware makers, its been too easy. Profits have soared, reaching a total ransom figure according to FBI estimates of $1 billion in 2016. If defences have improved and awareness risen, ransomware shows no signs of slowing down as the public body count of small businesses, hospitals, libraries, police departments, hotels, and uncounted lone consumers continues to grow.

If it sounds as if the world is falling off a cliff, James Lyne, head of security research for security company Sophos, is keen to demystify the dread of ransomware. After analysing numerous samples of ransomware in his day job, he comes bearing an urgent message of hope: ransomware can be stopped as long as defenders take the time to understand the enemy.

Everyone is a potential target. It doesnt matter whether you are a large enterprise, an SME or a consumer everyone is being affected by this, explains Lyne. This universality has turned out to be a clever innovation for the criminals who no longer need to think about who they are attacking so much as how much victims value their data.

Technically, the payload is the bit of the malware that finds and encrypts the victims data. But another way to understand the payload is to see it as the psychological ratchet in which the price is increased to match the pain and inconvenience the extortion gang thinks it is inflicting.

In extortion, then, the payload is as much the mental state it engenders in victims as lines of code. The social engineering is to make paying the ransom look like the easiest way out.

Lyne mentions having conversations with businesses which have pondered whether it might not simply be easier to hold funds back to pay off ransomware attackers as if it were another transaction. Bad idea, argues Lyne.

There is the obvious moral and ethical question of whether you want to be paying money to a cybercriminal. But if you show yourself as someone who will pay, you are all the more likely to be targeted again, he warns.

He recalls the case of a company that paid to stop an attacker releasing personal information stolen from a website by exploiting an SQL flaw. Although not involving ransomware, the strategy typified the direction extortion crimes are heading.

They did a deal and the attacker came straight back, found another flaw, and repeated the attack with higher prices. Remember you are dealing with criminals and cant expect honour among thieves. Lyne also cites the growing unreliability of the payment mechanisms used by cyber criminals, either because police have shut them down or the criminals have had to abandon them to avoid detection.

There might not be any way to pay and that ransomware has inadvertently become permanent lockware. It isnt safe to say I will be able to pay to get my data back. There are instances where you wont be able to do that.

The idea that victims could be attacked twice or more in succession using the same tactic seems counter-intuitive until you grasp the trick of all social engineering is to impose a degree of control in the minds of its victims. When criminals write the rules of the game, it is the captive who must adjust their understanding of reality. So where should companies and individuals look for salvation?

Before even mentioning anti-ransomware technologies, Lyne reels off a list of simple protections that should form the first defensive layer. These range from obvious suggestions such as comprehensive backup routines and more rapid software patching (patch early, patch often) to more careful network segmentation (keeping servers and workstations apart), and limiting overly-permissive user rights to network drives. Some admins block executables in attachments but forget to do the same for document macros, he says.

The best tweaks are often the simplest and cheapest: install Microsoft Office viewers so that recipients can see what documents look like before opening them and always enable file extensions so that recipients have visual information on an attachment. Microsoft has made specific, more granular controls available for Macros, which are one of the prime ways ransomware gangs get their malware deployed within well-constructed office documents.

Always set JavaScript (.JS) files to open by default in Notepad and make sure Office 2016s protected view is set up to automatically stop Office macros running when documents are received from the Internet.

But dedicated anti-ransomware protections also have their place even if working out which one is often not straightforward. Some traditional anti-virus vendors were caught out by ransomwares sudden rise from obscurity, which caused blocking rates to drop.

Customers started asking themselves whether their expensive licenses were worth the annual retainers. Although protection has improved a lot in the last three years, confusion still reigns. With numerous fancy technologies hyped up to stop ransomware, which ones are worth investing in?

It is hard to see through the mass of marketing and conflicting advice. Figuring out which technology is effective isnt that easy, accepts Lyne. The first thing Id do is ask my security vendor what they do in this area.

For business customers, Sophoss response to tricky threats such as ransomware is Intercept X, a modular endpoint security product launched in late 2016 that integrates multiple protections and boosts the ransomware protection already available in its existing endpoint products.

Intercept X includes exploit prevention (watching for the techniques that indicate ransomware such as opening lots of files), the detection of zero-day attacks and the sort of forensic analysis that can strip a malware event back to its source.

If ransomware manages to execute and start encrypting files, Intercept Xs CryptoGuard protection immediately engages its remediation. It keeps state of what has happened to files and has the ability to roll back, enabling you to undo any damage, Lyne says.

This underlines the way tackling ransomware has become as much about response as simple detection and blocking. Having an automated system on hand to help with this is a major advantage.

And the future? With the recent growth of targeted ransomware, ransomware-as-a-service, and the mass encryption of poorly-secured MongoDB databases, it doesnt seem over-anxious to worry about where ransomware might be heading.

We havent launched into the world of super-targeted ransomware yet. But we are dancing on the edge of it, concedes Lyne, who remains surprisingly optimistic. Defenders simply need to overcome their fear and adapt.

The majority of campaigns that we see are still opportunistic, says Lyne, who downplays the issue of sophistication. For sure, ransomware is improving but what will make the difference in the end is how rapidly defenders adapt to stop it.

Technology will only take defenders so far - in the end it is the mental battle that will sort those who will resist ransomware from those who will succumb.

Read the rest here:

The evolution of ransomware: How a nuisance turned into a business menace - The Register

Michelangelo, Creation of Adam (detail), Sistine Chapel Ceiling (1508-1512)

Blogs | Mar. 28, 2017

Biological evolution will never fully account for humanity because we are persons, made in the image and likeness of God. It is not unreasonable to assume humanity began with a miracle.

Tell a Catholic kid about evolutionthat there was a Big Bang and that in this expanding cosmos our sun is a star in a cluster of 200 billion stars in the arm of a spiral in a galaxy among thousands, and that eventually on our planet there appeared early life forms, single-celled bacteria, trilobites, mollusks, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, primates, and that from a common ape-like ancestor the Homo genus emerged, including Homo rudolfensis, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo floresiensis, Homo neanderthalensis, and last, Homo sapiens, or wise man, the hominin species that is modern human. The very next question that kid will ask is, So where do Adam and Eve fit in? (Ask me how I know!) It is a logical question.

Adults have varied reactions. Atheists tend to guffaw at the mention of those names in the same sentence as evolution. Fundamentalists propugn their version of dogma as if they are the sole authorities, disregarding science and any Magisterial documents they deem unacceptable. I remember feeling frustrated because I just wanted to know how to sort the question out without being ridiculed, scolded, or accused of heresy. Fortunately, this is not an either/or question. We do not have to pick between atheistic evolution and Young Earth Creationism. The Church does not teach those extremes at all.

The first thing to get straight is this: We do not know the exact biological details of Adam and Eve, and we never will. Once you understand that, it is easier to navigate the rest. An analogy is useful here.

Like Sand on a Beach

Suppose someone asks where two grains of sand fit into the history of a beach not just any two grains, but the first two grains that ever existed on that beach. How do you answer such a question? Do you go get a John Deere excavator and start digging? Hopefully not, because there is no conceivable way a 1-cubic meter bucket could find two lone millimeter-sized particles of silica. Your response might be, Hold it! Beaches do not form one grain of sand at a time! And you would be correct. The erosion of rocks over time produces the sand which forms a beach as waves deposit sediment on the shore. Asking a scientific question about how to find the first two grains of sand on a beach is nonsense.

However, the lack of a scientific explanation does not rule out a miracle. God could have created two first grains in a space that would become a beach. The atoms and subatomic particles could even disperse over time. Science, and all its tools, could not find them though because (1) the scientific explanation for beach formation does not involve miracles, and (2) scientific methods cannot decipher the past successive production of individual sand particles.

Just like a beach, evolution occurs in events that can be described at the individual level but not determined as they happened historically. Generation by generation, parents begat offspring, offspring became parents who beget offspring, genetically alike yet genetically unique, and so on. Even so, we cannot know all the historical scientific details. There is a limit to the ability of evolutionary tools to resolve past successive events. Evolution is understood in terms of populations of thousands of organisms giving rise to new species over geological time. No evolutionary model implies a first pair of human individuals because no evolutionary model would. Why? There is no known species that arose by the sudden appearance of the first two parents.

Furthermore, even if the remains of the first man were foundimagine, for instance, Adams jawboneno radiometric dating, genetic dating, nor any other analytical system could ascertain that the fossil came from the first man. Dating techniques rely on comparison. When a new specimen is found, it is compared to other samples that have been dated. Scientists have no way to know if the oldest generation found is the oldest generation ever to be found. The genetic molecular clock uses the rate at which molecular changes accumulate in successive generations to estimate evolutionary timing. These results, too, must be calibrated with the fossil record, and radiometric dating methods can only be resolved to geological timescales of thousands or millions of years for remote pasts. Hence, asking a scientific question about how to find the first parents of the human race is (like looking for grains of sand) nonsense.

A Remarkable Fact and a Unique Finding

Note however, Homo sapiens eventually spread throughout the planet and is the only surviving hominin species. That is a fact, and it is stunning when you stop and think about it. Humans filled the earth.

If we follow generations back far enough, conceptually we come to the most recent common ancestor an individual who is a progenitor of all present-day people. Genealogical computation models suggest this ancestor lived around a few thousand years ago (Rohde, et. al., Nature, 2004). If we continue further back, we come to the first human population, thought to have lived some 50,000 to 200,000 years ago (Noonan, Genome Research, 2010).

A worldwide survey of human mitochondrial DNA using genetic molecular clocks has shown that all mitochondrial DNAs stem from one woman, known as Mitochondrial Eve, who lived about 200,000 years ago in Africa (Cann, et. al., Nature, 1987). Similar genetic studies suggest a Y-chromosome Adam lived roughly the same time (Francalacci, Science, 2013). These results do not conclude that there was only one woman or man living in the same place. They absolutely do not point to a monogenetic pair of parents. They only suggest that there may have been a genetic bottleneck, i.e. a time when a relatively small population of around 10,000 early humans lived. Rather than pointing to this conclusion as evidence against the existence of two first parents, I would rather say that this finding is consistent with a unique emergence of human beings. However, I am quick to add that such studies are provisional and ongoing, intended to calibrate and increase the resolution of the human phylogenetic tree. They neither prove nor disprove what we profess in faith.

The Limits of Knowledge

What lies between a population of 10,000 and 2 some 200,000 years ago? It is hidden to us. Some people opine that Adam and Eve did not literally live, that they represent a real story but not a literal one. Some people quote Humani Generis (37) on polygenism and leave it at that, but the document does not answer the question about how to figure Adam and Eve in the context of evolution. The encyclical was written in 1950 before genetics was understood. Pope Pius XIIs statement that it was in no way apparent how to reconcile evolution with divine revelation left a crack in a door that remains to be addressed. Will it someday be apparent?

Meanwhile, reason does not compel us to claim that Adam and Eve were figurative. I accept, and teach my children, that Adam and Eve really lived, and I teach them about the fall from grace and original sin. As I hope I have sufficiently explained in this essay, if Adam and Eve began to liveliterallyas a grown man and woman through a miraculous act of God, science can only shrug and keep on digging. Evolutionary biology has no say here. Do not mistake this for a God of the Gaps argument, but rather take it as honesty that our knowledge has limits. If we cannot rule them out, then we should not.

What We Know

What are we sure of? We can say that God created our first parents, as He did all creatures, and that they were highlycomplex organisms. That description applies whether Adam and Eve began as zygotes with human souls growing in maternal bodies or as naked adults in a garden. As we know, biological evolution will never fully account for humanity because we are persons, corporeal body and rational soul, made in the image and likeness of God. It is not unreasonable to assume humanity began with a miracle. And if this biological mystery of life from inanimate matter and remote human origins from a common ape-like ancestor troubles you, then consider something nearer. Biology tells us that sperm and egg fusion is the beginning of life, but none of us know down to the subatomic event on a femtosecond timescale what exactly happened as our electrons swirled when we began to live. And we never will. At its most precise resolution, all our lives begin mysteriously.

Using reason and revelation, Catholics can both roll up their sleeves to explore what evolutionary science discovers about human origins and, simultaneously, believe that Adam and Eve existed. Besides, we are forward-looking people of faith, hope, and love. Until we have our answers, we can be assured of a truth St. Paul wrote to the Corinthians, Now I know in part; but then I shall know even as I am known. I can live with that.

See original here:

How Do Adam and Eve Fit With Evolution? - National Catholic Register (blog)

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

When you think of someone with autism, what do you think of? It might be someone with a special set of talents or unique skillssuch as natural artistic ability or a remarkable memory. It could also be someone with enhanced abilities in engineering or mathematics, or an increased focus on detail.

This is because despite all the negative stories of an epidemic of autism most of us recognize that people with autism spectrum conditions bring a whole range of valued skills and talentsboth technical and socialto the workplace and beyond.

Research has also shown that a high number of people not diagnosed with autism have autistic traits. So although many of these people have not been officially diagnosed, they might be were they to go for autism-related tests. These people were unaware they have these traits, dont complain of any unhappiness, and tend to feel that many of their particular traits are often an advantage.

This is what we mean when we talk about the autism spectrumwe are all a bit autisticand we all fit somewhere along a spectrum of traits.

And we know through genetic research that autism and autistic traits have been part of what makes us human for a long time.

Research has shown that some key autism genes are part of a shared ape heritage, which predates the split that led us along a human path. This was when our ancient ape ancestors separated from other apes that are alive today. Other autism genes are more recent in evolutionary termsthough they are still more than 100,000-years-old.

Research has also shown that autism for the most part is highly hereditary. Though a third of the cases of autism can be put down to the random appearance of genetic mistakes or spontaneously occurring mutations, high rates of autism are generally found in certain families. And for many of these families this dash of autism can bring some advantages.

All of this suggests that autism is with us for a reason. And as our recent book and journal paper show, ancestors with autism played an important role in their social groups through human evolution because of their unique skills and talents.

Going back thousands of years, people who displayed autistic traits would not only have been accepted by their societies, but could have been highly respected.

Many people with autism have exceptional memory skills, heightened perception in realms of vision, taste and smell and in some contexts, an enhanced understanding of natural systems such as animal behavior. And the incorporation of some of these skills into a community would have played a vital role in the development of specialists. It is very likely these specialists would then have become vitally important for the survival of the group.

One anthropological study of reindeer herders said:

The extraordinary old grandfather had a detailed knowledge of the parentage, medical history and moods of each one of the 2,600 animals in the herd.

He was more comfortable in the company of reindeer than of humans, and always pitched his tent some way from everyone else and cooked for himself. His son worked in the herd and had been joined for the summer by his own teenage sons, Zhenya and young Sergei.

Further evidence can be found in traits shared between some cave art and talented autistic artistssuch as those paintings found in the Chauvet Cave, in southern France. This contains some of the best preserved figurative cave paintings in the world.

The paintings show exceptional realism, remarkable memory skills, strong attention to detail, along with a focus on parts rather than wholes.

These autistic traits can also be found in talented artists who dont have autism but they are much more common in talented autistic artists.

But unfortunately despite the potential evidence, archaeology and narratives about human origins have been slow to catch up. Diversity has never been a part of our reconstructions of human origins. It has taken researchers a long time to move beyond the image of a man evolving from an ape-like form that we so typically associate with evolution.

It is only relatively recently that women have been recognized as playing a key role in our evolutionary past before this evolution narratives tended to focus on the role of men. So its no wonder that including autismsomething which is still seen as a disorder by someis considered to be controversial.

And this is undoubtedly why arguments about the inclusion of autism and the way it must have influenced such art have been ridiculed.

But given what we know, it is clearly time for a reappraisal of what autism has brought to human origins. Michael Fitzgerald, the first professor of child and adolescent psychiatry in Ireland to specialise in autism spectrum disorder, boldly claimed in an interview in 2006 that:

All human evolution was driven by slightly autistic Aspergers and autistic people. The human race would still be sitting around in caves chattering to each other if it were not for them.

And while I wouldnt go that far, I have to agree that without that dash of autism in our human communities, we probably wouldnt be where we are today.

Penny Spikinsis a senior lecturer in the archaeology of human origins at theUniversity of York.

Visit link:

How Autism Influenced Human Evolution - Newsweek

Cotton Hill LP school art work.

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: Next time when you take your children to Cotton Hill Road be prepared to answer questions on dinosaurs and mammoths depicted on the compound wall of Cotton Hill LP school.

Drawings of atoms, animals and a little girl holding earth on a blue background have already been subjected to intense scrutiny by children. Parents will have to brush up their knowledge of Charles Darwins theory of evolution in order to sail through the sea of questions. But may be that wont be enough and there is a reason why.

The typical depiction of the Theory of Evolution shows the linear transition of a monkey to man. The drawings have all these elements but not in the order. One has to spend some time looking at the drawing and connect with the artists idea of evolution explained through various forms. The forms start from a simple round atom to more complicated ones including humans. The right side of the wall shows sea and land with simple organisms. The left side has more developed animals, civilisation and the message of conservation. It is an artists version of evolution, says Suvarna P, an award winning artist who created the concept and design.

She along with her husband Bijoy Balachandran and six other artists- Sabitha K, Akhil V, Ananda Krishna, Ananthu Krishnan, Jikky Christopher, Abhilash M - created the art work titled Kalachuvadukal with the funding from Department of Forest. The drawings are made in such a way so that children are able to connect it with many things. They can form different stories as per their interpretation, says Bijoy who runs Blueberries Animation in the city. The couples daughter Chandrabala studies in the LP school in third standard.

Suvarna won two state awards in 2007 and 2014. She is currently completing her Master of Fine Arts from Government Arts College here. The artist couple along with 100 students from the school had painted pictures on the walls of three classrooms last November. Forest Minister K Raju inaugurated the project on Tuesday.

School headmistress Celine M, who spearheaded the project, urged the minister to sanction funds to paint the walls of all the classrooms in the school with art works. The project has many stories to tell, not just to us but to the future generation as well, says the headmistress.

Read the original:

Theory of evolution in new avatar - The New Indian Express

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

IndyCar released a new computer-generated look at the 2018 car.(Photo: Image provided by IndyCar)

INDIANAPOLIS -- Out with the old and in with the old. That's the idea behind IndyCar's next evolution of race car, whichborrows upon design elements of bygone eras to create a new retro chic look.

IndyCar released Wednesday the latest images of its new car with a uniform body kitthatwill debut in the Verizon IndyCar Series in 2018.

While this remains a work in progress, we are encouraged with where the development of the 2018 car stands,IndyCarpresident of competition and operations Jay Frye saidin a news release.The look of the car is bold, the performance data from simulations is meeting targeted goals and safety enhancements built into the design will be substantial.

Frye said IndyCar still plans to begin testing the car by mid-summer. He also said that teams will be able to choose between Chevrolet and Honda engines next season, but all of the cars will have the same universal kits. The supplier of the universal kit has yet to be announced.

The initial concepts, which outline the bodywork that will cover the Dallara IR-12 chassis,were revealed in January at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit. The biggestchange will be that the new car's downforce will originate from the undercarriageinstead of from wings on top, many of which will disappear. This change is designed not only to make the car look sleeker and sexier but also to produce more passing, as drivers will not deal with as much turbulence when closing in on opponents.

An artist's sketches of the 2018 aerokit concepts for IndyCar.(Photo: George Sipple, DFP)

Weve been working on the aerodynamics to suit the look, rather than the other way around, said Tino Belli, IndyCar director of aerodynamic development, in the release.

Were working on creating more of the downforce from the underwing, Belli said. The hole in the floor (of the undertray on this years car) will be sealed for the road courses and short ovals, but will still be open for the superspeedways.

Drivers seem to like the new changes.

Definitely some throwbacks to the old Indy cars and Champ cars of old," James Hinchcliffe said in February."I think its the right direction aesthetically certainly. But the most important things are the performances goals, and if we hit that, then the quality of the racing will be tremendous, as it has been, but we can make it better, and thats what the goal is for the new car."

Graham Rahal added: "I think the new car -- you know, I haven't seen the finished product by any means, but I think it looks pretty awesome,"Rahal said. "I'm excited about it. For me, it's more like what I feel an IndyCar should look like."

See the original post here:

IndyCar reveals new images in next evolution of race car - Indianapolis Star

Reef Top, Great Barrier Reef, Australia Photograph: Daniela Dirscherl/Getty Images/WaterFrame RM

Science and storytelling dont seem like obvious bedfellows but recently theres been a serious vein of science communication research that suggests a strong narrative can help with dissemination, understanding by nonexperts and number one for most publishing scientists, citations.

Of course, sciencing the art of storytelling, with narrativity indices and reader appeal charts does sound typically soul-suckingly dry, but it is at the heart of the science communication movement and many of the Lost Worlds Revisited blogs are retellings of decades of palaeontological research into narratives with a beginning, middle and end.

Tentative justification preamble out of the way, heres a classic fairytale retold as the story of hexacorallian evolution*. Oh it was also National Tell A Fairy Tale Day last month, which I am sure we all celebrated. Now, I hope you are sitting comfortably.

Once upon a time, possibly in the Precambrian there was an ancestral hexacorallian mother who had three little orders** of corals and not enough food to feed them. So when they evolved into distinct orders, she sent them out into the world to seek their fortunes.

The first little order of corals, order Tabulata, appearing in the early Ordovician was very lazy. He lacked distinctive characteristics which created taxonomic problems for palaeontologists and didnt want to work at all and he built his corallites from feeble septa without axial structure. The second little order, order Rugosa, who appeared later in the Ordovician worked a little bit harder but he was somewhat lazy too and he built his corallites out of serial septa with some axial structure. Then, they sang and danced and diversified together the rest of the day.

The third little order, the Scleractinia, which appeared sometime during the Palaeozoic worked hard all day and built his skeleton with lightweight but rigidly supporting cyclic septa. It was a sturdy bauplan complete with a wide diversity of forms and aragonitic skeletons.

In the Late Devonian, dynamic global climate systems happened to pass by the lane where the three little coral orders lived; and he saw the weakly developed septa of tabulate corals, and he smelled the coral inside. He thought the corals would make a mighty fine meal and his mouth began to water.

So he knocked on the door and said:

Little coral! Little coral!

Let me in! Let me in!

But the little coral saw the dynamic global climate systems through the keyhole, so he answered back:

No! No! No!

Not by the mural pores on my modular corallites!

Then the dynamic global climate systems showed his teeth and said:

Then Ill huff

and Ill puff

and through a complex series of climate changes including glaciation caused by the greening of the land, a possible bollide collision and magmatism activity, Ill blow your house down.

So he huffed and he puffed and he blew the house down! Dynamic global climate systems opened his jaws very wide and bit down as hard as he could, but tabulate corals escaped and ran away to hide with the rugose corals.

Dynamic global climate systems continued down the lane and at the end of the Permian he passed by the rugose coralllites with serial septa and with the tabulate feeble septa of the tabulate corals; and he smelled the corals inside, and his mouth began to water as he thought about the fine dinner they would make.

So he knocked on the door and said:

Little corals! Little corals!

Let me in! Let me in!

But the little pigs saw the dynamic global climate systems through the keyhole, so they answered back:

No! No! No!

Not by the dividing walls of my massive coralla!

Answered the rugose corals.

So the dynamic global climate systems showed his teeth and said:

Then Ill huff

and Ill puff

and Ill cause the most severe mass extinction event that has ever been known, causing the extinction of several major groups of terrestrial and marine organisms and at the same time Ill blow your house down.

So he huffed and he puffed and he blew the house down! Dynamic global climate systems destroyed over 90% of all marine organisms including trilobites, eurypterids, acanthodian fish and blastoid echinoderms. Rugose and tabulate corals also went extinct.

Dynamic global climate systems then merrily skipped down the lane arriving at the robust scleractinian corals at the end of the Cretaceous. The scleractinian corals were very frightened, they knew the dynamic global climate systems wanted to eat them. And that was very, very true. Dynamic global climate systems hadnt eaten all day and he had worked up a large appetite causing mass extinctions and the like and now he could smell the last of the corals inside and he knew that the coral would make a lovely meal.

So the wolf knocked on the door and said:

Little coral! Little coral!

Let me in! Let me in!

But the scleractinian saw the dynamic global climate systems through the keyhole, so they answered back:

No! No! No!

Not by the symbiotic dinoflagellates in our cells!

So the dynamic global climate systems showed his teeth and said:

Then Ill huff

and Ill puff

and Ill bring down an asteroid or two as well as mess around with the Deccan traps and cause eustatic changes which will also, I hope, blow your house down.

So he huffed and he puffed. He puffed and he huffed. And he huffed, huffed, and he puffed, puffed; he destroyed the non-avian dinosaurs, the pterosaurs, the ammonoids and belemnoids, the polyglyphanodontians, the mosasaurs and plesiosaurs and although he destroyed roughly 60% of the scleractinian corals he just could not blow the house down. At last, he was so out of breath that he couldnt huff and he couldnt puff or breathe anymore so he had a bit of a lay down.

The damaged scleractinian corals emerged, repaired their house and went on to diverge into the stony corals we know and love today and they lived happily ever after. Well until anthropogenic impacts started to cause widespread bleaching events but thats a story for another time.

THE END

*Yes, yes I know that perhaps storytelling in science wasnt supposed to be taken quite so literally but its corals were talking about here they need all the narrative index help they can get.

** She had other children who also got into escapades but those are stories for another time.

References

Dahlstrom, M. D. 2014. Using narratives and stroytelling to communicate science with nonexpert audiences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. v.111 Supplement 4. Weblink here.

Scrutton, C. T. 1997. The Palaeozoic corals, I: origins and relationships. Proceedings of the Yorkshire Geological Society, v. 51:177-208. Weblink here.

The rest is here:

Are you sitting comfortably? Then we'll begin the evolutionary 'fairytale' of coral - The Guardian

A paper in Nature, A new hypothesis of dinosaur relationships and early dinosaur evolution, presents fresh ideas about dinosaur relationships that reveal the extent to which dinosaur traits are not distributed in a treelike pattern. One news article calls this a radical shakeup of the dinosaur family tree because it would overturn a century of evolutionary thinking about dinosaurs:

The analysis, which has already sparked controversy in the academic world, suggests that the two basic groups into which dinosaurs have been classified for more than a century need a fundamental rethink. If proved correct, the revised version of the family tree would overthrow some of the most basic assumptions about this chapter of evolutionary history, including what the common ancestor of all dinosaurs looked like and where it came from.

The basic issue is this: For the past hundred years, dinosaurs were classified into two primary groupings. Dinosaurs within Ornithischia, which have hips like a bird, and dinosuars within Saurischia, with hips like a lizard. Before you read any further, dont presume that these old divisions foreshadow the now-popular theory that birds evolved from dinosaurs: the theropod dinosaurs, the group from which birds supposedly evolved, belong to the lizard-hipped Saurischia and are not bird-hipped! This obviously bothered some proponents of the bird-to-dino hypothesis.

The new scheme aims to fix this annoying problem. Under the new classification, theropods are now grouped with dinos that used to be within the bird-hipped Ornithischia, such as Stegosaurus and Triceratops. This new designation, Ornithoscelida, is supposed to create a fundamental group of dinosaurs that is less hostile to the dino-to-bird theory.

The grouping of course pleases longtime dino-to-bird advocates like Kevin Padian, president of the National Center for Science Education. He defends the classification in a News & Views article in Nature, stating that their results cannot be dismissed as simply a different opinion or speculation.

Indeed, The Guardian reports that people are already using this new classification scheme to imagine feathered dinosaurs where they dont exist on totally non-feathered types of dinosaurs like Stegosaurus and Triceratops! Consider these comments by the studys lead author, Cambridge University graduate student Matthew Baron:

The findings also support the possibility that dinosaurs such as Stegosaurus and Triceratops, traditionally portrayed as tank-like armoured beasts, may have been feathered.

[]

Maybe we did have fluffy Triceratops and fluffy Stegosaurus, said Baron. It could be that the feathers would have been poking out between the scales, it could have been a beautiful fluffy colourful plumage or scales covered in downy feathers. Its possible.

Such unwarranted speculation hints at what agendas may truly be driving this new classification scheme.

In any case, the official reason for the new view of dinosaurs is that it better explains the distribution of traits among various dinosaur species. For example, the technical paper explains that the old Ornithischia/Saurischia division required convergent evolution to clarify the hand anatomy of early dinosaurs a problem the authors claim to solve:

Recent studies have led to a general consensus that the earliest dinosaurs were relatively small and bipedal, and this idea finds further support within our hypothesis, as both basal sauropodomorphs and basal ornithoscelidans are small bipeds. Manus anatomy in many early dinosaurs also appears to be very similar, with supinated, non-weight-bearing, grasping hands appearing in basal saurischians such as Herrerasaurus and basal ornithoscelidans such as Heterodontosaurus and Eoraptor. As pointed out in several previous studies, these similarities were often considered to represent convergences given the supposedly distant relationship between taxa such as Heterodontosaurus and Herrerasaurus. Within our new framework, the supinated, grasping hands seen in some early taxa are interpreted as the primitive dinosaurian condition.

But solving one problem sometimescreates another, and it does so here. By reorganizing major parts of the dinosaur tree, evolutionary paleontologists are now confronted with the prospect of rampant convergent evolution among traits found in various carnivorous dinosaurs as required by their new phylogeny. The technical paper in Nature explains these difficulties:

This new tree topology requires redefinition and rediagnosis of Dinosauria and the subsidiary dinosaurian clades. In addition, it forces re-evaluations of early dinosaur cladogenesis and character evolution, suggests that hypercarnivory was acquired independently in herrerasaurids and theropods, and offers an explanation for many of the anatomical features previously regarded as notable convergences between theropods and early ornithischians. Herrerasauridae is recovered as the sister clade to Sauropodomorpha, suggesting that some of the theropod-like features of their anatomy have evolved independently of those found in theropods. This is most likely a direct result of their fully carnivorous feeding strategy; in our hypothesis a fully carnivorous feeding strategy is not recovered as the plesiomorphic condition for Dinosauria and we are forced to interpret some of the anatomical similarities between herrerasaurids and theropods as convergences. The convergent evolution of hypercarnivore morphology within Dinosauria raises interesting questions about the drivers of early dinosaur evolution. For example, did a dentition composed exclusively of sharp, recurved and serrated teeth, such as those that are present in representatives from both of these clades, evolve independently of each other? The earliest representatives of each of the major dinosaur clades often possess at least some recurved, serrated teeth, most commonly as part of a heterodont dentition. However, no known members of Sauropodomorpha or Ornithischia exhibit dentitions that are exclusively composed of recurved, serrated teeth, nor does the early theropod Eoraptor. Hence, it seems probable, within our new framework, that at least some of the recurved, serrated teeth that make up the dentition of derived theropods and herrerasaurids have convergently adopted this morphology. Furthermore, the rostral extension of the dentary tooth row appears also to be convergent between theropods and herrerasaurids; in members of both clades, the dentary tooth row extends to the rostral tip of the dentary.

And then of course there is the fact that lizard-hipped dinosaurs are now separated into two different groups. Presumably that also would require convergent evolution.

Convergent evolution is a problem for Darwinian evolution because it means that biological similarity does not necessarily result from inheritance from a common ancestor. This undermines the basic logic used to construct phylogenetic trees, and casts into doubt the entire project of tree-construction.

The reality is that no matter what classification scheme you use, a dinosaur tree is going to require convergent evolution. This is because key dinosaur traits are not distributed in a tree-like manner.

Because of the convergent evolution it requires, the new hypothesis has already proven controversial. As Nature Newsreports:

Hans-Dieter Sues, a vertebrate palaeontologist at the Smithsonian Institutions National Museum of Natural History in Washington DC, says the study should stoke discussion. But I caution against totally reorganizing the dinosaur family tree just yet, he says. For one thing, palaeontologists analyses of relations among species are keenly sensitive to which species are considered, as well as which and how many anatomical features are included, he says.

The discovery of new dinosaur species or more complete specimens of those already known might also drive future analyses back toward more currently accepted arrangements of dinosaur lineages, Sues says.

Whats fascinating is that this whole kerfuffle was started by the discovery of a new species of dinosaur named Saltopus elginensis. But when you consider the poor quality of this fossil, it casts more doubt on the proposal, as The Guardian, again, explains:

Langer argues that, while Saltopus might be statistically a good candidate for a common ancestor, given the patchy nature of the fossil it is a poor choice. Rather than attempting to identify the true ancestor of all dinosaurs which can never be known scientists aim is to find an animal that is a decent approximation of the general form and traits displayed by that ancestor we know must have existed.

The fossil, found in a Lossiemouth quarry, comprises a pair of legs, some hip bones, and vertebrae, all of which have been badly squashed.

It looks like a chicken carcass after a Sunday roast, Baron acknowledges.

The Guardian finds scientists who are skeptical of the new proposal:

As anticipated, the conclusions have been met with robust criticism from some rival scientists, including Max Langer, a respected palaeontologist at the University of So Paulo in Brazil.

Theres nothing special about this guy, he said. Saltopus is the right place in terms of evolution but you have much better fossils that would be better candidates for such a dinosaur precursor.

[]

Vinther, whose background is in mollusc research, said that unlike most dinosaur scientists he was not invested in any particular result, but added: Ive heard a bit of murmuring already from people who are not too thrilled about this hypothesis.

Given the controversy thats already brewing, it seems likely that over time critics will adduce further reasons to doubt this new dinosaur classification scheme.

Photo: Triceratops,Houston Museum of Natural Science, by Agsftw (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0], via Wikimedia Commons.

Continue reading here:

Dinosaur Phylogeny Gets a Radical Shakeup, Requiring Convergent Evolution - Discovery Institute

A western lowland gorilla. According to the study, primates that eat fruit have about 25% more brain tissue than leaf-eaters of the same body weight. Photograph: Fiona Rogers/Getty Images

Foraging for fruit may have driven the evolution of large brains in primates, according to research attempting to unpick the mystery of our cerebral heftiness.

The finding appears to be a blow to a long-held theory that humans and other primates evolved big brains largely as a result of social pressures, with extra brain power needed to navigate and engage in complex social interactions. Instead the researchers say it supports the view that the evolution of larger brains is driven by diet.

All of these things are co-evolving: brains are getting bigger, sociality is becoming more complex, diet quality is becoming better, but it is maybe a shift in that focus on what might have been relatively more important, or more consistent throughout [primate] evolution, said Alex DeCasien, co-author of the research from New York University.

Writing in the journal Nature Ecology & Evolution, DeCasien and colleagues describe how they analysed the differences in brain size between more than 140 non-human primate species to unpick whether larger brains were linked to diet or to social factors. These factors included group size, mating habits and social system for example, whether a species was solitary or lived in a system where males are surrounded by a harem of females.

After taking into account factors such as body size and the position of species on the evolutionary tree, the team found no evidence that greater sociality is linked to bigger brain size.

Instead, they found that big brains appear to be linked to diet. According to the study, primates that eat fruit have about 25% more brain tissue than leaf-eaters of the same body weight. Omnivores were also found to have larger brains than leaf-eaters, although there was no difference when compared to fruit eaters.

DeCasien says the results support the idea that fruit-eating provides more energy than leaf-eating, aiding brain growth. [Fruit] is higher quality, it is more nutrient dense, it requires less digesting time, than the leaves, she said.

At the same time, DeCasien adds, foraging for fruit could be a driver for large brains since finding fruit in a forest, logging its location, knowing how to get into the fruit, and remembering when it is likely to be ripe, all take brain power. That is much more demanding than eating leaves which are relatively abundant all around you, said DeCasien. That might allow, afterwards, then an increase in how complex your social interactions are.

While the study looked only at non-human primates, experts believe that its findings could shed light on why our own species is endowed with a large brain.

[We are the only primate that] is able to get lots of calories from meat really easily from cooking it and making it more digestible, said Chris Venditti, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Reading who was not involved in the research. So if diet is really that important it could be that that was important in our own brain evolution that transition to being able to process food and eat meat and take on even more energy which gives us even more opportunity to grow larger brains.

But, Venditti warns, the latest study has its drawbacks, not least that measures of group size might not reflect the degree to which individuals interact with each other, and that the team only looked at the overall relative brain size of different species, rather than the size of the neocortex the area primarily involved in complex cognitive processes such as perception, reasoning and thought.

Different brain regions can evolve independently of each other, said Venditti. If you look at the specific brain region involved in cognition itself it might be that there could be a relationship between [group size and brain size].

Robin Dunbar, professor of evolutionary psychology at the University of Oxford agrees, pointing out that neuroimaging studies have shown a link between the size of components of the neocortex and group size in humans and monkeys.

Whats more, he says, it is a mistake to assume that social group size and diet are two alternative explanations for the evolution of big brains, pointing out that one is a cause and the other a constraint.

You cannot evolve a large brain to handle anything, social or otherwise, unless you change your diet to allow greater nutrient acquisition so as to grow a larger brain, he said. But that is not an explanation for why large brains evolved.

See the article here:

Fruit foraging in primates may be key to large brain evolution - The Guardian