Paleo artists often "shrink wrap" fossilized animal depictions
The T-Rex, Utahraptor, Triceratops—popular depictions of each of these animals shows skin so close to bone that it might be unrealistic
So let's shrink-wrap existing animals🧵
Can you guess what this is?
Preemptive note: All of this artwork is from C.M. Koseman, whose book (which is way more extensive than this thread) and some other material is linked at the end of the thread.
The last animal was a rhinoceros—the thing with the cooling heat sail!
Any idea what this animal is?
That last one might seem to be a dog, but it's actually a horse.
It's not so clear what this graceful beast might be.
The last picture was of a cow.
What about this monster? Its jaws can crush a steel car.
That metal-breaker was a hippopotamus.
This pack-hunting animal has a killer stare and wields a set of five switchblade claws on its forefeet. What might it be?
That was the house cat.
This one's a bit more mysterious, and clearly adapted to be a stealthy predator, right?
If you guessed that was a spider monkey, kudos to you. Future paleontologists might consider it an arboreal variation on humans, its cursorial relatives.
What of this one? It's not clear to future paleontologists if it's quadrupedal or bipedal.
That's the toad, which paleontologists might consider to be a long-legged forest ambler.
Any idea what this one is? Without preserved feathers, guessing might be hard!
If you guessed "Vulture", you're correct. But you probably didn't guess that!
You almost certainly won't guess this one.
That was a species of casque-headed hornbill, and paleontologists might suspect they use the casque for mating rituals. But we don't even know what they do with them in many cases today!
How's about this twofer? Note predator and prey:
If you guessed the "Swan" and the "Tadpole" (mistakenly believed to be a form of fish), then you were right.
What about this cute little predator?
That was an iguana, and due to fur being found on other small vertebrates like rats, it's assumed to have fur too.
Who's this courser?
That was a rabbit, but we wouldn't know it because posture is poorly preserved in fossils!
Now this one is simultaneously reassuring and disheartening. What might it be?
That's a python, and it might be assumed to have feet to support its body, much like the lizards its skeleton resembles. After all, we only have fragmentary remains!
Who's this guy?
That's a manatee. Remember, habitats change. A sea creature might be found in what's now a forested mountain. We might also only have remains like skulls.
This guy has a balloon-like facial sac. What might he be?
That's a bull elephant, and because no other animals have long, muscular appendages, he ends up with a face sac instead of his well-known trunk.
Time to dive underwater.
This one might seem to be a dolphin, but think outside the box.
It's a sperm whale, incorrectly believed to be a hunter of large pray. You know, like sharks.
What's this kelp forest stalker?
Why that's a bowhead whale of course! And as we know from its skeleton's extensible jaws, it must prey on animals as large as itself!
Going back to the land, who are we looking at now?
Because of its complicated nasal sinuses, the baboon might be assumed to have had venom glands and to have been a coursing hunter!
These guys have curved foot claws, sometimes serrated bills, and wings shorter than their legs. They must be vampiric!
But that's not the case, it's just an odd animal. It's a hummingbird, the only animal in its strange niche, and thus a prime candidate for misinterpretation!
Finally, who the hell is this?
That might be the first example of shrink wrapping and distorting the fossil record: the animal proposed to be pre-flood man, or Homo diluvii by Johann Jakob Scheuchzer in 1726
But though he thought he had evidence for the flood, he was describing the fossil of a salamander!
How we think about ancient animals is probably distorted by a tendency to shrink wrap their depictions and a desire to find function in form.
But much of what we observe in animals today, we still can't explain. Skin also drags, and feathers and fur abound (but not universally).
If you want to see more on this subject, I recommend the whole book, which contains many more illustrations and details for all of them.
And if you're interested in speculation about possible futures, C.M. Koseman's All Tomorrows is spectacular. You can see it summarized on YouTube, here:
Koseman isn't the only person to have illustrated this issue either.
This opossum, for example, comes from the HowStuffWorks Tumblr:
There is an error in describing sperm whales in the thread:
The issue is more that they would probably be thought of as behaving like sharks in the far future, but they're actually pretty social and frequently team players.
So, at least in this propensity score- or age-matched data, there's no reason to chalk the benefit up to the weight loss effects.
This is a hint though, not definitive. Another hint is that benefits were observed in short trials, meaning likely before significant weight loss.
We can be doubly certain about that last hint because diabetics tend to lose less weight than non-diabetics, and all of the observed benefit has so far been observed in diabetic cohorts, not non-diabetic ones (though those directionally show benefits).
Diets that restrict carbohydrate consumption lead to improved blood sugar and insulin levels, as well as reduced insulin resistance.
Additionally, they're good or neutral for the liver and kidneys, and they don't affect the metabolic rate.
Carbohydrate isn't the only thing that affects glycemic parameters.
So does fat!
So, for example, if you replace 5% of dietary calories from saturated fat with PUFA, that somewhat improves fasting glucose levels (shown), and directionally improves fasting insulin:
Dietary composition may not be useful for improving the rate of weight loss ceteris paribus, but it can definitely make it easier given what else it changes.
Those non-metabolism details may be why so many people find low-carb diets so easy!
There's a popular belief that family wealth is gone in three generations.
The first earns it, the second stewards it, and the third spends it away: from shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations!
But how true is this belief?
Gregory Clark has new evidence🧵
The first thing to note is that family wealth is correlated across many generations. For example, in medieval England, this is how wealth at death correlates across six generations.
It correlates substantially enough to persist for twelve generations at observed rates of decay:
But why?
The dominant theory among laypeople is social: that the wealth is directly transmitted.
This is testable, and the Malthusian era provides us with lots of data for testing.
The Catholic Church helped to modernize the West due to its ban on cousin marriage and its disdain for adoption, but also by way of its opposition to polygyny.
The origin of this disdain arguably lies with Church Fathers like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian🧵
Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho argues with a Jew that Christians are the ones living in continuity with God's true intentions.
Justin sees Genesis 2 ("the two shall become one flesh") as normative.
In his apologetic world, Christians are supposed to transcend lust.
Irenaeus, in Against Heresies, is attacking Gnostics (Basilides, Carpocrates), whose sexual practices he finds scandalous.
To him, "temperance dwells, self-restraint is practiced, monogamy is observed"—polygyny is a doctrinal and moral deviation from creation affirmation.
The effects of charter schools on student test scores are meta-analytically estimated to be small.
In this study, the largest estimated effect was estimated to be equivalent to ~1.35 IQ points, for mathematics scores, which consistently showed larger effects than reading scores.
Similarly, the estimated effect of parents' preferred schools and of elite public secondary schools on test scores is around zero.
More interestingly, it seems charter school openings lead to competition that marginally boosts non-charter student performance and reduces absenteeism by very small degrees: