And what is this chismakz that he is no longer a virgin anymore!!!! Uh lalalala!!! and the girl who he did it was older than him.

And this play is the reason daw why his movie Harry Potter: the latest one has been cancel for this year's release instead move it next year.[caption id="attachment_112" align="aligncenter" width="212" caption="Macho!!!"][/caption]

Whatever his decision....Good Luck !!! dahil malaki na sya at hindi na bata!!!!! Pero yung maghubad....sorry di ko talaga matake!!![caption id="attachment_114" align="aligncenter" width="212" caption="Ang swerte nga ng kabayo"][/caption]

Im sure this play will gonna be a hit in New York same as it got good reviews in London.

So, this week also was my return (after 3 months) to the House Dance Conference ( see Circle-isms). A once a month dance/funk/house party where some of NYC's best go to just dance. Dance! Dance like their lives depend on it. Dance like they will win the lottery if they jump in the circle and get some applause. Dance to feel free, clean, and pure. Dance to exorcise anything that might need to be exorcised. How does this apply to Equus #8? Simple... due to the manic, frenetic and serious level of our rehearsals I didn't want any distractions. Ya know, wanted to stay in my lane and focus on Heads & Hooves. 

But at the same time, I have been feeling as if I needed to move/groove in another way. A way I intrinsically am familiar with. Especially since our Euine movement is very different from anything any of us has ever done. So feeling frisky after Thursday's show I went out, and got busy. Really busy. Danced and then danced some more (while texting for 3 hours....long story). DJ Doc on the 1's & 2's did his thing as usual, and I felt very refreshed and dead tired at the same time. Yea, it's like that and that's the way it is. Basically the skill set that has developed and grown out of the "club/underground" scene can be a great asset. Even in totally different forms of dance. Be it Tap, African, Ballet, Modern or anything else. I mean come on, it's all movement anyway right?, Plus lots of it has been "borrowed" from the clubs while never having the contributions fully acknowledged. Yes siree, went back to that "office" and punched that clock too.

So jumping into or re-visiting the "office" can be the real deal, tons of fun, and all that. Punching the clock will never be the same again.

FYI: Go see the new film The Express w my man Darrin Henson. Get em D....lol. 7 30!!!!!!!

FYI 2: Special thanks to Walter McBride of Broadwayworld.com for his Opening Night coverage and photo information. :-)

I want a pair of the shoes the horses wear. During the play I found myself preoccupied with this thought.

Daniel Radcliffe, protagonista da série Harry Potter, admitiu ter uma paixão "não sexual" pelo ator Lorenzo Pisoni, com quem divide o palco da peça Equus, segundo informações do site After Elton.

"Se eu fosse gay ou mulher, com certeza me casaria com ele. Ele é lindo e é um homem muito legal", disparou o jovem astro.

Esta não é a primeira vez que Radcliffe faz comentários a respeito do universo gay. Em 2006, o ator se deixou ser beijado pelo apresentador James Corden em uma premiação.

Em agosto deste ano, algumas publicações britânicas deram a entender que Radcliffe é bissexual, especialmente depois dele ter dito que seu maior sonho é interpretar um espião homossexual nas telonas.

A matéria foi encontrada aqui.

- einen über Daniel Radcliffe und seine Liebe zum Equus-Pferd 

- und einen zu Dominic Cooper, der der Eröffnung beiwohnte und dabei über Keira Knightley's Buchgeschmack Auskunft gab.

Charlie and I are going to see Wall-E tonight. I'm surprised it's still in theatres but I really wanted to see it when it came out, so I'm excited! Not so excited to clean tonight. Not so excited to do homework tonight. I've felt really tired lately and I'm hoping at some point my body will adjust to always having something to do rather than always doing nothing.

I made a new friend who likes plays just as much as me. I'm hoping we can find time to see The Little Mermaid and Equus on Broadway.

Anyway, New York is a place I like to visit, but after a few trips I'm pretty sure I could never, ever live there (unless I was filthy rich. Maybe not even then). I guess I understand the appeal of trying - it's like walking into a gladiator ring, just you and the city, and only one of you is coming out alive. It's about proving your mettle as a tiny, insignificant human being. You have to make New York your bitch from the get-go, otherwise it will never work between you. New York likes to be slapped around. She likes it rough. I don't know where I'm going with that, and I don't want to know. My point is, I'm a gentle soul. I like sunshine and wide-open spaces and not paying a rent equal to the GDP of a small country.

We had a good time, although I'm exhausted (mostly from wandering around the West Village for a good eight hours yesterday). I got stupid drunk on Saturday night at Emily's party, but I didn't mean to. In fact, I didn't really drink that much, so I'm pretty sure the bartenders had it in for me. I'm still filling in the holes from the evening, but I do remember there was some dancing, some kissing of faces, and some very delicious pizza around 2am. Then there was the day of the wicked hangover, which led me to conclude that I am old old old and can no longer hold my liquor. From now on, instead of vodka, just bring me some Metamucil. I'll be the one in the corner rubbing my cankles.

The other highlight of the trip was seeing Equus. Daniel Radcliffe's privates aside, I thought it was a very good play, well-cast and disturbingly brilliant. And yes, for those of you who are still not convinced, D-Rad does get completely - and I mean, completely - naked on stage, and he's naked for quite a while. Also, he is running and jumping around while naked. I'd say there was a solid 10 minutes of nakedness. But, before you label me a perv (which I am), you could almost - almost - forget it's even him. That's how good the play was. And here's something no one ever mentions: his female counterpart in the play takes off all her clothes too. But she's not famous for playing a fictitious wizard, so who cares.

I'm so glad I got to go this weekend, and Emily and her roomies were marvelous hostesses. But I think my next trip should be somewhere sunny and peaceful. Preferably with a beach. Also preferably with no return flight.

O filme Equus é baseado numa peça de mesmo nome, do escritor Peter Shaffer ( que também fez a adaptação para o cinema, diga-se de passagem ), e conta com a presença de Richard Burton e Peter Firth. É um filme muito interessante principalmente para meus colegas de estudo (i.e. estudantes de psicologia.), por retratar o processo terapêutico.

Bem, sobre o enredo do filme, vemos o Dr. Martin Dysart (Burton) em sua busca por compreender e ajudar o jovem Alan Strang (Firth), que uma noite cegou seis cavalos com uma foice.

O processo terapêutico de Strang acaba evocando os problemas do próprio Dr. Dysart, que se vê como um sacerdote, que abre pessoas para tentar fazer adivinhações olhando para suas entranhas, e também suas dúvidas quanto à sua metodologia terapêutica; ajustando indivíduos a favor da normalidade - o 'deus' da modernidade, da qual Dysart é sumo-sacerdote - e sacrificando sua individualidade, fazendo com que 'esqueçam do que um dia lhes fez significado'. Strang, com seu distúrbio, tem aquilo que o Dr. Dysart não têm - uma paixão, um objeto para adorar - e por isso é invejado.

A excelente atuação de Richard Burton como o Dr. Dysart lhe rendeu um Globo de Ouro como melhor ator em 1978; o mesmo pode ser dito da atuação de Peter Firth, que ganhou o Globo de Ouro de melhor ator coadjuvante; o filme também foi indicado a 3 Oscar.

A peça na qual o filme é baseado, aliás, teve um revival no ano passado, em Londres, estrelando Daniel Radcliffe (o Harry Potter dos cinemas) no papel de Alan Strang.

Nota do autor: 10 - absolutamente recomendado, para todos.

Abraços!

Whew! Wow! Okay! First of all, I'm a little late with this one. Yesterday just had too many things going on, couldn't even watch Football or Dexter. Anyway... this past week was incredible. Finally after all the work, Heads & Hooves, Wopbop, Remixed Dressing Room Songs, We had our Opening Night. Yes We Did!

Where to start? Hmm, I now understand from a first hand perspective what "The Broadway Experience" is, and why it has such allure. Really, there are people for whom being in a Bway show is the DREAM of their lives. Of their lives!! Call Him......The days leading up to Thursday's premier were a blur. We had a very touching speech about the show, and it's importance and legacy from one of the producers. The critics were sure to be in attendance (Tues/Wed), so we all were excited about that. Lol. Additionally, Trooper gave us newbies great advice: make space in our dressing area. No for real, make space.....

Little did I know how prescient that advice would be! Keep in mind this is my Broadway Premier, so when I get to the theater it was like Christmas & A Birthday all wrapped up together with a dash of College Graduation  thrown in for good measure. Maybe you're thinking: "What is he talking about'. Well... the amount of gifts, cards, wine & champagne, chocolates, trinkets was totally overwhelming. OVER-whelming! It was something I was in no way prepared for. But Trooper did tell us, so it wasn't like we weren't warned. Like I said, it was something that will stay with me for quite some time. Oh the show? Yea, was fine. The energy was crackling (always wanted to say that), and the audience was supportive and appreciative as they have been since we began previews. What an magical, interesting ride.... pun thoroughly intended. 

So after the show we were briskly whisked away (always wanted to say that too) to Chelsea Piers for our party. Again; like everything else in this production; it was first rate. Ya know what I mean, right: there were no poles or strippers, the DJ wasn't giving shout-outs on the mic, there weren't people outside handing out fliers to the next "MegaJam Boat Ride Start of Fall Party", nobody had a drunk Uncle there, there was no cat-fight over a celebutard, nobody tried to jump behind the bar and start making drinks. Just good clean Broadway fun. Lol.... maybe I just haven't been to enough parties, eh? But still, the night was great, we got to get our dance on a little too. So, there ya have it. We are officially official and essentially essential. Oh yea, Julia Roberts was at one of our last previews I was told. Shameless celeb name drop. Young!

So now we are open and it's great but in life we take the bitter with the sweet! As such, our director Thea, and choreographer/movement director Fin are leaving. Thea & Fin created such a great working environment, so supportive while being clear and focused. Nothing ever seemed to faze Thea. Maybe something did but she always had a sunny smile. And in my considered opinion she's an incredibly inventive, smart & thorough director. Yes she is!. Listen to her break it down below. The other day I said to Fin: "You put us in a position to succeed, and with the correct tools to do so". Plus she Wopbop'ed the sh*t out of us! LOL. Took us downdowndowndowndown into the earth. Made it WORK, but FUN at the same time. Well maybe not that 1st week for me? Damn feet & legs were on fire....but we did it. And here we are! 

Audio Interview W Thea

Photo (l to r) Super Trooper, Daniel, Precious Nugget, Skippy G, Buddy

1. Homework

2. College Essays

3. College Applications

4. College Research

5. Two College Visits in Massachusettes

6. Babysitting

7. Room Cleaning

8. Facebook

9. Looking for more work

10. Procrastinating

11. Seeing Equus with Daniel Radcliffe

12. Sleeping

13. Reading the NYS drivers manual

14. Playing Piano

15. Singing

16. FINISHING BREAKING DAWN

17. Talking about Daniel Radcliffe's tiny junk

Adorei as roupas, um hippie chic, jeans esportivo, estampas de animal e o xadrez que pelo visto vai ficar muito tempo por aí.

Fotos: Luis Gonçalves/site Terra

Donna I.

God, I just read back over what I wrote.  How shallow am I?

Anyway, hm what is new with me?  Pretty much just school [*flings self off cliff*] and lurking on the interwebz [*catches hold of a branch on the way down*].  I'm just trying to have things to look forward to.  It's not complete and total numbness.  Just a little detachment, I suppose.  I have my birthday in a matter of weeks.  17.  I am frackin' old, ew.  Then the Paper Towns signing [insert squee].  And at the end of October I am going to New York City, the love of my life, to visit NYU, the potential love of my life, and Columbia, the back-up potential love of my life.  Plus, I'll be staying with my childhood second half who I haven't seen in ages.  AND I get to spend the night in my cousin's dorm on Staten Island one night.  AND I might possibly see Equus with Daniel.  AND I get to meet Sarah!  GAH!  Oh, and hopefully in December I will get to go up to Montreal to visit McGill and meet the final love of my life, Shaw-neeners.  Writing this all out makes me even more excited!

Now, I may just go do something possibly crafty.  And not evil crafty, but like glue and macaroni.  And scissors.  And sparkles.  Got it?  Also, might be vain and go through my Urban Outfitters wish list.  Feel free to contribute to my wardrobe.

You know, maybe I just need to do laundry.  I need some more intrigue in my life.

The 3130 Innova ScanTool CanOBD II easily scans and retrieves DTCs. View larger.

As government agencies establish more stringent emission laws, vehicles continue to become more sophisticated for maintenance and repairs, forcing professional mechanics, DIYers, and consumers alike to find easy-to-use tools for diagnosing their vehicles.

Many tools have already been developed to access these powerful on-board vehicle computers, but the Equus tool is particularly simple to use and surprisingly affordable. It is designed to be used by almost anyone, from the weekend mechanic to the ASE master technician. The 3130 CanOBD II/2 scanner is designed to retrieve diagnostic codes in all OBD II (1996 and newer). The scanner features a unique patented all-in- one screen display and LED display for quick OBD I/M emissions check, so you'll know if you're ready to pass those ever-increasingly stringent laws. Equus built the 3120 to display on-screen DTC definitions and user interfaces in English, Spanish, or French, and the trilingual language selection is accessed via a simple menu command. This device also stores diagnostic codes in a handy memory for off-car review and analysis. The 3120 is also equipped with the ability to connect to your PC. With the included cables and software you can connect the scanner to your computer to generate, print, and save detailed diagnostic reports, and even update the 3130 via the Internet.

The 3130 links to all OBD II protocols including CAN (Controller Area Network). The tool captures and displays freeze frame data that will help you pinpoint and troubleshoot any problem. This device is equipped to retrieve the following OBD II diagnostic trouble codes (DTCs): Generic Codes (P0, P2, P3, and U0) and Manufacturer Specific Codes (P1, P3, and U1). In addition, the tool provides live data (view, record, and playback live PCM data streams), bi-directional testing, vehicle ID capture, and O2 sensor results.

Warranty
Limited one-year warranty.

What's in the Box
Equus 3130 diagnostic code scanner, OBD-PC link software, cables, storage case, and user's manual.

Equus 3130 Innova Diagnostic Code Scanner with Live, Record and Playback Data Capability for OBDII (Post-1996) Vehicles is available at Amazon for $155.44. To Order click here
Amazon Product Pages contain a lot of other details on this product as Customer Reviews, Sales Ranking, Special Offers, Alternate products that customers are going for and much more.Want to read these details? click here

Want to get some other Format / Binding / Version? You can search for them from here

Other Products of Interest

• USB to Serial RS-232 DB9 Adapter Cable
• OBD-II & Electronic Engine Management Systems (Haynes Techbook)
• Accutire MS-4350B Programmable Digital Tire Gauge
• Equus 3640 Fuel Injection Pressure Tester
• Sabrent SBT-USC1K Hi-Speed USB 2.0 to Serial DB-9 RS-232 Adapter Cable (Black)

Daniel Radcliffe along with his "Harry Potter" co-star Richard Griffiths premiered, Equus for the first time on Broadway. Even though Daniel has performed his part in the show so many times he still gets nervous.

"It was funny because tonight I didn't expect to be nervous because we've done all the previews, we've had all the critics here," Radcliffe said after Thursday's performance. "I thought, `Oh, we'll do it tonight, it won't be so bad.' But I was terrified before we went out. I was like, `Omigod, this is it.'"

Daniel claims that the "jitters" is what keeps him on stage!

"The jitters should be there 'til the last night of performing — because the jitters are what get you on stage," he said. "It's the nerves that make it exciting and vital and make every show different."

After the show, the cast along with about 400 people attended the official after party held held at a large party room inside a Chelsea Piers building on Manhattan's west side.

Griffiths, who plays the role Daniel's psychiatrist in Equus has this to say about him, "He's growing up so fast — you couldn't shake a stick at it," the Tony Award winner said of Radcliffe. "And the quality of his acting is such that it's taken big strides. And it's terrific to see. He's not a kid anymore. He's a young man and he deserves whatever breaks that brings."

So! What's been going on! To answer your burning question, not much. The weather in the ATX has been ridiculously awesome lately, and I got to enjoy it fully on Saturday during the Room to Read event at Hot Mama's Espresso (they make a mean iced chai, for anyone who's interested). A few of my lovely coworkers started an Austin chapter of R2R, which was an admirable thing to do, and so why not hang out on a lovely Saturday afternoon and listen to Tolly's husband's band, The Lennings, rock out. It was super, and I felt like I was making the world a little better at the same time.

Also, I went to Ross and got several things for the apartment, including some gold throw pillows for the couch, an adorable white ceramic elephant, and some decorations for the patio. Who knew Ross was such a mecca for inexpensive yet totally cute home items? I'm determined to make our giant porch into the best porch on the planet. The hunt for a decent, not too pricey bistro table set continues...

And! This weekend I'm heading to NYC to visit the lovely Em for her birthday. I'm also seeing a matinee of Equus on Saturday, which I'm more than a little excited about. It will be the best. Weekend. Ever.

People have laughed, cried, been shocked, attempted to take pictures/record video, set up camp outside the theatre, send unsolicited gifts and more. Sounds like a movement is a brewing if y'all ask me. Yup. So.... what else? Well, there was a special soiree at a swanky spot that I can't disclose. Sorry. Took one of those funky mystic oaths so it just wouldn't be right. Just let me say they had wine.....plus cheese, and grapes. Whew! So, unless something else pops into my mind within 5 minutes that's about it for the week that was. 3 minutes, 23 seconds later...... Okay, this just popped in: we have a new theme songs (at least for the next few days). Combine the "Dum Dum Be Dum Dum Dum of "Disturbia" by Rihanna w my special version of "VeryVeryVeryVeryVeryVery Good". Kudos to SuperTrooper for that remix! BTW, when Fin gives notes, she gives NOTES! :-)

Those 6 flights of steps are really starting to get on my nerves though! Damn.... it's an aerobic, stairmaster, target heart-rate, go for the "burn" workout deluxe. What they really need a little trolley or side car that winds around a little spiral staircase. Then we could put on those little helmets w chin straps from WWII. Now THAT would hot, or awesome, or fly or dope, or whatever describes something cool and fun. Just had to get that one out, plus it's late and I'm on a roll...... Well the bottom line is: The light at the end (beginning) of the tunnel is getting closer. We're going for it!

More specifically he has come out attacking the classic fossil evidence for the evolution of the horse in the September (2008) issue of ICR's Acts & Facts.

Morris: Horse evolution prominently appears in textbooks as a supreme example of the evolution of one body style into another. All students remember the "horse series" sketches, tracing the development of a small browser named Hyracotherium (formerly known as Eohippus) with four toes on the front feet and three on the rear, into the large one-toed horse of today. Intermediate steps included the three-toed Mesohippus, a modified horse with one toe touching the ground... [Emphasis mine]

Wrong right off the bat. The fact is that with Mesohippus all three toes touch the ground as can be seen in the above photo of a mounted fossil at the Chicago Field Museum. This is especially true when it is taken into account that Mesohippus probably would have had pads on its feet similar to those found in tapirs.

Morris: …the one-toed Merychippus; Pliohippus, also with only one toe; and finally our modern horse, Equus, who along the way had acquired high-crowned molars and other adaptations. [Emphasis mine]

Merychippus was not one-toed, it was three toed like Mesohippus, though its side toes were more reduced in size. They are even visible in the illustration Dr. Morris used in his article (which he may have taken from an NCSE publication which rebutted many of the common creationist claims about the fossil record of the horse):

Here is a larger, more detailed, illustration of the foot bones of Merychippus:

Morris: Of course, modern horses exist in great variety, with many unusual adaptations that allow them to cope with widely varied environments. Numerous species are recognized, almost all of which are known to hybridize. Obviously, there is a great deal of latitude in horse characteristics.

All modern 'horses' (horses, zebras, asses) in fact belong to a single genus, Equus, and are, relatively speaking, fairly similar. Equus is the sole surviving genus of a once much more diverse Family, equidae, which is made up of as many as 30 different genera.

Morris: Furthermore, various strains can be bred to accentuate one trait, such as the tiny horses about as large as a dog. Horses display a great deal of adaptability.

But no breed of living horse (or ass or zebra) displays the sets of characteristics found in the extinct genera. Big or small they are all still Equus.

Morris: Early evolutionary theories hypothesized progress in a direct line from one type to another, and fossils were displayed within that framework. In recent decades, this view of directed evolution has been generally disavowed, and no particular form is now considered to have been the goal of "non-directed" mutation and natural selection. Once free to examine the data without this "directed" overprint, evolutionary scientists were quick to recognize that changes among horses had been abundant, extensive, and unpredictable.

There are some things to note, however. During the same time period that some of the descendants of Hyracotherium supposedly developed into full-blown horses and elephants and other mammals, others persisted unchanged. [Emphasis mine]

While current thinking among most paleontologists is that the historically recognized genus Hyracotherium is paraphyletic (that fossils that should have been classified as separate genera have been lumped together), and that only some of these (Eohippus) are in fact in the horse Family (the others belonging to other related Families of the same Order, perissodactyla) (Rose & Archibald 2005), no paleontologist that I am aware of, past or present, has considered any of the "Hyracotherium" species to be ancestral to elephants (Order proboscidea) and it is certainly not the current view among paleontologists that this is the case.  I cannot say for certain why Dr. Morris would suggest that they were (he didn't get it from a standard zoology or paleontology text) but I do have a hypothesis which I will discuss in a few moments.

Morris: It seems that evolution does not always change things--often it leaves them alone. Selection pressures that acted so strongly to produce major modifications in some life forms left others in stasis.

First, Dr. Morris doesn't make reference to any actual fossils here, so there is no way to judge whether  what he is saying is accurate or not, and one should always check, especially with creationists.

For example, creationists often talk about a type of lob-finned fish called coelacanths which scientists had thought to have gone extinct at the end of the Cretaceous period some 70 million years ago (until 1938 when some were found still living of the coast of Africa). Creationists point to the coelacanth and say things like: "look coelacanths haven't changed in 70 million years (years we don't believe existed), more proof that evolution doesn't happen".

The problem is that while the living genus of coelacanth Latimeria is very similar in outward appearance to some Late Cretaceous coelacanth genera like Macropoma, it is not identical.

For example Macropoma, which belongs to the same Family (Latimeriidae), is only about a third the size of Latimeria, and there are also a few other differences in the details of their outward anatomy. There were probably many genetic, physiological, and even behavioral differences as well but those don't fossilize so it would be difficult for us to know. And although Latimeria is similar to some Cretaceous genera, there are earlier coelacanths that were much less similar in appearance (though still recognizable as belonging to the same Order).

Fossils belonging to the Order Coelacanthini first appear in the fossil record during the Middle Devonian period (about 390 million years ago) and are last found in rocks from the end of the Cretaceous period, however they seemed to have reached their peak of diversity during the Triassic (about 248 to 206 Million Years Ago) (Forey 1998, p. 245).  However, despite having been given the colorful moniker of "living fossil", the living genus Latimeria is not represented in the fossil record at all.

All that being said it should also be understood that evolutionary theory does not require that a group of organisms (like coelacanths or equids) must change radically over time. If a successful phenotype (shape, physiology, & behavior) is evolved then as long as it remains successful there is no reason it must change. Evolutionists have been telling creationists this for a hundred years (every time they bring up something like the coelacanth), maybe it's finally starting to sink in.

Morris: Their fossils are found in the same strata intervals, so they must have lived in the same environment.

The term "same strata intervals" is problematic here. Yes, different lineages of equid coexisted during several periods of the Cenozoic, but just because they were found in strata of comparable age does not necessarily mean that they lived in the same environments. In fact changes in the dentition of some lineages seems to indicate that many were living in different environments (forested areas vs. grasslands).

Morris: Evolution apparently does not apply across the board. If a theory can accommodate any possibility, it is a weak concept indeed.

What nonsense. Just because different lineages evolved along separate trajectories doesn't mean that "any possibility" can be accommodated by evolutionary theory. How about this Dr. Morris, why don't you go out and find us a Mesohippus fossil buried in Permian age strata? That would be difficult to explain under our current understanding of how the evolution of mammals proceeded.

Morris: It is now acknowledged that horse evolution as recorded in the fossils follows no recognizable pattern, and that the evolutionary "tree" looks more like a multi-branching "bush."

No, there is still a "recognizable pattern", just not a simple straight-line Hyracotherium to Equus pattern. "Bushes" still have roots and branching limbs. In reality the equid Family is just one small branch on the bush of life.

Morris: The successive forms indicating straight-line evolution appear only in textbooks; they do not appear in the fossils.

This is not to say that there was not an ancestor descendant relationship between various species of equid over geologic time. If we knew the exact lineage (something virtually impossible to determine in fossils) from a Hyracotherium grade equid to modern Equus we could theoretically line them up from ancient ancestor to modern descendant and excluded any side-branches and it would look very much like the 'textbook' illustration of the horse lineage.

The reason modern evolutionary biologists frown upon the old style horse evolution illustrations is not because there is some doubt about the fact that horses evolved, it is because they give the false impression that A) evolution primarily proceeds via anagenesis rather than cladogenesis (straight lines rather than branching ones), and B) that we know with certainty that the fossil types represented in the illustrations follow direct ancestor/descendant relationships. In other worlds Mesohippus might be the great-great aunt of Merychippus rather that the great-great grandmother. However just because we can't be certain of which doesn't mean they are not in the same family.

Morris: Sometimes fossils of different types that supposedly lived at different times appear together in the same strata layer.

Sure, there is often overlap in fossil types. This is a problem only in the minds of creationists who are stuck on the idea that evolution proceeds through straight-line anagenesis with the parent species going extinct as soon as it gives rise to a daughter species. To extend the family metaphor they seem to believe that under evolutionary theory you can't have any aunts, uncles or cousins and that your mother must die during childbirth. But that is not how evolution works.

Morris: In Oregon, the three-toed grazer Neohipparion (very much like Merychippus) has been found with Pliohippus.

"Very much like" is again a problematic statement. Neohipparion was perhaps "very much like" Merychippus when compared to Hyracotherium or Equus, but there were still important differences. For example as the photograph below illustrates the teeth of Neohipparion were more hypsodont (high crowned) than those of Merychippus, which was one of the earliest grazing equids.

Morris: In the Great Basin area, Pliohippus has been found with the three-toed Hipparion throughout the timeframe supposedly represented. Evolutionary scientists freely admit this situation--and to their credit often attempt to correct the misconceptions--but still the horse series appears in the textbooks.

I love this part: "evolutionary scientists freely admit this situation" as if it were a problem of some kind that paleontologists have been forced recently to 'admit' to. It isn't. Paleontologists have simply described what they find in the fossil record and the overlap Morris describes here is old, old, news.

For example the graph below showing the geologic range of various fossil equids comes from a paper written in 1926 (Matthew 1926) and clearly shows that the genera in question overlap in time. Note however that the earliest Merychippus (the earliest grazing equid) predates the earliest Hipparion, Neohipparion and Pliohippus:

Morris: Any three fossils can be placed in a line and an evolutionary story can be told about the transformation of one into the other. And a different story could be told if the fossils were arranged in a different order.

This is nonsensical hand waiving. The fact is these are not just any fossils and they are not being arbitrarily lined up. These are fossil bearing a number of detailed similarities and lined up in the order in which the first appear in the fossil record (see geologic range chart above).

Evolution coherently explains why we find fossils with anatomical similarities arranged in the fossil record in this pattern. Creationism has nothing but desperate ad hoc silliness like some equids ran from the rising waters of Noah's Flood faster than others.

Some young earth creationists seem to have realized that their standard position of horse evolution (that being expressed by Morris in his article) is untenable and have admitted that there is good evidence for there being a descent relationship between the various fossil equids and instead argue the equally untenable position that they represent rapid post Noachian Flood diversification of the horse "baramin" (a Bible-babble word for "kind"):

Even though many creationists have strongly criticized the equid fossil record, our present baraminological analysis actually supports the validity of this stratomorphic series. Using the baraminic distance correlation method of Robinson and Cavanaugh [21], we find significant similarity among all nineteen fossil horse species in our study [a fairly standard line-up from Hyracotherium to Equus – T.B.] but we find no evidence of discontinuity. Although some species in our dataset are negatively correlated, the linear structure of the equids as revealed by 3D ANOPA accounts for these negative correlations. We conclude that all nineteen species included in our analysis belong to the same monobaramin, which we interpret as a record of post-Flood intrabaraminic diversification. (Cavanaugh et al. 2003, p.147, emphasis mine)

So Dr. Morris, it's not just evolutionists who recognize the evidence for horse evolution found in the fossil record.

Morris: It is interesting to note that Hyracotherium was so named because its specimens looked similar to the hyrax.

Sir Richard Owen who described the first fragmentary specimens of Hyracotherium specifically stated that he did not intend to imply much similarity with the hyrax by the name:

The general form of the skull was probably intermediate in character between that of the Hog and the Hyrax. The large size of the eye must have given to the physiognomy of the living animal a resemblance to that of the Hare and other timid Rodentia.

Without intending to imply that the present small extinct Pachyderm was more closely allied to the Hyrax than as being a member of the same order, and similar in size, I propose to call the new genus which it unquestionably indicates, Hyracotherium, with the specific name leporinum. (Owen 1841, emphasis mine)

[Start cut-n-paste from an earlier post (with some added graphics), because creationists refuse to learn.]

The Order Owen is referring to here is "Pachydermata" (after Cuvier) which is no longer considered a valid taxon. It included elephants (obviously), a variety of even-toed ungulates (cows, deer, hippos, pigs etc.), odd-toed ungulates (tapirs, rhinoceros and horses), and the hyraxes. So his placing Hyracotherium in the same order as hyraxes wasn't really saying much for their being all that similar.

Further evidence that Owen did not see a particularly close resemblance between Hyracotherium and hyraxes came a few years later when he wrote a paper in which he attempted to refine Cuvier's classification of "Pachyderms" (Owen 1848). In this paper Owen divided the "ungulatata" up into three different groups, the Proboscidia (elephants), the Artiodactyla (even-toed), and Perissodactyla (odd-toed) and he gave a list of examples of each of these and here is where it gets real interesting (ibid. p.139):

As you can see, in the list of Artiodactyls (even-toed ungulates) Owen lists Hyracotherium. In the Perissodactyla (odd-toed ungulates) he lists the hyrax and, of course, the horse (Equus).

So Owen placed Hyracotherium in one branch of the Order and hyraxes and horses in the other. If anything this would imply that he thought hyraxes and horses were more similar to each other than either was to Hyracotherium. He was wrong of course, but again, all he had of Hyracotherium was a crushed partial skull and a jaw fragment, so he can be forgiven. Modern creationists, on the other hand, have the benefit of all the knowledge we've gained since Owen's time (if they chose to avail themselves of it), so they have no excuse except intellectual dishonesty.  [End cut-n-paste]

Morris: This little "rock badger" can be seen alive in many zoos, complete with an interpretive sign listing its varied evolutionary antecedents. It looks very, very different from a horse, but most of its reputed predecessors could possibly be true variants of the horse.

This is a nasty little bit of what my friend Ed Brayton likes to call "virulent ignorance". In this case it is the claim that Hyracotherium either is a hyrax ("rock badger") or is nearly identical to them. Creationists like Dr. Morris could easily learn the facts by opening a few books, or lacking that much scientific curiosity, they could at least run a Google search for hyrax and Hyracotherium. If they ever bothered they would quickly learn that Hyracotherium was not a hyrax. This is not a judgment call, it is not a debate; it's a fact.

The skull and teeth of Hyracotherium are significantly different from that of the hyrax as are other details of the anatomy. As they say a picture is worth a thousand words:

[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="290" caption="The skull of a living hyrax (Procavia) from a mounted skeleton at the Smithsonian Natural History Museum (photo by Don Frack)."][/caption]

Teeth play a big role in paleomammalogy (because they are the hardest part of the skeleton and because of how much they can tell us about an animal), so it is appropriate to compare the dental formula of Hyracotherium and hyraxes to see how similar they  might be:

Hyracotherium
3 . 1 . 4 . 3
3 . 1 . 4 . 3

Hyraxes
1 . 0 . 4 . 3
2 . 0 . 4 . 3

For the uninitiated the numbers in the formulas above represent the numbers of different types of teeth on one side of the upper (top numbers) and lower (bottom numbers) jaws. So in the case of Hyracotherium on one side of the upper jaw they had 3 incisors, 1 canine (larger in the males), 4 premolars and 3 molars.

Hyraxes on the other hand had 1 incisor (per side) in the upper jaw, 0 canine (apparently they have small  canines as juveniles which they lose as they become adults (i.e. deciduous teeth or baby teeth), 4 premolars and 3 molars.

For comparison here is the formula for modern horses:

Horses (male)
3 . 1 . 3(4) . 3
3 . 1 . 3. 3

In modern horses only the males usually have canines and some horses have a small fourth premolar (sometimes called a 'wolf tooth') which seems to be an atavism left over from when their ancestors (like Hyracotherium) had 4 premolars.

As you can see no one who actually bothers to compare Hyracotherium with hyraxes could ever confuse the two. This leaves us with only a couple options when it comes to creationists like Dr. Morris who continue to talk as if they are either identical or nearly so. They are either too ignorant to speak intelligently on the subject and too intellectually lazy to educate themselves, or they do know the difference and choose to lie about it.

Willfully ignorant or dishonest, that's pretty much the only two options in this case.

This false knowledge that creationists have about Hyracotherium being a hyrax might supply us with a possible explanation for Morris's bizarre statement about Hyracotherium evolving into elephants. You see with the exception of sirenians (manatees & dugongs) hyraxes seem to be the most closely related animals to elephants. Elephants did not evolve from hyraxes; they only share a closer common ancestor with hyraxes than any other mammals (again except sirenians which share an even closer common ancestor with elephants).

So my hypothesis is that in Morris's mind the 'thinking' went something like this:

Hyracotherium = hyraxes, hyraxes are said by biologists to be related to elephants and since evolution always makes things bigger/better (remember this is a creationist 'thinking') hyraxes must have evolved into elephants and therefore Hyracotherium evolved into elephants.

Morris: If you took the tiny three-toed ones out of the line-up, then the fossils would fit the creation picture, showing variety within a created kind.

Except that Dr. Morris has given us absolutely no reason to do so and other creationists (see the quote from Cavanaugh et al. above) agree with paleontologists that the fossil horse series, from Hyracotherium to Equus is legitimate. Instead what Dr. Morris has done, yet again, is give us plenty of reason to doubt his credibility when speaking about anything related to zoology or paleontology.

See also my earlier post on this subject: A horse is a horse, unless of course...

References

Cavanaugh et al. (2003) "Fossil Equidae: A Monobaraminic, Stratomorphic Series" in: Ivey, R.L., editor, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, pp. 143-153

Forey, Peter L. (1998) History of the Coelacanth Fishes

Hulbert, Richard (2004) "The Last Decade (More or Less) of Equid Paleobiology", Florida Fossil Horse Newsletter 13(2)

Matthew, W. D. (1926) "The Evolution of the Horse: A Record and Its Interpretation", The Quarterly Review of Biology, 1(2):139-185

Morris, John (2008) "The Mythical Horse Series", Acts & Facts. 37(9):13

Owen, Richard (1841) “Description of the Fossil Remains of a Mammal (Hyracotherium leporinum) and of a Bird (Lithornis vulturinus) from the London Clay.” Transactions of the Geological Society of London, Series 2, VI: 203-208, 1 plate

Owen, Richard (1848) "Description of Teeth and portions of Jaws of two extinct Anthracotheroid Quadrupeds (Hyopotamus vectianus and Hyop. bovinus)...", The Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London 4(1):103-141

Rose, Kenneth David & Archibald, J. David (2005) The Rise of Placental Mammals: Origins and Relationships of the Major Extant Clades, p. 206

]]> http://modernjackassmag.wordpress.com/?p=469 Thu, 18 Sep 2008 21:54:23 +0000 Sadman Hussein http://modernjackassmag.com/2008/09/18/tmtlc-let%e2%80%99s-talk-about-nudity/ [/caption]

The New York Times recently featured a story about the blossoming trend of nudity in contemporary opera—most notably, how new productions of “Salome” at the Met and “The Fly” at the Los Angeles Opera (written by Howard Shore and yes, based on the film by David Cronenberg, who also directs this production) feature their protagonists baring it all in key dramatic moments of the performances. The article then goes on to question whether or not the addition of nudity into modern opera will help introduce it to a new generation of theatergoers, or, rather, will it tarnish the sanctity of the art form by incorporating sensationalism in an effort to sell tickets?

I want to preface the rest of what I’m going to say here with the following statement: I don’t know a goddamn thing about opera. I find it alienating, and boring, and inaccessible. I think that, although I can certainly discern moments of profound beauty in the limited amount of operatic music I’ve been exposed to, the strict adherence to tradition in opera has both hurt the art form from a commercial perspective, and caused it to lose relevance from a cultural one.

What I lack in opera knowledge, though, I more than make up for with my wide appreciation and love for all things musical theater (which has caused damage to both my credibility as a pop musician and as a heterosexual). That said, allow me to digress for a moment into the idea of nudity in the realm of the musical, and perhaps come full circle and make some semi-pertinent connection back to opera, so that neither of us feels like we’ve totally wasted our time here.

The first seminal musical theater nudity moment happened back at the Public in 1968 when “Hair” first exploded onto the downtown scene with its message of peace, love, and unruly pubes. It was indeed shocking, but not just because of the bare-all Act I finale; rather, “Hair” was transcendent because of its message of freedom and the fact that it served as a mouthpiece for a younger generation who hadn’t been previously represented in the musical theater realm. This summer, when “Hair” was revived at the Delacorte in Central Park, sure, it was nice to look at some boobies, but what was really electrifying about the show was how effectively it tapped into the energy of ’68, revitalizing the show for a modern audience.

Let’s fast forward, say, twenty-eight years, to the historic debut of “Rent” at the Nederlander in 1996. While the show doesn’t feature any full-on nakedness (well, unless you count Maureen’s sassy moon during the preamble to “La Vie Boheme”), it is incredibly frank about sexuality, and many of the characters are not only gay (which was pretty groundbreaking for a musical at the time—I mean, yes, the world had already seen the likes of “La Cage Aux Folles,” “Victor/Victoria,” and “Falsettos,” but none came close to achieving the staggering crossover relevance that “Rent” enjoyed), but are also living with HIV. The fact that this show became the blockbuster that it did with these thematic elements is a testament to how timely and poignant “Rent” was—the inclusion of sex helped the show achieve gravity, not commercial shock value. Like “Hair,” commercial success followed because of how effectively “Rent” was able to capture the zeitgeist of its particular moment in time.

In December 2006, “Spring Awakening” burst onto the scene, pulsating with sexuality and featuring an Act I finale that culminates with an exposed breast, some ass cheeks, and simulated thrusting (that’s subsequently continued in a second sequence at the start of Act II). The show picked up a staggering eight Tonys in 2007, including Best Musical and Best Actor in a Musical, John Gallagher, Jr. (baller). The original cast of the show (which I was fortunate enough to see) brought life and urgency to the material, which is essentially about teens discovering the joys—and, tragically, the pitfalls—of learning how to do it with one another. Despite a weak story line and occasionally piddling dialogue, I forgave “Spring Awakening” its shortcomings, as I was so taken with its energy, pizzazz, and vitality.

Things were a bit different when I saw “Spring Awakening” again this past week. The show now features Hunter Parrish of “Weeds” fame in the role of Melchoir (originally created by the steely-eyed Jonathan Groff [who, incidentally, also starred in this summer’s revival of “Hair”]), and a cast that’s markedly more pre-pubescent than the original. The effect, in addition to a significant decrease in the overall talent of the actors, is slightly darker and creepier than the original. These are some kids having sex with one another, and the show becomes much heavier when one considers the tragedy that befalls characters who are barely old enough to shave, let alone understand the complexities of their burgeoning horniness.

Still, though, the younger, more inexperienced cast forced me to consider the show itself with more scrutiny this time around, and I was significantly less enamored upon a second viewing. Really, 2006, the perils of children not understanding sexuality is the edgiest thing you could come up with? “Rent” was way edgier than this a full ten years earlier. Hell, “Hair” was already past being confined by traditional sexual mores in 1968. As I watched Hunter Parrish, pretty yet ineffectual, pulling his underwear down in order to consummate his love with Wendla, I couldn’t help but think that this might be nudity for nudity’s sake, an attempt to pass something passé off as something progressive. Even the score, while it does indeed have moments of true inspiration that get me all riled up, is by Duncan Sheik, a forgotten relic of the nineties who’s only regained any significance by writing this show. The music, while it’s progressive for the Broadway stage, is at least ten years behind by pop standards, and I started to feel that “Spring Awakening” was about ten years too late as well.

What does all this have to do with opera? You’re right, nothing, but at least give me a chance to tie it all together. As a true layman of the opera world, the idea of nudity in opera is enticing to me, if for no other reason then to shake up an art form so immersed in its snooty exclusivity that it’s failed to realize its fall from relevance. That said, if I know that there’s going to be nudity in any given opera production, I might be that much more prone to bite the bullet and attend a performance (it’s the same logic by which I am only moderately interested in seeing “Equus” the play, but extremely interested in seeing “Equus” the vehicle for displaying Harry Potter’s privates). If, during said nudity-containing performance, I am struck by the music, thematic elements, story, talent of the performers, or pretty much any aspect of the production aside from the naked people prancing about on stage, then the nudity has served its purpose: it has enticed someone averse to the genre to attend a production, and, in turn, tricked them into appreciating opera from a fresh perspective.

The same goes for musical theater—although personally I may feel that looking at Hunter Parrish’s ass is a bit of a sensationalist cheap shot, if it puts people in the seats, and those people wind up coming away from the show with a newfound appreciation of musical theater, I think that’s a step in the right direction, even if it happens to be ass-driven. Like opera, musical theater has a significant stigma attached to it that inhibits its mainstream popularity. This is most unfortunate. The most important thing for either genre at this point is broadening its fan base, and if that comes at the price of an exposed nipple or two, I say give the people what they want.

“Haven’t you heard the word… of your body??”

So the play has started.  We're into it.  The psychiatrist dude's doing a scene--an important early scene.  It's time for Harry Potter to come onstage, which he does in mid-scene as other characters are talking--and the audience feels the need to applaud Harry's very existence OVER THE OTHER ACTOR'S LINES.  Grr. 

So referencing GP's comment that referenced my hint.  Guess who originated Daniel Radcliffe's role in Equus?  My beloved Sir Harry Pearce (Peter Firth) from Spooks.  Sadly, he doesn't look like this (ye olde photo at right) anymore, but in my opinion, a fifty-something Peter Firth in Spooks is hotter than a twenty-something Daniel Radcliffe in Equus.  What's really strange is that Firth's seductive stablegirl co-star in the original Equus was played by Jenny Agutter, who also joined the early cast of Spooks as Tessa, thirty years later.  

(UPDATE ABOVE)

This just in: I will be amongst the first batch of New Yorkers to see Harry Potter, full monty.  Just picked up tickets for today's matinee performance of Equus, which is in previews at the Broadhurst.  I scored orchestra tickets (squee!) so that should be close enough to properly evaluate the, er, performance.  (Judging by the photo below, there is such a thing as sitting too close.)  Will report with full blog later tonight, but if you know the Spooks connection before then...total brownie points. 

Liz