“Darwin’s idea was a good idea while it lasted.  But with advances in technology as well as the information and life sciences (especially molecular biology), the Darwinian magic gig is now up.  It’s time to lay aside the tricks—the smokescreens and the hand-waving, the just-so stories and the stonewalling, the bluster and the bluffing—and to explain scientifically what people have known all along, namely why you can’t get design without a designer.”  —Dr. William Dembski, The Design Revolution (IVP, 2004), p. 263.

Starting work on a Europa mission now, as suggested by the Solar System Exploration Roadmap, is the right thing to do.  Europa’s interior ocean may be the best environment for life in the solar system beyond planet Earth.  There is a substantial scientific basis to believe that Europa has the fundamental ingredients necessary for life: water, organic molecules, a chemical energy source, and a stable environment.  Understanding Europa’s potential for life brings us closer to addressing one of the most fundamental scientific questions that humans can ask: Are we alone in the cosmos?  It is only by committing the time and resources to a capable Europa mission that we will be able to begin to answer this essential question.

Notice the assumptions implicit in her answer.  Cynthia Phillips, like most astrobiologists, believes that environment produces life.  Provide water, heat, stability and organic molecules, and these are not only necessary conditions for life, but sufficient ones as well.  A second assumption is that life not only emerges from suitable environments, but evolves into complex life, and then to sentient beings who can communicate with us.  These are assumptions, not scientific demonstrations; in fact, they are contrary to good lab science.  The only thing about these assumptions demonstrated in the lab is their falsification.
    SETI and OOL people should never assume that finding life on another world will disprove religion.  Many theologians for millennia have anticipated finding life beyond the Earth.  Indeed, in the 17th and 18th centuries, it was uncommon not to believe in it.  The same debates over whether natural forces alone are sufficient to produce specified complexity will go on if life is found.  Only the location will change.  Most likely, Europa, Titan, and Mars will all prove a disappointment.  The debate is too important to delay for 30 years to look at Europa.  Evolutionists need to engage this debate on Earth and not displace it to a distant world.
Next headline on:  SETI • Origin of Life

Our organs tell stories.  A pathologist, for example, can look at a lung and recognize a lifetime of toiling in a mine.  Our genes tell stories, too.  By comparing the genomic sequences of an ever-increasing number of organisms, we are now uncovering how our bodies came to be the way they are.  Evolution, it seems, is a tale of détente: The need to adapt to changing environments is in a tug of war with the demand for precisely functioning biological machinery.  The stories presented in the special section (and the graphic, p. 1912) emphasize different facets of this complex saga.  They are not just historical lessons; they have implications for understanding disease mechanisms as well as basic physiology.

Why Are Kids Hyper?  Blame Evolution    09/28/2006  
Jon Hamilton on National Public Radio was curious why his 7-year-old kid always had more energy than he did and didn’t need coffee to get him going.  So he asked an evolutionary biologist at UC Irvine and got the following explanation:

“It’s fairly clear that human evolution has been strongly shaped by very powerful selection pressures over the last two million years to build a bigger brain,” Rose told me.
    That bigger brain doesn’t have much in it when we’re born, Rose says.  So children need all that energy to explore the world and devour information.
    “Play and activity and doing all kinds of things – including things your parents and teachers don’t like – is a big part of developing a functional human brain,” Rose says.
    Brain development pays off in the long run.  Kids eventually get smart enough to survive on their own.
    But while they’re going full speed through childhood, they put themselves at risk.  So evolution has equipped children with parents – who are slower but perhaps wiser.

“They spend a lot of time rough-housing, running around screaming and all this sort of thing,” he says.  “This is one of the most ridiculous things you can do.  It’s a giant ‘Eat at Joe’s’ sign, you know.  ‘Just come kill me.  I’m running around and not paying attention and making a lot of noise.’”
    Parents are much more alert to danger, even if we’re not very perky.  So we keep an eye out for things like tigers and traffic.
    And eventually, Lima says, children grow up and start acting more like parents.
    “Playing around like that becomes ridiculous,” he says.  “You don’t get anything out of it anymore.  It just becomes dangerous.”
    What slips away, of course, is youthful energy.

“Fifty- and 60-year-old humans can be very relevant to the future of their offspring and grand-offspring,” Rose says.  “And for that reason, natural selection may indeed still have some force in keeping us alive in middle age.”

And with that line, we award Stupid Evolution Quote of the Week to Rose, Hamilton and Lima, for their flexibility to explain everything, even your morning coffee and grandparents, by evolutionary theory.  Funny that this didn’t seem to work the same way with deer children, who will sit quietly in the thicket while their energetic parents are up and about.  Isn’t it amazing that evolution produces organisms that scream for predators to come and eat them, and others that silently blend in with the background.  Evolution is so powerful, it even produces reason, and wisdom! (but not the ability to stay energetic when you have the wisdom to use it).
    Does anyone doubt that if the observations were reversed (parents more energetic than children), these evolutionists would have another obvious, intuitive and confident evolutionary explanation ready to serve up?  It would never occur to these people that other explanations might exist, like design.  It doesn’t matter to them that opposite observations can be accommodated with their Silly Putty law of natural selection, the dream gadget that does everything.*
    What an elegant, beautiful system emerged in 1859, all from the fertile brain of a man whose brain emerged by nature to pronounce truths about nature.  You gotta admire Charlie – the new Aristotle.
Next headline on:  Darwinism and Evolutionary Theory • Dumb Ideas

---

*...but nothing very well.

We induced A. seemanni to walk on vertical glass surfaces in order to observe the contact mechanics of this challenging locomotion.  When walking up vertical planes, the spider attached only the distal parts of its tarsi to the substrate.  As it started to slip down the glass, silk produced by the tarsal spigots on all four pairs of legs arrested the spider’s descent and allowed it to remain attached to the vertical surface.  The spider’s feet were positioned such that the silk-producing spigots were in contact with the glass, while the dense setae in adjacent regions were held off the surface.

Regardless of whether tarsal silk production is ancestral or secondarily derived, the silk-producing apparatus of spiders seems to be controlled by developmental modules that can be expressed in a variety of body parts.
    Investigation of the genes involved in tarsal silk production should resolve whether the original function of spider silk was to increase traction or whether it was later co-opted for that purpose.  Spinneret silk proteins are encoded by a gene family that has evolved through a series of gene duplications and subsequent modifications for particular tasks.  If tarsal silks belong to the same gene family, then comparison of tarsal and spinneret silks should help our understanding of the ancestral function and composition of spider silk.

Do we really need to spin an evolutionary tale about this?  The authors do not know how the intricate machinery for spinning one of the world’s ideal materials evolved at all, let alone whether it evolved first on the legs or abdomen.  Here’s another example of forcing observations into a reigning paradigm.  The facts merely show that these spiders are exquisitely endowed for coping with a variety of situations they might encounter.  Remember that a gland is an organ, and an organ is a collection of tissues with a function, and that tissues are made of specialized cells.  It is naive to envision a whole collection of specialized parts coming into existence simultaneously by some blind process of evolution.  Realize, too, that it not only takes the equipment, but the know-how and reactions to use it.  The spider brain also must have software to quickly turn on the silk production in the feet and simultaneously retract the setae.  How many millions of years did that take to get all this right?
    Instead of getting distracted by some evolutionary tall tale, focus at the design in these amazing spiders.  Look at the handsome markings, the complex eyes, the coordinated walking movements, and all the other structures and functions that come together in a single complex animal that can carry on life in its niche – and reproduce all the parts for the next generation.  Did you know a female tarantula can live 20 years?  These critters have defensive mechanisms that rightly cause us a little trepidation (often exaggerated), but are really quite attractive creations in their own right.  Imagine designing a robot this capable.  Science should discover, describe and seek to understand the workings of nature.  Fitting the observations into speculations about origins is a job for philosophy and theology, not Nature.
Next headline on:  Terrestrial Zoology • Evolutionary Theory • Amazing Facts

The book, published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), is an unusual offering for a scientific society in its focus on religious issues.  Targeted especially at Christian adult-education classes, The Evolution Dialogues contributes a thoughtful discussion to the highly charged debate about evolution and its implications.  Written by Catherine Baker and edited by James B. Miller, the work was developed with input from scientists and theologians.

Sad.  If Dennett, Dawkins and Harris really believed and understood what they are arguing, they would realize that they are shooting themselves in the feet.  If belief in God evolved as an adaptive strategy, and therefore has no validity in its claims, the same can be said for belief in evolution – indeed, for belief in anything.  It would make just as much sense for other Darwinists to explain Dennett’s behavior in evolutionary terms, and for him to fight back and explain theirs in evolutionary terms, till everyone sings, “Ashes, ashes, we all fall down.”
    Speaking of cognitive neuroscience, Dennett has a bad case of what we will term the Yoda Complex.  He makes himself out to be some kind of exalted master, the Enlightened One, like some disembodied green god with pointy ears (and a pointy head), able to talk down to the rest of humanity.  In reality, he wears flesh and bones and puts on pants like the rest of men.  Most of us wouldn’t promote a guy like him to Exalted Master if we could.  But Dennett rambles on like some Yoda, sipping a soda in his pagoda, as if we owed assent (or a cent) to his ode.  (A girl named Rhoda showed a more rational response to the evidence than some believers: Acts 12).  While Dawkins recklessly swings his light saber like the dark lord of the Mith, Dennett talks smooth and deliberately in hushed tones, unaware that the universal acid that flowed away from his own Darwinian principles was strong enough to corrode a Darwinist container, too.
    In case any Ewoks out there are entranced by Yoda Dennett, as if he showed a thing or two from some enlightened abode, a perceptive mind will know what’s up.  That’s because Yoda wrote a coda to his ode, a line in the review to his book on Amazon.com where he spilled the beans (or his guts, if there’s a difference): “I appreciate that many readers will be profoundly distrustful of the tack I am taking here,” he said.  “They will see me as just another liberal professor trying to cajole them out of some of their convictions, and they are dead right about that—that’s what I am, and that’s exactly what I am trying to do.”  So, students, now that he has shown his true colors, what side of The Farce is he on? (answer: 06/20/2003).
    One doesn’t have to be “dead right.”  Being alive and right is much preferable.  Keep reading Creation-Evolution Headlines, where you learn how to explode a load of phony openness before you’re snowed.  A pretentious Yoda in his own mind, Daniel Dennett showed a code of bluster, not a display of wisdom bestowed upon him from on high.  A man he is, pretender he is; deceitful times, these.  You asked for it, you got it: Toy Yoda.
Next headline on:  Darwinism • Theology • Dumb Ideas

It must be remembered that things like starbirth rates and galaxy formation timelines are inferred from theory.  The observations show only colors, luminosities and chemical compositions of objects, along with other properties of spectra.  The shift of certain absorption lines from their normal wavelength positions is interpreted as universal expansion, except by the maverick astronomers (12/06/2004).  Even assuming the standard big bang scenario, though, it is a huge lumpiness problem for cosmologists to find galaxies already formed and producing stars at prodigious rates so near the beginning.  The sample sizes have been very limited so far.  Already, though, it is very surprising to think that whole galaxies could appear so soon out of a sea of particles by natural causes (05/11/2006).  Watch for new records to be set in future surveys.
Next headline on:  Cosmology • Astronomy

Among the gravest risks of a manned flight to Mars ranks the possibility that massive amounts of solar and cosmic radiation will decimate the brains of astronauts, leaving them in a vegetative state, if they survive at all.
    Dubbed “Risk 29” by NASA's Mars scientists, the cosmic radiation risk remains a show-stopper because shielding a spacecraft from all radiation could make it too heavy to reach Mars, which, at its closest, is 38 million miles from earth.

Movie scriptwriters never bring up these problems on Star Trek and all the other space thrillers.  Fact is, it’s a shooting gallery out there.  High-energy particles would rip into our flesh constantly were it not for our protective bubble here on God’s green earth. 
Next headline on:  Human Body • Physics • Solar System

“The idea of a multi-winged Archaeopteryx has been around for more than a century, but it hasn’t received much attention,” Longrich said.  “I believe one reason for this is that people tend to see what they want or expect to see.  Everybody knows that birds don’t have four wings, so we overlooked them even when they were right under our noses.

Maybe Longrich should dial Ken Dial down in Montana for his opinion.  Dial has staked his reputation on wing-assisted incline running (WAIR) for the origin of flight (see 05/01/2006, 11/16/2005, 12/22/2003, 01/16/2003), so this is likely to spoil his spoilers.  But we’re all for peace.  “Working toward consensus” is a buzzphrase these days.  Maybe by working together they can come up with an even better story.  The wingless female was diving off the tree, you see, and the wingless male, arms outstretched, came running to catch her.
    If Archaeopteryx had four functional flight surfaces instead of two, that’s not evolution.  For structures to persist, they have to help an animal survive.  Incipient structures do not help survival; they only get in the way.  If some extinct birds had more aerodynamic equipment than birds today, it indicates something has been lost, not gained.
Next headline on:  Birds • Evolution

Maybe lowly bacteria, not decaying dinosaurs, will keep our automobiles (or barbecues) running for the foreseeable future.  This announcement could have ripple effects on astrobiology as well as geopolitics.  It also illustrates how little we still know about some of the most basic processes on our own planet occurring today.  Remain doubtful, therefore, about what some scientists claim was going on billions of years ago.
Next headline on:  Geology • Physics

Late night talk show hosts and their so-called experts will probably not be convinced even now.  They will either continue to see intelligent design that isn’t there, or accuse the European Space Agency of conspiracy to fudge the data.  This is the power of belief in spite of evidence.  To show our good will, though, we will offer them a new Mars Odyssey picture loaded with putative faces to dream about, and we’ll even donate some extra pyramids.  The rest of us need not worry about the Martians, though.  They’re our friends.  They even sent us a Happy Face and a Valentine.
    Teachers, however, can use this episode as an example of design detection principles.  We all tend to see faces in natural phenomena, but most of the time, we can usually tell when something was designed or not.  Compare Vermont’s erstwhile Old Man of the Mountain with Mount Rushmore.  This can be a fun project.    Finding images on the internet is easy with search engines.  Assemble as many lookalike images as you can and give children a test to see if they can tell which were designed, and which were due to natural causes or chance.  For each picture ask, “Designed or not designed?”  Explain, “That covers all the possibilities, doesn’t it?”  Either something was put together on purpose [by a mind] to say something or to do something, or else natural causes were sufficient to explain it.  Throw in some tricky ones to trip them up and make them think.  Here are some possibilities:

• Natural bush shapes vs bushes trimmed into animal shapes (topiary)
• Concretions vs cannonballs
• Cave pearls (or natural pearls) vs ball bearings
• Arrowhead Springs geological feature vs a carved arrowhead
• Natural snowflakes vs jewelry shaped like a snowflake
• Burrow tracks in rock vs hieroglyphics
• Beetle tracks in wood vs graffiti carved on a tree
• Representational art vs abstract art (shows that design detection can produce false negatives, but usually not false positives if the specification is high)
• Mars “blueberries” vs rover scratch marks (e.g., MER).
• An archery target vs a uranium radiohalo
• A spirograph drawing vs the Spirograph Nebula
• The “face on Mars” vs desert intaglios or Nazca lines
• The “Martian canals” vs Valles Marineris
• Cave formations vs cave paintings
• Cave flowstone resembling organ pipes, vs real organ pipes (throw in this complication)
• Geological columnar basalt vs a stack of steel girders
• A cave opening vs a rock-hewn tomb
• A natural rock pile vs an archaeological rock wall
• Random binary digits vs the Arecibo Message
• Rocks in random arrangements vs rocks piled up as a trail marker
• Alphabet soup at random vs the letters arranged to spell “chance”
• Lenticular cloud formations vs skywriting
• Crepuscular rays vs converging railroad tracks
• Mushroom fairy ring vs Indian medicine wheel
• Saturn’s rings vs an Aerobee
• A blinking pulsar vs Morse Code
• A cyclone, a spiral galaxy and a computer-generated spiral
• A geological ridge vs the Great Wall of China
• Pyramid-shaped mountains vs the Egyptian pyramids
• Sand ripples vs sand castles
• Stratified rock vs stair steps or a block wall
• A scrambled Rubik’s cube vs a solved one (one chance out of 43 quadrillion)
• Random Scrabble letters vs a pattern forming crosswords
• A face-like rock formation vs Mt Rushmore
• An outboard motor and a flagellum
• A solar eclipse [no correct answer; discuss reason for thinking design/coincidence]

Juniors at a recent teaching session found this a lot of fun, and it conveys several important lessons about thinking without jumping to conclusions.  Then show them a bush carved into the shape of an animal, and the real animal.  Why should we infer intelligent design in the former, but not the latter?  This exercise can lead to further discussions about information and functional design (what it says or what it does), and whether Darwin’s mechanism can account for the origin of information.  Pictures like this can be worth thousands of words.
Teaching tip: Kids might pay better attention if you make it a game.  Call up volunteers, for instance, to take turns answering “designed or not designed?” for various pictures.  Let the class vote on whether they answered correctly or not, and have them explain why.
Next headline on:  Solar System • Intelligent Design • Education

Now that the scapula of this species can be examined in full for the first time, it is unexpected to find the strongest similarities with Gorilla, an animal in which weight-bearing and terrestrial knuckle-walking predominately characterize locomotor use of the forelimbs.  Problematic in the interpretation of these findings is that the diversity of scapula architecture among hominoid species is poorly understood from a functional perspective.

This depositional setting, combined with the remarkable preservation of many articulated faunal remains lacking evidence of preburial weathering, most likely indicates that the juvenile hominin was buried as an intact corpse shortly after death during a major flood event.

This depositional setting, combined with the remarkable preservation of many articulated faunal remains lacking evidence of preburial weathering, most probably indicates rapid deposition during major flood events, burying many fossils as intact corpses (including the juvenile hominin).

There remains a great deal of controversy regarding the posture and locomotion of A. afarensis.  Most researchers accept that it could stand upright and walk on two feet, but whether it could climb up and move through trees is still disputed.  Some suggest that its adaptations to walking on two feet preclude any significant arboreal locomotion, and interpret any limb features that support such locomotion as evolutionary baggage without any useful function.  Others suggest that a primitive limb morphology would not have persisted unless it served a purpose.

When you scrape away the hype and artistic license, most of the details of the actual bones seem to back up criticisms by creationists that this is nothing more than an extinct ape.  The only portions of the skeleton that evolutionists use to claim this creature had something to do with human evolution are the least preserved: the leg and foot bones.  They interpret these to mean it walked upright, as if walking upright is the main human distinctive.  The best-preserved parts of the skeleton, by contrast, are clearly ape-like and argue against this extinct ape being a walker.  Read the articles skeptically, without assuming what the evolutionists assume, and the evidence is profoundly unconvincing for the claims made about it.  Everything from the backbone up is well within the charts for an ape, not a human wannabee.  The paleontologists admitted, also, that the skeleton has been deformed; how does that affect the interpretation, when assessing function from structure is “poorly understood” under the best of conditions?
    This fossil also creates other problems for the evolutionists.  Consider, for instance, how the evidence for arboreal (tree-climbing) behavior, based on the fingers and shoulder blades, scrambles the Lucy story: “The foot and other evidence from the lower limb provide clear evidence for bipedal locomotion [sic], but the gorilla-like scapula and long and curved manual phalanges raise new questions about the importance of arboreal behaviour in the A. afarensis locomotor repertoire.”  This means that evolutionists must now either consider the tree-climbing equipment as “evolutionary baggage” or believe that this creature climbed trees half the time and walked upright the other half.  (Only human boys exhibit this behavior today, but they quickly grow out of it.)  If Darwin’s mechanism could produce instant phyla at the Cambrian, why couldn’t it get rid of its baggage just as quickly?  On the other hand, if Baby Lucy was happy in the treetops, why was there evolutionary pressure to make her strut on the ground, when other primates found buried with her did not feel the same pressure?  And how can minorities endure the racism implicit in the artwork (see Yahoo) that always shows these alleged primitives with dark skin?
    The Darwin Party baby shower for Salem is, therefore, highly overblown, as is usual for human-evolution celebrations.  They don’t seem to be focusing quite as much on the remarkable collection of animals buried with the little she-ape.  If a sudden flood of this magnitude occurred today, burying this many animals in the same graveyard all at once, wouldn’t it be international news?  This was not a volcanic landslide; it was a watery catastrophe.  Notice how much the media are going out of their way to characterize this ape as a child and a baby when they won’t even afford that dignity to a human embryo.  It is time to get rid of the evolutionary baggage and discover the real Peace Child.
Next headline on:  Early Man • Fossils

Yes, ideas need testing.  Sad to say, nobody appears to have tested this initial interpretation for 60 years.  That’s two generations of dino-loving children being told a story without evidence to support it.  That’s also two generations of scientists focusing more on the diet of Coelophysis than on the amazing fact that whole populations of these creatures died together in “some catastrophe.”  Some catastrophe, indeed.
Next headline on:  Dinosaurs • Fossils • Media

It’s a common excuse to be too busy for exercise.  Try this article’s advice: make better use of less time.  No more long, slow walks on the treadmill; crank up the incline and the speed, and work up a good, short sweat.  Do your own scientific experiment to see if it helps; better than nothing at all.  Of course, follow common sense and doctor’s advice for your age and condition.  If you can, work up to getting that heart pumping and the breathing heavy.  Find a way to work it into your schedule somewhere, even if just 20 minutes of intense activity and a quick shower.  It’s a small investment that will pay dividends by making the rest of your day more effective.  Think how much better the day will go with a sharper mind, more energy and a better outlook on life.
Next headline on:  Health

1. New ring:  PIA08322 shows a new faint ring between the G and F rings, never before seen.  It is aligned with the orbits of the moons Janus and Epimetheus.  Scientists found it surprising to see such a well-defined structure here.  The G ring also is shown to have a sharp inner edge, while the E ring is broad and diffuse.
2. Enceladus in action:  The geysers of Enceladus can be seen erupting from 1.3 million miles away in image PIA08321.  The ejected material, extending a remarkable distance from the small moon, is seen to perturb the E ring.
3. Our blue dot of home:  In what is sure to be a historic centerpiece of the growing Cassini catalog, image PIA08324 shows our Earth, 930 million miles away, as a faint dot between the G and E rings of Saturn.  A magnified image (inset) shows the pale moon behind the left limb of the Earth.  A closer look at the left side of the image also shows Enceladus, spouting away, inside the E ring.

These are the kind of pictures that can leave you speechless, and even bring tears to your eyes..  Cherish these special moments of discovery; we can talk more about the Enceladus geysers later and what they indicate.  Look at that “pale blue dot” again, and think of all that is going on down there.  Time to watch The Privileged Planet again tonight.
Next headline on:  Solar System • Amazing Stories

Around the home, regularly used tools are generally kept close at hand: a can opener in a kitchen drawer, a broom in the hall closet.  Less frequently used tools are more likely to be stored in less accessible locations, out of immediate reach, perhaps in the basement or garage.  And hazardous tools might even be kept under lock and key.
    Similarly, the human genome has developed a set of sophisticated mechanisms for keeping selected genes readily available for use while other genes are kept securely stored away for long periods of time, sometimes forever.  Candidate genes for such long-term storage include those required only for early development and proliferation, potentially dangerous genes that could well trigger cancers and other disorders should they be reactivated later in life.

An unanticipated observation from the study centers on the region of association between the two molecules in the complex.  The researchers knew that one of the two molecules in the complex, called ASF1, associated with a particular molecular partner, HIRA, when directing assembly of the more condensed form of chromatin.  But it could also associate with a different partner, called CAF1, to shepherd assembly of the less condensed form of chromatin.
    On closer study, the scientists discovered that HIRA and CAF1 have nearly identical structural motifs in the regions of interaction with ASF1.  This means that ASF1 can bind to one or the other molecular partner, but not to both.  In other words, the interaction is mutually exclusive: A kind of decision is made by ASF1 as to whether to guide the assembly process towards the more or less condensed forms of chromatin.  What determines the choice?  The relevant factors are unknown for now.

Good work, by scientists operating on design principles (whether they realize it or not).  There was no mention of evolution in the press release.  It would would seem, also, that evolutionary theory would be useless in tracking down the factors that determine which binding takes place.
    You might not have realized that your genetic toolkit has power tools that are dangerous.  Just like you would lock up hunting rifles in a secure cabinet, so that they won’t be used for the wrong purpose, your genetic system has controlled procedures for locking up its dangerous equipment.  Most of the trillions of cells in your body get it right for decades, and even when there’s an accident, the body has other procedures for containing the damage.  It is mind-boggling that all this goes on without our conscious knowledge, so that we can be conscious, and gain knowledge.
Next headline on:  Genetics • Amazing Facts

Think of the wonderful new possibilities this opens up for evolutionary storytelling.  The shark is obviously practicing for its eventual debut on land.  And shiver me timbers, shrimp must have retained developmental genes shared by praying mantises, leading to a most remarkable case of convergent evolution.
    The focus of the article was on the sad state of conservation of this area, and how local fisherman are using methods that threaten these unique species.  This time the liberals can’t blame the Christian right.
Next headline on:  Marine Biology

1. Hideouts and Holdouts:  Some Neanderthals may have lived thousands of years longer than earlier believed, said Live Science, Science Now and National Geographic.  This controversial claim emerged from radiocarbon-dates of charcoal from a Gibraltar cave as recent as 24,000 years–some 6,000 years earlier than the standard 30,000-year mark when modern humans were said to become dominant.  BBC News has a picture of the cave and the locale.  A possible multi-thousand-year overlap resurrects the question of whether Neanderthals and modern humans interbred.  Skeptics dispute the dates, claiming the samples must have been contaminated.
2. I’m OK, You’re Strange:  Erik Trinkaus of Washington State got publicity with this assertion: Neanderthals were normal; it’s we modern humans that are strange (see Live Science).  He compared other members of genus Homo and “discovered” that modern humans have twice as many “uniquely distinct traits” as Neanderthals.  Whether that qualifies as making us weird might be debated, but Trinkaus argued, “In the broader sweep of human evolution, the more unusual group is not Neanderthals, whom we tend to look at as strange, weird and unusual, but it’s us, modern humans.”

Did we hear a scientist doubting the accuracy of radiocarbon dates?  Is it possible somebody is picking and choosing the dates they want?  Evolutionists want us to believe that Neanderthals did little more than hunt game and paint on cave walls for 70,000 years, even though their average skull capacities were larger than ours.  Does that make any sense?
    Though Neanderthals (whatever we call them) are classified according to a set of distinctive anatomical traits, there is more variability among living people than between average Neanderthals and average modern humans.  Could Neanderthalism be nothing more than an artifact of human classification bias?  Is this a form of racism projected onto dead humans unable to hire a lawyer to defend themselves?^a  You decide; in the meantime, you’ll want to make a good impression among the Neanderthal glitterati at the next cave cookout, so order your prosthetic brow ridges today.^b
Next headline on:  Early Man • Dating Methods

---

^aThe BBC article included an artist’s conception that accentuates the “primitive” look.  This harks back to Haeckel’s ranking of humans to make certain races look less evolved.
^bNote: prominent brow ridges are not marks of brutishness or stupidity.  They are actually a benefit; they allow larger muscle attachments for chewing.  It could be argued that we modern humans are at a disadvantage without them.  Any trait can be accentuated in a limited gene pool; look at dachshunds vs. huskies.  You could organize dogs into groups based on traits, and set arbitrary boundaries between the groups, yet this would imply nothing about their intelligence, survivability, or (especially) their emergence from hypothetical pre-canine ancestors.

1. Evapo-Motors:  Scientists at U of Michigan were intrigued by how ferns turn the power of evaporation into launching pads.  The sporangia (spore ejectors) use a “microactuator” to eject the spores into the environment as they dry out.  The team was so impressed, they said “Oh, we have to build that,” and imitated the mechanism to build microchips that open and close when wetted or dried.  They think they might be able to generate electricity without batteries with this technique.
2. Info Compactor:  Despite their minute size, spores must carry the entire genome of the species.  A Wistar Institute press release talked about that.  It’s incredible: a histone tag on the chromatin somehow signals a compaction process that reduces the already-tight fit to 5% of the original volume.  All this must be done very delicately, because spores are haploid (one strand of DNA) and much more subject to disastrous breaks.

Can we just ignore that stupid little evolutionary piddle for a moment, and enjoy the fascination of these observational facts?  The ejection method of spores in ferns is just one of many highly clever and diverse seed-spreading techniques in the plant kingdom, some of which also use desiccation to advantage, like the Scotchbroom, whose pods explode to send seeds as far as 50 feet.  A beautiful film Journey of Life illustrates some of these tricks of the plant trade and is well worth watching.
    In the second story, think of how delicate and accurate this process has to be.  In the quintillions of sperm and spore cells that are produced throughout the world, most of the time the process works flawlessly.  The article did not even mention that a reverse process must also take place.  Packing is one thing, but what if you can’t unpack the information just as delicately and accurately?  Undoubtedly pollen grains have this nanotechnology, too.  A human cell can contain six feet of DNA, contained in the microscopic dot of a cell.  Many plants have even larger genomes.  A seed, sperm or spore must contain not only the entire genetic code, but the nutrients and machinery to unpack it, deliver it and protect it so that the next generation of the species can continue.  Could Darwin have known such things, one wonders how different the history of science (and politics) might have been.  Now, there’s no excuse.
Next headline on:  Plants • Cell Biology • Amazing Facts

• Chromosome numbers range from 17 to 64 between species.
• X chromosomes in some species carry 20% of the genome.
• Some females carry significant parts of the male Y chromosome.
• In some species, the males and females have different chromosome numbers.
• Despite widely variant genotypes, all voles come out looking basically the same (phenotype).  Some species look so identical it takes a DNA analysis to tell the difference.

It doesn’t mean any such thing.  It means, rather, that evolutionists are more incorrigible than ever when faced with conflicting data, to the point they will believe in miracles.
    These findings also mean that geneticists don’t understand nearly as much as they thought.  How can you have vastly different genomes that yield identical-looking animals?  What do genetic differences really imply about the fitness of individuals and populations?  Why would a little furball evolve 100 times faster than an elephant, monkey, or whale, or rat or mouse?
    Evolutionary theory was so much easier before we had facts.
Next headline on:  Genetics • Evolution • Mammals

Imagine a peaceful herd of dinosaurs grazing by the lake bed, then deciding to die en masse and cover themselves with sediments.  If that does not happen today, it probably didn’t back then, either.
    Evolutionary stories and timelines are not essential to the scientific process of discovering, describing, identifying, cataloging and gaining insight into the growth and development of dinosaurs.  Did psittocosaurs gradually evolve into ceratopsids over millions of years?  The bones cannot confirm such notions.  What they can do, though, is constrain the imaginations of scientists who weren’t there and don’t know everything.  Go get ’em, hunters.
Next headline on:  Dinosaurs • Fossils

The derived characteristics indicate that this cloud is composed of ethane and forms as a result of stratospheric subsidence and the particularly cool conditions near the moon’s north pole.  Preferential condensation of ethane, perhaps as ice, at Titan’s poles during the winters may partially explain the lack of liquid ethane oceans on Titan’s surface at middle and lower latitudes.

Methane (the second most abundant atmospheric constituent after nitrogen) is dissociated irreversibly by solar ultraviolet light, producing primarily ethane and, at one-sixth and one-10th of the ethane production rate, respectively, acetylene and haze, as well as other less abundant organic molecules.  These photochemical by-products precipitate to Titan’s surface.  Titan’s atmospheric composition and photochemical models indicate that ethane accumulates as a liquid (at the equatorial surface temperature of 93.5 K) at a rate of ~300 m (if global) over Titan’s lifetime of 4.5 billion years, whereas solid sediments, including acetylene and haze particles, accumulate at roughly one-third of this rate.  Thus, unless methane is a recent addition to Titan’s atmosphere or ethane incorporates itself into surface solids, it has been reasoned that a considerable fraction of the surface should be covered with liquid ethane.  Titan’s surface reveals dunes of solid sediments, probably including haze particles and acetylene ice.  In addition, the surface is riddled with alluvial features, suggesting the occurrence of methane rain in the past.  Craters are rare, indicating geological relaxation as well as their burial by photochemical sediments.  Yet Titan appears depleted of its most abundant photochemical by-product.  Except for the ethane-damp surface measured by Huygens, no condensed form of ethane has been detected, despite its rapid production in Titan’s stratosphere and the expectation of finding ethane-rich oceans before the Cassini encounter.

Presently, there is no direct evidence of polar caps composed of ethane.  The northern pole has not been imaged.  Cassini images of the southern pole do not indicate the morphology of 2 km of ethane ice, assuming current rates of ethane production over the past 4.5 billion years, accumulated within 35° of the poles.  Yet south polar images suggest flow features, possibly associated with a smaller quantity of ethane ice accumulated on the young surface.  The detection of surficial ethane ice is hindered by the correlation of ethane features and methane signatures, which obscure the visibility of Titan’s surface.  In addition, the polar surface is probably distinct and varied.  Similarly, other hydrocarbons would precipitate preferentially at the poles and pollute the ethane ice, and any lowland methane lakes would dissolve and melt ethane, because the mixture’s eutectic temperature is 72.5 K.  Such lakes might condense out of Titan’s humid lower troposphere during winter.  The surface distribution of liquid or solid ethane, whether corralled into the polar regions by circulation or transported by surface flows to lower latitudes, will be determined with radar and near-infrared images of the geomorphology, radio determinations of the polar temperatures, and infrared measurements of the polar composition, which are scheduled for future Cassini encounters with Titan.

Until now, clouds of the most abundant product of methane dissociation, ethane, have eluded detection.  The Griffith et al.  identification of polar ethane clouds is reassuring, in that it validates the basic ideas we have about Titan’s meteorology and chemistry: first, that condensation does occur, as expected, in the lower stratosphere, and second, that the inferred altitudes of the ethane cloud (30 to 50 km) are consistent with subsidence in the winter polar region.  This and other clues that we will obtain will help us to sort out the things we still puzzle over.

The problem vanishes when you liberate your mind from the requirement of billions of years.  This is really uncanny.  Everything about Titan screams young, but nowhere do you find anyone questioning the linchpin assumption that Titan is 4.5 billion years old.  It’s almost like they want to downplay this “puzzle” and sweep it under the rug.  Don’t let them.  Most creationists could live with a young or old Titan, though some would prefer the former.  The only people who would be completely scandalized by a young Titan are the evolutionists who absolutely depend on billions of years in which to hide their skeletons.
    The ethane cloud is too little, too late.  After all, vast quantities of ethane must be there.  Dr. Flasar admitted it: he was reassured that the ethane “condensation does occur” and that the basic ideas about Titan’s chemistry have been validated.  It follows logically that this process, going on interrupted for billions of years, would leave the evidence in abundance.  OK, so where is it?  They can’t hide the answer in the future much longer.  Imagine the entire globe covered with an ethane ocean half a mile deep or more.  What happened to it?  Did the interior suck it up like a sponge?  Did aliens take it?  Did creationists steal in a vast conspiracy to support their young-earth views?  Come on; let the facts speak to the unbiased mind.
Next headline on:  Solar System • Dating Methods • Physics

It’s important for us to keep reporting what biophysicists and biochemists are finding, so that the Darwinists know what they are up against.  The cheap calls of “convergent evolution” and “remnants of the evolutionary process” and other such calls to accept evolution as an assumption are ringing hollow, and need to be ejected with the rest of today’s intellectual garbage and toxins.
Next headline on:  Cell Biology • Amazing Facts

We tricked you by posing this as a contest between good and evil, between peace-loving leaf cells and dastardly bacteria up to no good.  Metaphors bewitch you, remember? (see 07/04/2003).  Plants and bacteria are not sentient beings.  We should liberate our minds from the tendency to view these ecological interactions in anthropomorphic terms.  The converse is not true; human beings are sentient moral agents; no one should take this commentary as support for viewing terrorism as a natural regulatory response to civilization, for instance.  But it is possible that bacteria act as a counterbalance in the overall ecology.  Nature is filled with counterbalances, with accelerator pedals and brakes, with promoters and terminators.  Bacteria invading a leaf may look to us like selfish invaders, but what if they have a role to play, preventing a plant community from growing beyond its resources?  Many bacterial invasions occur after periods of high humidity or drenching rainstorms.  It’s possible to look at the ecological community as a well-regulated system of checks and balances, responding to perturbations in a way that ensures the long-term survival of the whole.  Most of the time, it works.  Plant communities endure despite major geological and climatic changes.  Clearly, things get out of balance sometimes, but maybe that was not the original intent of these well-regulated systems in the original creation.  We don’t need to resort to the evolutionary selfishness metaphors.  We should not personify bacteria, speculating that they “have evolved strategies” to get their own way.  Maybe they’re just doing the best job they can in a messed-up world.
    The important point of these articles is not in some moral anthropomorphism, but in the realization that here is another example of an interrelated, regulated system that could never have evolved by some unguided processes.  Stomata may have looked like simple pores to earlier scientists; now we know that there is a whole network of regulators and detectors, composed of at least 40 parts, that work together to ensure the proper functioning and security of the photosynthetic factories on which all multicellular life depends.  This has been the pattern of scientific discovery ever since the discovery of DNA.  No matter where you look, life is much more sophisticated than one could have imagined.
    An evolutionary astrobiologist was heard today co