“I heartily wish I was more worthy to receive it, by understanding more of the deep & important subject of political economy.  Though our studies have been so different, I believe that we both earnestly desire the extension of knowledge & that this in the long run is sure to add to the happiness of mankind.” 
—Charles Darwin to Karl Marx, 1873, upon receiving a copy of Das Kapital inscribed, “Mr. Charles Darwin on the part of his sincere admirer Karl Marx.”  Cited by Janet Browne in Charles Darwin: The Power of Place (Princeton 2002, p. 403). An estimated 148 million people perished under communist regimes (see 11/30/2005 entry).

SETI a Descendant of OOL   11/30/2006    
The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) may seem a different subject than origin of life (OOL), but researchers in both depend on each other’s assumptions.  The common bond is illustrated in a SETI article on Space.com today.  Devon Burr of the SETI institute wrote an article not about intelligent aliens trying to broadcast signals to us, but about Saturn’s moon Titan, where no aliens are known to exist.  Let Burr explain the connection himself:

As we search for extraterrestrial life, Earth in some sense always provides our framework.  The data indicate that life does in fact exist on this planet, and it existed here sometime before about 3.5 billion years ago (give or take a couple hundred million years).  However, thanks to plate tectonics and other pesky processes, we’re missing some critical information about this early time.  This includes information about how life got started on Earth.
    Titan may come to our rescue....

There is a continuum of belief from big bangers to astrobiologists to chemical evolutionists to Darwinian biologists to SETI researchers.  They are all blood brothers sharing a common mythology.  A phylogenetic search of the evolution memes show that astrobiologists and SETI enthusiasts and complete wackos spring from a common ancestor.  They will believe anything, make the wildest unsupported statements, and uniformly ignore evidence for design that stares them in the face.  Their eyes and ears appear to be tuned to mystical fantasies incomprehensible to reasonable humans.  Maybe they are from another planet.
Next headline on:  SETI • Origin of Life • Solar System

1. Energy balancing act:  Cells have to use oxygen without being burned by it.  In Nature 11/09,¹ Toren Finkel described the delicate way mitochondria deal with their explosive fuel without polluting their environment. 

   Much like any factory producing widgets, mitochondria consume carbon-based fuels.  Their product is ATP, the energy currency of the cell.  Nonetheless, just like factory smokestacks, mitochondria also release potentially harmful by-products into their environment.  For mitochondria, these toxins come in the form of reactive oxygen species (ROS) that include superoxide and hydrogen peroxide.  In turn, these oxidants can interact with other radical species or with transition metals to produce by-products that are even more damaging.  To combat ROS production, the cell has evolved a number of sophisticated antioxidant defences, including enzymes such as superoxide dismutase to scavenge superoxide, as well as catalase and glutathione peroxidase to degrade hydrogen peroxide.

   Finkel did not explain how these sophisticated mechanisms might have evolved, except to assert that mitochondria are “tiny and evolutionarily ancient energy-producing organelles.”  He did consider a claim that they contain a “design flaw” because they leak measurable amounts of reactive oxygen species.  Is this a bug or a feature?

   If ROS synthesis is so bad, and a molecular solution so apparently straightforward, why has this 'design flaw' not been eradicated during the billions of years of evolution?  There are many possible answers, but one is that the notion that ROS from the mitochondria are solely harmful could be incorrect.  Indeed, substantial evidence exists that ROS generated in the cytoplasm could have vital signalling functions, and this might also be true for oxidants derived from mitochondria.

   On closer inspection, then, it appears that “a homeostatic loop exists between mitochondria and ROS and that this loop is, at least in part, orchestrated by PGC-1alpha.”  This, in turn, stimulates the production of more oxidant-sweeping molecular machines.
2. Codes within codes:  Helen Pearson wrote a thought-provoking article in Nature 11/16 entitled “Genetic information; Codes and enigmas.”²  The idea is that there is “more than one way to read a stretch of DNA.”  Biologists have been searching for hidden meanings in the repetitive and non-coding regions and are turning up codes within the genetic code that affect regulation and expression of genes.  The way that DNA is packaged around nucleosomes appears an integral part of the message system.  As to how these codes allegedly evolved, she simply asserted that it did, and personified evolution as a designing hand:

   This elegance is surely the handiwork of evolution – and if the way in which that hand had worked to solve these problems were clearer, the simultaneous decoding of all the messages involved might become easier.  Perhaps ancestral organisms had simpler sequence patterns that evolution has optimized, taking advantage of its degeneracy to layer in additional information that helped organisms acquire extra complexity.  Hanspeter Herzel, who specializes in statistical analyses of DNA at Humboldt University, Berlin, speculates that the space constraints of the cell may have favoured the development of nucleosomes that wound up unruly DNA – and that their existence then encouraged the evolution of a nucleosome code in the sequence because this lowered the energetic cost of coiling up DNA.  But as yet such ideas, and any help they might offer, remain tentative.  “We don’t really have a phylogeny of these signals,” he says.

   Next, Pearson considered that some of the stretches of apparently meaningless code have no biological function at all: they are just there.  This approach, though, she finds distasteful: “But to some people the thought of order with no meaning is an affront.  To such minds, the idea of teasing out nature’s secrets with little more than mathematical cunning and processing power will never lose its allure.”  Stay tuned.
3. Enzyme ballet:  Proteins and enzymes often work in complexes.  How do the parts dance without stepping on each other’s toes?  How do they get together on a crowded, active dance floor?  Two biologists considered this problem in the same 11/16 issue of Nature.³  Pick your favorite analogy; choreography or electrical engineering:

   Living cells, particularly during growth and proliferation, need regulatory processes of great sensitivity and high specificity.  To achieve this, signal-to-noise ratios must be high when information is received and transmitted between the cell surface, the cytoplasm and the nucleus.  Just like electrical and engineering control systems, living cells have complex signalling pathways that are moderated by feedback mechanisms.  It is becoming increasingly clear that most switches, transducers and adaptors in living systems are created by the assembly and disassembly of multi-component complexes of proteins, nucleic acids and other molecules....
       How do the molecular assemblies in cells achieve the required sensitivity and specificity?  Efficient signal transduction must maintain fidelity and decrease noise while amplifying the signal.  So the solution cannot be explained in terms of tightly bound, enduring molecular complexes, because the signals could not then be turned off.  Rather, it seems to lie in first assembling weak binary complexes, and then using cooperative interactions to produce multi-component complexes in which the weak interactions are replaced by much stronger and more specific interactions.
       Although weak, nonspecific, transient complexes could give rise to a noisy system, such ‘encounter complexes’ might be exploited so that interaction partners do not have to be found afresh in the busy milieu of the cell, thus increasing the rate of formation of specific binary and higher-order complexes.  Essentially, the partners bump into one another and are held loosely, allowing them time to become reorientated and repositioned on the surface or to adjust their shape to fit together more tightly.  Recent studies are beginning to describe the dynamics of the assembly processes and to show that nonspecific, transient collisions play an important role in macromolecular associations.

   How this is accomplished is discussed in more detail in the paper.  Sounds a bit like electrical robots in a random dance that, on average, brings partners together with the right chemistry such that they get a brief charge out of the bond before trying other players.
4. Trigger finger:  There’s a chaperone in some bacteria called “trigger factor.”  This machine was discussed by Ada Yonah in Nature 11/23,⁴ summarizing a couple of papers in the issue.  He pictured it like a clamshell that attaches to the exit tunnel of the ribosome.  As a nascent polypeptide emerges, there is a risk that the hydrophobic amino acid residues, like magnets, will stick to the wrong stuff in the cell and create a tangled mess.  The trigger-factor clamshell forms a shelter around the exit tunnel, watching for these hydrophobic residues.  When one pops out, it gloms onto it and lets go of the ribosome, protecting it from the intercellular medium, until the polypeptide can fold properly into its finished shape.  The next trigger-factor chaperone takes its place on the exit tunnel for the next hydrophobic residue.  When folding proceeds, the clamshell opens up and goes back to the exit tunnel to look for more.  There’s an excess of trigger factor chaperones at all times.  “This means that there is a continuous supply of trigger factor to protect a nascent chain,” Yonah explains.
5. Not a simple needle prick:  Two biologists described the “needle-nosed pump” known as Type-3 Secretion System (T3SS) in the Nov 30 issue of Nature.⁵  Though this machine, composed of 20 protein parts, shares some components with the famous bacterial flagellum, the authors did not dwell on this relationship but explained what else is known so far about T3SS.  For one thing, it is much more complex than previously realized.  Though it resembles somewhat a hypodermic syringe, the protein cargo it delivers is not just a needle prick into the host.  A complex delivery channel is assembled at the tip.  Moreover, assembly of the basal body and needle complex follows elaborate feedback mechanisms; the length of the needle complex is specifically controlled by either a “measuring cup” in the C-ring basal complex, or a “molecular ruler” in the channel or some other control method, such that the tip does not grow too long or too short.  The machine also has to be built to the right diameter such that the substrate protein can pass through.
       The T3SS is implicated in many pathogenic bacteria, like Yersinia pestis, bubonic plague.  Bacteria seem able to mimic the function of host proteins with substrates that function similarly without sequence similarity.  Though the authors attribute this to “convergent evolution,” they open the possibility that the needle shots these bacteria give to eukaryotic cells can be beneficial.  Why would bacteria mimic the legitimate proteins in a host?  The authors say, “this strategy seems appropriate to have been adapted by bacteria that have type III secretion systems as a central element for the establishment of a close functional interface that is often symbiotic in nature.”
       Much remains to be learned about T3SS.  The authors seem genuinely excited about the potential for understanding disease transmission and bacterial-eukaryote interactions through the continued elaboration of these molecular mechanisms.  The 3-D diagrams look like something manufactured in a machine shop.  The authors seem to think machine language is the appropriate code for describing them; they called these things “machines” 42 times.  Let their ending paragraph express their enthusiasm:

   The discovery of type III secretion machines has arguably been one of the most significant discoveries in bacterial pathogenesis of the past few years.  The widespread distribution of such a macromolecular machine and its use in rather diverse biological contexts is a testament to the success of the evolutionary forces working to shape the complex functional interface between pathogenic or symbiotic bacteria and their eukaryotic hosts.  Its central role in the interaction of many pathogenic bacteria opens up the possibility of developing new anti-infective strategies.  In addition, a detailed understanding of these machines is allowing them to be harnessed to deliver heterologous proteins for therapeutic or vaccine purposes.  The past few years have seen a rather remarkable increase in the understanding of these machines.  There is no doubt that the importance and intrinsic beauty of these fascinating machines will continue to attract the attention of scientists and therefore progress is likely to continue at an even faster pace.

6. Centriole olé:  Tiny devices called centrioles are vital to all life, because they duplicate each cell division and are intimately involved in it: “Centrioles are necessary for flagella and cilia formation, cytokinesis, cell-cycle control and centrosome organization/spindle assembly,” wrote 5 biologists in Nature 11/30.⁶  How the little machines duplicate themselves has been unclear.  “Here we show using electron tomography of staged C. elegans [roundworm] one-cell embryos that daughter centriole assembly begins with the formation and elongation of a central tube followed by the peripheral assembly of nine singlet microtubules,” they announced.  Various other proteins trigger, regulate, signal and terminate the process.
        Their models of the centrioles resemble cylinders lined by equally-spaced rods on the outside.  The shape can be discerned in the photographs.  “The structure of centrioles is conserved [i.e., unevolved] from ancient eukaryotes to mammals,” they noted, saying also at the end of the paper, “It is therefore likely that some of the assembly intermediates uncovered here in C. elegans are conserved in mammals and other eukaryotes.”
       As they reproduce, the daughter centrioles grow at a perpendicular angle to the mother.  How this all happens is mysterious, but you can watch movies of these geometric structures emerging out of the cell matrix in the supplementary materials of the paper.  The authors superimpose models of the centrioles to aid the visualization of a mechanical process just now coming into focus.  To watch machinery 400 billionths of a meter in size assembling itself in a living cell is a harbinger of exciting days ahead for cell biology.  For more on the lab roundworm C. elegans, visit our 06/25/2006 entry, and try counting the number of times “information” is used.
7. Spectacrobatics:  Three scientists from U of Maryland, publishing in PNAS⁷, employed a dramatic word rarely seen in a scientific paper while trying to figure out the interactions of another famous chaperone, the GroES-GroEL complex.  They described a particular flip of a helix in the enzymes as “spectacular.”  They used the word not only in the abstract but in the body of the paper, and added a synonym for emphasis.  A coordinated switch between a network of salt-bridges in the enzyme produced what they called a “dramatic” outside-in movement.  Must be quite a show.  Now playing in a cell inside you.
8. Dynein truckers:  In the film Unlocking the Mystery of Life, Michael Behe spoke of molecular trucks that carry cargo from one end of the cell to the other.  One of these trucks has a motor called dynein.  To show that Behe was not exaggerating, read a press release on EurekAlert.  It tells how a team of scientists U of North Carolina School of Medicine tried to figure out the power stroke of these little engines.  In describing the way the enzyme exerts mechanical force by converting chemical energy (in the form of ATP) into mechanical energy, they also used the transportation metaphor.  The article says, “the dynein puzzle is similar to figuring out how auto engines make cars move.”  One of the researchers continued, “You have an engine up front that burns gas, but we didn’t know how the wheels are made to move.”
       What’s interesting is that the gas tank is quite a ways from the wheels; that means that the chemical energy must be transmitted over a substantial distance from where the power stroke actually occurs (if you consider a few nanometers a substantial distance).  The truck is a speedster, too: “We saw it could allow a very rapid transduction of chemical energy into mechanical energy,” he said.  That’s good, because there’s nanotons of work for a trucker in Cellville.  “Conversion to mechanical energy allows dynein to transport cellular structures such as mitochondria that perform specific jobs such as energy generation, protein production and cell maintenance.  Dynein also helps force apart chromosomes during cell division.”  So the truck has as a good winch, too.
       These results were published in PNAS.⁸  Search on dynein above for more facts about these heavy lifters of the cell world, especially 02/25/2003 and 02/13/2003.  Also interesting are the entries from 12/02/2004 and 04/13/2005.  But then, 07/12/2004 might just blow you away.

Need we say more?  You see the contrast between the exciting scientific work of investigating a world of technology at the limits of our grasp, alongside evolutionary speculations that are just plain silly.  “This elegance is surely the handiwork of evolution,” Pearson says, after describing a coded information and communication system more sophisticated than any software design we know.  Such pop-evo lingo contributes nothing to the science of these reports.  It’s just added after the fact, like trying to attach a sticky-note to a fountain, and does nothing but pollute it.
    This morning on the radio, atheists Lawrence Krauss and Sam Harris were claiming that ”People of Faith” who dare to believe “irrational” religious claims and deny evolution are dangerous and making America lose its edge in the scientific world.  They urged people to trust their minds to the pronouncements of “science” which is based on “evidence” (revealing their ignorance of philosophy of science, that they would still embrace logical positivism).  A scientist called in and said his faith was supported by evidence, not just faith.  Another caller rightly noted how many times scientists have changed their views, and how many scientists did great work because of their religion.  It’s the evolutionists who push their own faith in spite of the evidence, she said.  She ended her concise and intelligently-worded comeback by saying she didn’t have enough faith to be an atheist.  Nowhere is blind faith more exposed than in these articles, and many more like them reported in these pages, where high technology is simply assumed to arise by evolution, without any logic, reason or evidence to support it.
    Kudos to the researchers who are continuing to uncover these marvels.  Take the Darwinspeak out and you will do better.  The People of Froth need to understand that the age of biological machines will not endure simplistic Darwinian explanations any longer.  People sense the tension between the discoveries about biological machinery and the generalities in evolutionary tall tales.  Facts have stretched Darwinian faith to the breaking point.  The abrupt appearance of high technology in the simplest of organisms is not “evolutionary conservation,” it is creation.  The widespread incidence of similar technologies between disparate groups is not “convergent evolution,” it is common design.  When all the evolutionists can do is make religious arguments and get emotional, you know the Age of Darwin is over.  Welcome to the Information Age.  To be on the cutting edge, earn your degree at Celltech U (06/25/2006).
Next headline on:  Cell Biology • Genetics • Amazing Facts

Evolutionary Ethics Teeters on Brave New World    11/29/2006  
What happens when science pursues whatever it can do, unfettered by moral standards?  Three recent news stories should cause all futurists to ponder the ramifications:

• A BBC News story this month asked, “UK scientists are seeking permission to place human nuclei into animal eggs in a bid to create stem cell lines.  Why do researchers believe the intermingling of species could be vital to science?”  The article describes how research on animal-animal chimeras is turning toward human-animal chimeras, such as implanting human cells in mice to see what happens.  The research is ostensibly for the purpose of understanding development and curing disease, but further down, the article vacillates about the moral dilemmas involved:

  One of the latest chimeras to hit the headlines was created by scientists in Korea.  They sparked controversy when they injected human embryonic stem cells into developing mouse embryos.
      The finding that these the cells were then distributed throughout the mouse’s body, including the brain, caused public outrage, and the scientists later abandoned the experiments as the protests increased.
      But as ethically difficult as this research seems, these scientists said they believed it could add a great deal to our knowledge of how embryos develop.
      The creation of chimeras forces us to reconsider just what it really means to be human, and the answer to this is not clear cut.

• Another BBC News announced that a lab in London has applied for a license to create human-cow embryos.  While implanting animal tissue in a human, such as a pig heart transplant, has only a mild “yuck factor,” these experiments involve embryos with the full complement of DNA to constitute an individual.  But is a chimera considered a person?  If the embryo is grown only for harvesting its stem cells for medical research, does the end justify the means?  Not all think so.  Calum McKellar of the Scottish Council on Human Bioethics is concerned about blurring the line between humans and animals.  “In this kind of procedure, you are mixing at a very intimate level animal eggs and human chromosomes, and you may begin to undermine the whole distinction between humans and animals,” he said.  “If that happens, it might also undermine human dignity and human rights.”

• Richard Dawkins recently said that eugenics might not be so bad.  Nancy Pearcey commented on his statements.  The prominent atheist stressed that we need to “lay this spectre to rest,” speaking of Hitler’s plan to breed a master race.  He feels that “if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability?”  Lawrence Ford also wrote a commentary on this item for ICR.

The mad scientists must be stopped.  They can and will bring about another holocaust.  If you doubt it, remember that Hitler did not act alone; he was surrounded by the most brilliant scientists of Germany (all secular evolutionists), who willingly joined his program to purify humanity.  To them, the Third Reich heralded a glorious future, a new age that would usher in unprecedented health and prosperity.  It was all for the ultimate good of society, they felt.  After the devastation of World War II, they argued that everything they did was perfectly legal within their own social and political context.  That was their defense at the Nuremberg trials.  They had not broken any laws.  The judges appealed to a higher law that they should have obeyed: their conscience – presupposing a universal standard of morality.
    It’s time to call our modern secularists what they are: Social Darwinists who have not learned from history.  Don’t trust for a moment those who believe morality evolves and is a mere social convention.  Don’t think the consequences of their policies will be nicer this time around.  If you get on the wrong side of the consensus, there will be no sanctity of your life.  It will be perfectly legal to use your body parts for the improvement of those deemed more valuable, or to eliminate you to make space for the fittest.  Those whom the new Social Darwinists have bred will, of course, be more fit, with all their mathematical ability or athletic prowess or whatever.  Naturally, they will be more worthy to consume limited resources than you, with all your diseased genes and “irrational” beliefs.  If secular science stands at the helm of moral consensus of the world, what Nuremberg will stand in judgment of them?  If the top scientists of the 1930s supported Hitler, would not today’s Dawkinses and Singers prefer, and readily support, the next smooth-talking, idealist fuhrer – the next antichrist?  Undoubtedly such a leader will entice them with all the stem cells they want, and liberal funds for cloning and chimera research.  In a secular political state, would they not consider the systematic elimination of “fundamentalists” a necessary step for the sake of planetary health and global evolution?
    Granted, the Hitler comparison gets overused.  But Hitler was a Social Darwinist, and the supporters of Hitler were Social Darwinists!  The shoe fits.  Today’s Darwinists have very overt social and political agendas based on their secular evolutionary beliefs.  What, pray tell, has changed?  Describe for us, Wilson, Dawkins and Singer, on what basis you would have protested had you been Berlin professors in 1935 when things were looking so up and up.  Tell us on what basis you will protest any future slippery-slope developments defended by your fellow secular evolutionists.  At what point would you say, as an individual, that enough is enough?  What moral arguments will you use?  On the contrary, Dawkins says we need to “lay the spectre to rest” of past abuses of eugenics and Social Darwinism, implying he’s tired of hearing “we must never forget.”
    Spectres do not lay to rest.  They must be cast out and replaced with a holy spirit.  A spectre kicked out of a secular house will return, finding it empty, swept and in good order, and will bring with him seven spectres more wicked than itself.  The final condition of that house will be worse than the first.  That is how it will be with this wicked generation, prophesied a son of man quite knowledgeable about spectres and their ways.
Next headline on:  Politics and Ethics • Evolution • Theology

• The Evolutionist View:  Live Science claims we all start out as females in the womb, and only after about 60 days the testosterone kicks in if it’s a male.  By then, the nipples have already formed and don’t get deleted.  As to why there are nerves and blood vessels serving them, the writer appeals to the old vestigial organ argument.  There is no reason for male nipples, it’s just that natural selection hasn’t removed them yet.  The article denies that early males once suckled the young on the grounds of lack of evidence.  “Brace yourselves for a low blow, tough guy,” the article begins, hinting that the evolutionary answer won’t help a man’s self-esteem; at least it calls the nipples “harmless.”  The article ends with a link to a list of other alleged vestigial organs, including the coccyx, appendix, wisdom teeth and body hair.
• The Creationist View:  A creationist sees a phenomenon and looks for a design or function.  Several creation sources have addressed this particular feature of the male anatomy: for example, Answers in Genesis gives a brief explanation, with reference to the book Vestigial Organs Are Fully Functional by Bergman and Howe.  These authors point to the fact that the nipples are very sensitive to touch and therefore act as erogenous zones, contributing to the pleasure response during sex.  Creationists have also argued that the single developmental plan for human embryos, which later differentiates the sexes, is an example of design economy.  We don’t all start out as females.  It’s more accurate to describe the early embryo as sexless in terms of the genes expressed; males, after all, contain an X chromosome.  At the right developmental stage, the sexual differentiation genes are expressed.  AIG also has posted a debate over the issue of male nipples.

Let’s think outside the Darwin box, shall we?  Nipples don’t have to be for suckling the young to have a purpose.  Every human knows these points are very sensitive to touch; that’s true in both sexes.  Sex is a whole-body response God made to be pleasurable as well as procreative.  We can’t rule out, too, that certain traits have value just for decoration – that is part of their function.  Just as a navel can serve as a reminder that we all have an intimate tie to our ancestors, nipples help remind a man that he shares many traits with the female of the species, as well as having his own distinctive attributes.  Even the shared traits, though, are expressed in distinctive man-ifestations.  Women and men both have hair, too, but are the differences not interesting?  Do they not add color and variety to life?  Why does everything in nature have to be explained in terms of survival?  Some things might be part of the costume, and that is good.  A man’s chest would look kind of monotonous without those designer buttons there.  Look at them as ornaments on a fine suit.  (Looks best, guys, surrounded by lots of pectoral muscle; see YouTube.)
    This example shows that creationists and evolutionists deal with the same observational facts but look at them through different lenses.  The evolutionist sees millions of years of waste and struggle, with us latecomers having to deal with the leftovers.  Every trait must be interpreted in terms of survival and reproduction.  Sex is only to generate more aimless, purposeless carbon units.  That is a very cynical, demeaning approach to science and to life.  A creationist, by contrast, believes the Creator designed every part for its own purpose and function.  When a creation scientist doesn’t know the function, he or she is motivated to find it out.  This can and should make science a liberating and joyful exercise.  Many great scientists approached nature in just this spirit.
    Each of us, too, should strive to get over the bad vibes Darwin gave us about our bodies, and look at them in a new, positive way.  Every part is good and useful and respectable because it was designed by a Genius and Artist.  If you are embarrassed by male nipples and think they were some kind of mistake, you are disparaging the Creator.  According to the Genesis account, God looked at man and everything He had created and said it was not only good, it was very good.  Then God created woman and man said oo-la-la! where you been all my life, baby?  It’s OK to feel good about your body the way God made it.  A strong, manly chest is honorable and worthy of respect, no less the gentle curves of the woman’s bosom nursing a baby.  For each sex, for every age, there is something to honor and cherish and be thankful for.  Man or woman, boy or girl, God wants you to enjoy your body, nourish and cherish it, and use it for good.  Let’s take off the Darwin glasses and begin again to have a constructive, positive, joyful view of life.  I Timothy 4 is a fitting passage to consider along these lines, especially verse 4.
Next headline on:  Human Body • Darwinism • Intelligent Design

1. Bee secure:  Honeybees are being trained to sniff bombs.  Really.  Read all about it in a press release from Los Alamos National Laboratory.  Bees were selected because they smell good.  They have olfactory senses that rival those of dogs.  Being so small, and able to fly, they could make a big dent in the war on terror: “Based on knowledge of bee biology, the new techniques could become a leading tool in the fight against the use of improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, which present a critical vulnerability for American military troops abroad and is an emerging danger for civilians worldwide.”  Now, if they can just get them to sting the bombers, too....
       For a whiff of what goes into a bee’s smelling sense, reread the 06/27/2006 entry on insect olfaction.  A good sense of smell seems to span the size spectrum; remember on 11/16/2006 when we learned that T. rex smelled good?  Lest you feel left out, we said on 08/31/2005 that you, too, smell like a dog.
2. Synchronized swimming:  The cover of Science News (11/25/2006, 170:22, p. 347) is about swarming behavior.  Erica Klarreich writes, “Few people can fail to marvel at a flock of birds swooping through the evening sky, homing in with certainty on its chosen resting place.  The natural world abounds with other spectacular examples of animals moving in concert: a school of fish making a hairpin turn, an ant colony building giant highways, or locusts marching across the plains.”  We’ve all seen the anchovies moving gracefully together like a single animal, each member adjusting its motion almost instantaneously to its neighbors more gracefully and rapidly than any marching band.  How do animals do this without a drum major?  That’s the question, and the search for answers is just now becoming amenable to detailed computer modeling.
       Since swarming behavior is common among so many disparate groups, scientists suspect some simple mathematical rules underlie the phenomenon.  “Coordinated groups can range in scale from just a few individuals to billions, and they can consist of an intelligent species or one whose members have barely enough brainpower to recognize each other.”  If we learn how they do it, maybe it could help us on the morning commute.  Imagine if we could all drive without collisions on open land, without lanes or signals.  Klarreich quotes the Biblical naturalist Agur, who noted, “The locusts have no King, yet all of them march in rank” (Proverbs 30;27). 
3. An ugly face is like a melody:  Most people would rank some bat faces as among the most hideous in the animal kingdom, appropriate only for Halloween.  Actually, bats are mostly friendly helpers who clear the air of flies and mosquitos for us.  There’s a reason for those wrinkles and protrusions, though; Charles Q. Choi writes in Live Science that scientists have discovered the facial shape modulates and focuses their sonar beams.  Different frequencies follow different paths, giving some bats wide-angle and narrow “views” of the sound field.  This is important for an animal that has to both dodge obstacles and catch food on the wing – all in the dark.
4. Pepper spray:  Certain wasps can emit a kind of “pepper spray” defense in a fight, National Geographic News reported.  This is giving some scientists ideas about using them for natural pest controls.  Wouldn’t that make Rachel Carson happy.

All of this fascinating scientific research could be done perfectly well without evolutionary theory, using the assumptions of intelligent design.  By observing animals and plants and seeking to understand how they work, we could well learn many useful and helpful things to improve our lives – no thanks to Darwin.
Next headline on:  Terrestrial Zoology • Mammals • Biomimetics • Amazing Facts

1. Just right universal soup:  Jim Al-Khalili (U of Surrey) reviewed Paul Davies’ new book, The Goldilocks Enigma: Why Is the Universe Just Right for Life? (Allen Lane, 2006).¹  He thought it would cause the biggest stir since Roger Penrose’s book The Emperor’s New Mind (1989).  Davies explored current explanations for our finely-tuned universe, from the dismissive anthropic answers (if it weren’t this way, we wouldn’t be around to argue about it), to the latest speculations about a multiverse.  According to Al-Khalili, the first half of the book is standard fare nicely worded, but then something happens:

   But it is the second half of the book that readers will want to skip to.  It is here that he faces head-on the question of why our universe is just right for us, and he covers all the main arguments thoroughly and shows up their shortcomings.  Eventually, he chooses a different path that does away with luck as well as the Multiverse.  But as Deep Thought, the computer in Douglas Adams’ The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, says, you are not going to like it.

   That distasteful speculation takes two forms.  In one, Davies suggests the universe has some sort of life principle built into the laws of physics.  The second is that humans created the universe—by observing it.  This extrapolation of quantum mechanical weirdness, first discussed by physicist John Wheeler, is sometimes called the Participatory Anthropic Principle.²  What is the lesson of this book?

   Just when the reader feels that Davies is losing his grip and sliding inexorably towards fantasy, he takes a well-timed reality check, reminding the reader, and himself, that in order to address the question of ‘How come existence?’, one must either play it safe and back away from the question, or be quite radical.  Many physicists will not like this book.... but Davies is courageous, entertaining and persuasive in laying them out clearly.  Many scientists might feel that the subject matter, as Davies acknowledges, should be ‘left to the philosophers and priests’, with scientists tackling only those questions they can hope to answer.  But it’s still a thoroughly good read.

2. Mimic the Masters:  Robert Cahn (U of Cambridge) reviewed a new book on the imitation of natural designs:³ Biomimetics: Biologically Inspired Technologies (CRC Press, 2006), edited by Yoseph Bar-Cohen of JPL.  He quotes the editor defining the subject matter:

   The field of biomimetics encompasses a broad range of topics, generally based on the concept of ’learning from Nature’ in areas of Materials Science and Engineering (MSE).  This ’learning’ may be through inspiration in design, function or a combination of both.

   The book concentrates on robotics more than materials science, but has a chapter on spider silk (05/25/2005) and another on evolutionary computing (cf. 11/14/2006, also from JPL).

Despite how much the Darwinists rant and rave about how creationism will undermine science, the real cutting-edge scientific work, both theoretical and practical, is empowered by design principles.  The intelligent design leaders are arguing these principles not because of a political or religious agenda, but because they fit the world we observe.
    If cosmologists have to go to such extreme lengths as to suggest that we create the universe by observing it, then the secret is out: they choose to believe in materialism in spite of evidence and logic.  No pagan myth could be considered more outrageous.  And suggesting that the laws of physics have some sort of built-in life principle that can yield brains from hydrogen is as silly as Moliere’s chemist who, when asked why opium made people sleepy, responded that it had a “dormative virtue.”  OK, now let’s hear something really profound.  How about In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth?  With their minds the evolutionists disbelieve it, but with their hands they assume it.
Next headline on:  Intelligent Design • Cosmology • Biomimetics

Peter Korevaar is head of the physics and cosmology working group of Germany’s Studiengemeinschaft Wort und Wissen, one of the largest creationist groups in Europe.  He holds a PhD in astrophysics and now works at IBM in Mannheim.  Quirin Schiermeier asks him about his group’s aims.

We are a Protestant group.  We want to do accurate and honest scientific work under the premise that God has created the world.  Scientific naturalism as we know it doesn’t allow for a creator who can interfere with the physical world.  Evolution should be taught in schools, and creation discussed along with it.

• Almut Graebsch and Quirin Schiermeier assess whether creationism is threatening science in Europe.
• But a number of similar incidents over the past couple of years, in various countries, are raising fears among the scientific community that creationism may be on the rise in Europe.
• ...the most blatant attempt to ban evolution...
• Following widespread protest....
• “Italy is no longer a completely secular country,” says Telmo Pievani, a philosopher of science at the University of Milan II in Italy.  “We are facing a dramatic and worrying cultural and political regression.”
• There is debate over the size of the threat posed to science in Europe by the various creationist movements.
• Moreover, Europeans do seem to be more enlightened than Americans when it comes to evolution.
• Others warn that scientists can’t afford to be complacent.  “The anti-evolution movement does undermine public understanding of science,”...

The Darwinists must be scared witless at these developments.  (That assumes they had a wit to begin with.)  They must feel like East German secret police at the first sign of cracks in the Berlin Wall.  While the news piece about “anti-evolutionists on the rise” contains classic Nature propaganda from the Darwin Party spin office, it was highly unusual for them to print an interview with the enemy without demanding he wear the clown costume.  They certainly couldn’t claim Korevaar didn’t have the credentials, with his PhD in astrophysics and a job at IBM.
    Darwiniac Steve Jones in particular must be extremely frustrated.  He used to be able to assuage any public anti-evolution rumblings by serving up a brief stew of propaganda chunks and fallacy gravy, then wipe it off with a napkin and carry on (e.g., 04/21/2006, bullet #2).  It isn’t that easy any more.  The public is spitting it out and patronizing ID vendors who aren’t so patronizing in their attitude.  It shouldn’t be so hard for him and his fellow Darwin-only devotees to attract their customers back.  All they need to do is build a better mousetrap by evolution, or show in scholarly detail how exquisite biological machines invented themselves.  In the new film The Case for a Creator, Jonathan Wells proposed a Darwinian test: put a cell in a test tube of nutrient broth and poke it, letting its insides fall out.  Now, all the ingredients for life are present.  If the Darwinists can put Humpty Dumpty back together again without intelligent design, people would be more likely to believe their story.
    The Darwin Party strategists can either intensify their pointless warfare against the popular uprising (02/24/2006), or engage in peace talks.  If they choose the latter route, the ID Visigoths (05/09/2006) should not trust the smooth words of the Darwin emissaries.  They’re liars, remember?  Lying is part of their world view.  It’s a legitimate part of how the world works, the way they see things.  Lying evolved (04/26/2004); it must be a good thing for showing how fit you are (03/14/2006).  Since morality is also a phantom artifact of the selfish genes, a Darwinist only employs honesty, as if it actually meant something, for selfish ends.  This is done by the method of mimicry.  Darwinists borrow concepts from the Christians long enough to suit their purposes in the evolutionary arms race (e.g., 10/13/2006).  Then they either escape or move in for the kill.
    Most likely, the Darwin Party strategizers will make concessions only long enough to find a faux pax to make a cause celebre in some school or town, enough to capitalize on it and say, “Well, we tried the alternative, and it failed so miserably, we have to go back to the dictatorship.”  If you wouldn’t like to see the Berlin Wall resurrected, then remember: forewarned is forearmed.  Certain Darwinists are incorrigible.  Like Marxists in Parliament, they can be tolerated only when forced to share power, but must always be monitored lest they plot to seize it for themselves.  Don’t expect them to remain civil with just part of the pie (see 11/05/2006).  They’ll play along till they get the power back, then the first item of business will be to dissolve Parliament and bring back King Charles.  (And then, purge the democratic leadership.)
    One useful technique for preventing the East German communists from retaking control was to celebrate the fall of the Berlin Wall as a great popular victory through pictures and artifacts.  Pieces of the wall are popular collector’s items and museum pieces.  Photos of the cheering crowds wielding their sledge hammers against the symbol of oppression will linger long in the memory, saying more than books could express.  When the Darwin idol finally falls and the Bamboozle Curtain is torn down by liberated minds (06/29/2006, 04/20/2006), and it becomes politically safe for gentle people to admit they had anti-Darwinist leanings, we will need visual reminders of just how vicious (03/14/2006, 03/02/2006) and intolerant (04/21/2006, 02/20/2006) the Darwin Party thought police had behaved, or how ludicrous the claims of the Darwinist facilitators had become (e.g., 05/09/2006, 05/02/2006, 03/31/2006).  Some day soon, a cartoon book of Stupid Evolution Quotes of the Week (e.g., 11/08/2006, 07/23/2006), paired with The Far Side, could make a nice stocking stuffer for post-Darwinist high school students.  Darwin Party strategists trying to polish the idol (02/10/2006) are not likely to succeed with people snickering and suggesting it be re-erected in the carnival dunking booth.
    Artists, you could have a hand in this.  Let the news inspire your next masterpiece; perhaps something like a sculpture of Darwin and Stalin embracing in a quicksand of facts, or Dawkins and Dennett engaged in a futile battle against an army of biological machines.  A scene of scientists bowing before a big Darwin buddha (07/18/2006), with the title “Fundamentalists,” might work.  More seriously, the most effective memorial might be to superimpose some of the worst Darwin rhetoric (e.g., 07/06/2006), 05/09/2006) engraved in cold steel, over scenes of the good, the true, and the beautiful.
Next headline on:  Education • Politics and Ethics • Darwinism • Intelligent Design

Plants Have an Immune System, Too    11/26/2006  
We know that animals fight disease with an army of patrols swimming in blood, but how do plants cope?  They are exposed to pathogens, too: everything from bacteria to fungi, worms and insects.  Without a central nervous system or circulatory system to help, are our gentle green friends at the mercy of what comes?  The answer is no.  In Nature Nov 16, two biologists described “the plant immune system.”¹
    “Plants, unlike mammals, lack mobile defender cells and a somatic adaptive immune system,” wrote Jones and Dangl, authors of the paper.  “Instead, they rely on the innate immunity of each cell and on systemic signals emanating from infection sites.”  These signals help special proteins distinguish self from non-self.  The authors describe a two-branch and four-stage system involving numerous protein parts.  Much remains to be understood, but what they wrote about is withering in its complexity.  It must work pretty well, when all is said and done.  In short, “Most plants resist infection by most pathogens,” they noted.

The authors use evolutionary language, but it is really superfluous.  They talk about how angiosperms arose at the same time pathogens evolved to take advantage of them, and how the evolutionary arms race continues to this day.  While this may satisfy the need of certain atheists to feel like they are on the path to understanding how things might make themselves, their explanations are too general for empirical verification and border on the teleological.
    A fresh approach might be to view the plants and their pathogens as parts of an interacting system of checks and balances.  Plants need to thrive to fulfill their roles in the ecosystem, but might overtake everything if unchecked.  Pathogens are like governors on the engine or brakes at the speed limit.  For their work, they get paid with plant food.
    When things become unbalanced and whole populations collapse, that’s when we tend to see the pathogens as evil.  Why things get unbalanced is an interesting question.  Exchanging metaphors to see the scene as a Darwinian struggle for selfishness and survival, however, does nothing to help the empirical investigation of the system.  It is philosophy, not science.  What qualifies as science is applying principles derived from the observed cause and effect structure of the world.  When we see interacting systems involving complex machines and informational systems, we infer that intelligence was involved in their origin.  That’s about all science can say.  Further understanding requires input from other sources.
Next headline on:  Plants • Amazing Facts

Anti-Religious Sentiment Increases in Intensity   11/25/2006    
The two poles could hardly be farther apart.  In the East, a hundred million radical Muslims swear death to all Americans and Jews and work themselves into frenzies of jihad for the worldwide triumph of Islam.  In the West, radical atheists are determined to eradicate religion from the Earth.  Somewhere in between, millions of Christians practice their faith in peace, serve their fellow man, study science and other academic subjects at the university, and wonder why they are labeled with the same word fundamentalist the atheists use to describe Islamic radicals.
    The rhetoric against religion from certain scientific quarters has reached almost evangelistic zeal.  In an article for the New York Times, George Johnson surveyed a cross-section of leading atheists who agree that religion is bad, but differ only on how best to eradicate it.  Opinions expressed at a Salk Institute Forum this month varied from appeals for rational dialogue (Joan Roughgarden and Lawrence Krauss) to stringent opposition and condemnation (Richard Dawkins).  None were pleased at the Templeton Foundation’s muddying of the waters by rewarding leaders who try to bridge science and religion.  Carolyn Porco even suggested atheists start an alternative religion based on science, with Neil deGrasse Tyson as minister.  In a similar vein, Wired Magazine had a cover story on “the new atheism” this month, and US News and World Report discussed “the new unbelievers.”  What’s new about it?

Well, extremism, for one thing.  Not only do the new atheists find religion intellectually irredeemable, morally dubious, and socially unnecessary, they judge it a clear and present danger, maybe even the greatest threat to the survival of the species.  If Voltaire wanted to “wipe out the infamy” of religion, he really meant that he—like Thomas Jefferson and a number of America’s founders—wanted a more reasonable deism, a philosophical religion that acknowledged an original designer but got rid of all the supernatural stuff, including revealed truths and moral dictates that ran counter to reason.  But religion made reasonable or understood symbolically will not do for Dawkins or Harris (though the latter sees some Eastern spiritual disciplines as acceptable, and possibly even helpful to the moral life).  Both are intent to show, as Dawkins puts it, “that moderate religion makes the world safe for fundamentalism.”

Richard Dawkins’ hatred for religion is so extreme, even some of his fellow atheists feel he goes too far.  Where did this passion come from?  Did he have a bad experience in his youth?  If he really believes all things are evolutionary products, then the vast majority of people who believe in a supreme being and true spiritual life must be in the evolutionary mainstream.  Why, then, is he opposing it?  Is it because he assumes his rationality stems from an external Truth independent of his own brain cells?  How could that be, if they have evolved by natural selection under the control of selfish genes and memes?  If the memes are directing mankind’s evolution toward religion, then it is irrational to resist it.
    Dawkins and his atheist church may soon wish for the friendship of Christians and Jews.  Anyone who has been watching the rapid growth of radical Islamic fascism must be extremely worried.  The producers of the documentary Obsession, who recorded Muslim imams chanting hate to throngs of passionate disciples, and showed Muslim students being taught hate and being trained for jihad from earliest childhood, said their jolting film represents the tip of the iceberg.  Such teaching is daily fare in Muslim countries.  Islamic-controlled states are educating children to venerate hate and death, to believe Jews came from pigs and monkeys, and to believe the greatest thing in life is to commit suicide while killing as many Jews, Christians and non-Muslims as possible.  What’s most alarming is that they are gaining the power, technology and numbers to actually carry out their dream of world conquest.
    Atheists are in the cross-hairs, too.  What must Dawkins feel when he sees huge crowds of passionate Muslims chanting death to the Western world?  What passes through his mind when Muslim dictators are on the verge of gaining nuclear weapons, and have the full intent to use them?  What does he think at the alarming birth rate disparity between Muslim immigrants and Europeans?  He must realize there is no use talking science or reason with these people.  There aren’t enough atheists to stand against this growing threat, even if they would listen.   Is this a time to hold book-signing parties for The God Delusion in America and Britain, when jihadists are openly threatening his homeland on the streets of London?
    Dawkins and his fellow atheists had better wake up.  It’s the Judeo-Christian West that has granted them the freedom of speech and tolerance for their views.  Dawkins has thanked his patrons by wandering all over the West with his hate-religion message.  This is cowardly.  If he really believed it, and if had the courage of his convictions, he would use his reason to target the biggest problem first.  He would take his message in person to Gaza, Tehran, Beirut and Damascus.  He would use his influence to stop the lies and hate being perpetrated to children and the ignorant poor.  Christians and Jews are too easy a target.  Let’s see how his message of reason and science holds up in the face of Islam.
    For their own survival, for the survival of the science and reason they love, the atheists need to drop the moral-equivalency rhetoric and understand who their allies are.  Because of their numbers and values, Christians and Jews are their best allies in the looming war to save Western civilization.  It’s not helping for the atheists to lump Christians and Jews in the same category with the jihadists.  Any day, any time now, there could well be a huge attack that will make 9-11 look like a picnic.  Scientists, academics and secular humanists lack the will and the numbers to stop this threat.  It is looking increasingly hopeless that any Western political leader will be able to overcome the inertia of political correctness that stifles effective resistance against the extreme fanaticism of Islam, the most backward, reactionary and irrational religion of all.  Some pundits are already writing off Europe and expecting it to fall under Muslim control – a comeback from the Battle of Tours (732 A.D.).
    Fast-forward a few years.  Picture Dawkins and other scientific elitists under Sharia law.  Imagine them forced to convert to Islam or die.  Will they have the moral fiber to resist when a sword is at their necks?  It’s been too easy till now to rant against the easy religious targets: Christians and Jews.  Let them watch Oxford and its libraries burn as a nuclear bomb from Iran hits London, destroying priceless history as hordes of Muslims cheer and scream for more.  Foxhole conversion or no, the companionship of a compassionate Christian who can give reasons why this is happening and why he believes the Prince of Peace will ultimately prevail, may be too precious a thing to criticize any longer.  Come now, and let us reason together.
Next headline on:  Evolutionary World View • Politics and Ethics • Theology

New Technology Visualizes Animals in the Womb   11/24/2006    
Many have seen the videos of human babies developing in the womb, but what do animals look like before birth?  Rhiannon Edward began an article in The Scotsman with some glimpses:

An unborn elephant, tiny but perfect in every way.  A dolphin swimming in the womb, just as it will have to swim in the ocean the moment it is born.  An unborn dog panting.  Each one amazing and now, thanks to these remarkable pictures, they can be seen for the first time.

Life does not begin at birth.  These images reveal complex behaviors and structures that show the animals engaging in activities that will be vital to their survival when the womb doors open.  For an animal to stand, see, breath, walk or swim upon entering the outside world for the first time, they must have all the hardware and software ready and operating in the womb.
    These new images and facts are welcome.  Try to imagine the reaction if the movie is shown of the cute baby elephant or dog maturing in the womb with happy background music.  Suddenly a scissors appears and is inserted into the skull!  The music turns frantic as we watch the animal’s brains being sucked out.  It quivers and dodges and jerks and dies an agonizing death, never to see the light of day.  What horror film would imagine such a thing?  Yet this is routinely done to human babies, and our Supreme Court is taking months to decide whether it should be allowed to continue or not.  How can human beings even argue about such things?
Next headline on:  Mammals • Amazing Facts

Our map of copy number variation in the human genome demonstrates the ubiquity and complexity of this form of genomic variation.  The abundance of functional sequences of all types both within and flanking areas of copy number variation suggests that the contribution of CNVs to phenotypic variation is likely to be appreciable.  This prediction is underscored by the impact of copy number variation on variation in gene expression.

“In contrast to other classes of human genetic variation, the population genetics of copy number variation remains unexplored.  The distribution of copy number variation within and among different populations is shaped by mutation, selection and demographic history....To demonstrate the utility of copy number variation genotypes for population genetic inference we performed population clustering on 67 genotyped biallelic CNVs.  We obtained the optimal clustering with the assumption of three ancestral populations, with the African, European and Asian populations clearly differentiated.

Although this study considered only a limited sample, this is either a remarkable coincidence or confirmation of the biblical account in Genesis 9 to 11 describing all the peoples of the earth coming from the three sons of Noah.  Further studies should confirm with larger numbers of samples from more locations that all the world’s population can be separated into three groups.
    How will this affect the popular “Out of Africa” theory of man’s origin?  Further research could create quite a lot of stress among anthropologists whose careers are based on the “Out of Africa” story.  What new tale will evolutionists come up with to account for three ancestral populations?
    Not surprisingly, the major news media, such as the BBC, had practically nothing to say about there being only three ancestral populations, focusing rather on the medical aspects of the paper.  A review of the paper by Physorg, however, jumps to the defense:

Evolution is another area that will come under new scrutiny.  The “Out of Africa” scenario, by which Homo sapiens emerged from east Africa and spread around the globe, will not be challenged, though.  Our origins are so recent that the vast majority of CNVs, around 89 percent, was found to be shared among the 269 people who volunteered blood as samples for the study.  These individuals included Japanese from Tokyo, Han Chinese from Beijing, Yoruba from Nigeria and Americans of Northern and Western European ancestry.  All the same, there are widespread differences in CNVs according to the three geographical origins of the samples.  This implies that, over the last 200,000 years or so, subtle variants have arisen in the genome to allow different populations of humans adapt to their different environments, Wellcome Trust Sanger said in a press release.

So it sounds like “Out of Africa” is safe.  All we are asked to believe is that in the course of 200,000 imaginary years, or perhaps 10,000 generations, there has been so little mixing of the gene pool that we still see three very distinct groups.  This could be a problem.  We are still left with the requirement that at some point in the past, say about 200,000 imaginary years ago (or perhaps only 3400 years ago) there was a time when the human population, for some unexplained reason, shrank to the point that it was able to form three distinct genetic groups.  Sorry, but this is still sounding a lot like the three sons of Noah.
—DK
Next headline on:  Genetics • Early Man

Dinosaur Skin Found, Possible Soft Tissue   11/23/2006    
A mostly-complete duck-billed Edmontosaurus dinosaur has been found in Montana, reported the Discovery Channel.  A patch of skin from the hip was recovered.  The team from North Carolina State University and Museum of Natural Sciences was very careful.  They wanted to preserve any possible soft tissue, using techniques developed by Mary Schweitzer that last year revealed possible blood cells in a T. rex (11/11/2006).  The traditional bone focus appears to be shifting:

“We’ve only been looking at one thing in the past, the dinosaur skeletal system, but we could learn so much more if we could study their circulatory system and other body systems,” Vince Schneider, curator of paleontology at the museum, told Discovery News.

Now that paleontologists are realizing more than bone can be preserved, the search is on for soft tissue.  This is a burgeoning field to watch.  Is it possible evolutionary bias toward millions of years hindered paleontologists from even considering the possibility of soft tissue?
    A team member speculated that the area was “probably a large river delta that opened into an inland sea,” and that the creature “probably drowned crossing at high flow.”  No marks of predators were found.  Moreover, “Evidence also suggests a lush forest with hardwood vegetation and leafy plants once stood there,” the article states.  Hadrosaurs and ceratopsians are large animals that were apparently well fed and content at this location when they perished.  Exercise: if you are not convinced these behemoths were afraid of high water in a stream, think of another scenario for what might have happened.
Next headline on:  Dinosaurs • Fossils

This country is in a moral free-fall.  For over two generations, the public school system has taught in a moral vacuum, expelling God from the school and from the government, replacing him with evolution, where the strong kill the weak, without moral consequences and life has no inherent value.

Why won’t they release the tape?  Possibly because it is vulgar and filled with foul language; maybe because they fear emotional trauma to the families.  Or, perhaps it is considered too “politically incorrect” to link such an evil deed to evolution, lest the image of Saint Darwin be dishonored.  Here’s a cause for concerned citizens to get involved and demand that the truth come out.  Darwinists may claim till the mutant cows come home that evolution is merely a scientific theory with no moral strings attached, but students know how to connect the dots to nihilism.  Need proof?  Revisit our 08/31/2006 entry.
Next headline on:  Darwinism • Politics and Ethics • Education • Media

Loloff’s article reads like a detective story.  Several teams working independently put together pieces that appear to relate vitamin D to cathelicidin production, and that to disease prevention.  Cause-effect relationships in health are tricky to establish, but this one seems to make sense.  Of course, it’s possible to have too much of a good thing.  Vitamin D overdose can be toxic – to say nothing of sunburn.
    This article is another example of healthy science with no need for evolutionary theory.  The E word was absent in the article and would have been superfluous.  The observations support design: an integrated system of inputs and outputs, checks and balances, and parts that fit together.  It looks like another example of irreducible complexity.  Notice especially how the chemical response of vitamin D is finely tuned to the energy of UV rays, emitted by the sun, that are able to penetrate Earth’s atmosphere, which screens most UV radiation.  Not only that, but the molecules are positioned in skin to the depth where the radiation reaches.  In short, the whole system is tuned, from the molecular reaction, to the gene network, to the tissue structure of skin, to the whole body, to the environment on Earth’s surface, to the planetary atmosphere, to the type of star.
    Science should seek to understand how things work for the end goal of improving health, safety and societal welfare.  The findings from these studies could directly benefit third-world countries with multitudes of poor people afflicted with unnecessary diseases.  A little applied knowledge discovered through scientific (e.g., systematic) investigation of nature’s designs could pay a big dividend in health and comfort for millions of people.  Shouldn’t that be the goal of science?
    For your Thanksgiving meal, consider adding some good sources of vitamin D.  You don’t have to substitute cod liver oil for turkey, but a balanced diet should take this essential nutrient into account.  And instead of watching the football game inside this year, how about getting into a good game yourself in the healthful outdoor sunshine?
Next headline on:  Health • Genetics • Amazing Facts

Robot Tadpole Sex Sheds Light on Intelligent Design    11/20/2006  
Scientists studying the evolution of vertebrate physiology at Vassar College in Poughkeepsie, N.Y.  have designed swimming robots to demonstrate how evolution might have produced such efficient vertebrate swimmers (see Live Science).  Swimming abilities of each robot were tested by measuring its ability to swim toward and follow a light suspended above the surface of a pool.  After each round of testing, the characteristics of the robots that swam the best were combined into a new design, simulating natural selection of beneficial vertebral characteristics.
    “The fossil record shows vertebrae evolved independently at least four separate times.  That shows they must really be functionally important,” said vertebrate physiologist John Long.
    The swimming robots are called Tadros, because they are robots simulating tadpoles.  Further tests will explore the effects of predators on the development of Tadro backbones:

In addition, the researchers plan on adding a “predator” into the tank during the swimming competition to see how Tadro tails evolve under those circumstances.  The hunter will attempt to collide with the robots, while the Tadros will try to avoid it.  This next generation of Tadros will detect the predator using infrared sensors that mimic the pressure-sensitive organs of fish known as lateral lines.  “We also plan not just on making the backbone stiffer, but on putting in vertebrae, to make them bend, to have joints, and see how that changes things,” Long said.

Another example of the equivalent of dog breeding (microevolution) being passed off as macroevolution.  If you want to increase the ability of a dog to hunt, how would you do it?  How about get a bunch of dogs out in the woods and see which ones hunt the best.  Then breed those dogs together to produce offspring that hunt better than the last generation.  Have you introduced new genetic information?  No, you have just selected from what was already there.  Have you explained where the dog’s hunting ability came from in the first place?  No; as far as this experiment is concerned, Tadros and their simulated backbones appear magically out of nowhere, fully formed.
    Predators in this experiment are intended to put selection pressure on Tadros in the same way cats put selection pressure on mice.  Tadros respond by evolving pressure-sensitive organs.  No, wait!  Pressure sensitive organs just appear magically, having been intelligently designed by the researchers.  Nonetheless, now that we have these organs, we will spend lots of money playing in our pond, making other things magically appear, such as more vertebrae, intelligently selecting which features we want to select for, and which features must go.  So much for the mindless, random forces of evolution.
—DK
Next headline on:  Darwinian Evolution • Dumb Ideas.
Related story:  11/14/2006.