Watch for the Recycle logo to find gems from the back issues!
Solar System Solved? 08/30/2007

Those who deal in models of the origin of the solar system sometimes have to entertain
themselves to overcome grief. See if you can detect this attitude in the following
Stupid Evolution Quote of the Week from
Space.com:
This has been a stumbling block for 30 years, said Mordecai-Marc Mac Low, an astrophysicist
at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, of planet formation theories.
The reason is that boulders tend to fall into the star in a celestial blink of an eye.
Some mechanism had to be found to prevent them from being dragged into a star.
The solution: Together, many boulders can join to fight a cosmic headwind that
otherwise would doom them.
Surely writer Dave Mosher did not mean to imply literally that boulders were conspiring to
defend themselves from doom. But the problem is evident: without some sort of ad hoc
speculation to insert into the models, astronomers know that small pieces of dust and rock dont naturally
form planets. They fall into the star in a very short time. Alan Boss, another modeler,
agreed with this characterization: Overall, the calculations
present an encouraging approach to understanding how something happened that we know must
have happened, at least for the terrestrial planets. (The article continued by
saying that the gas giants need another mechanism to form.)
For small dust grains and rocks in orbit, the game is over in just a few hundred times around
the merry-go-round with the vacuum cleaner in the center making a large sucking sound.
Mac Low said his explanation was like a group of semi trucks on a highway creating
a friendly pocket of air behind it that other semis
can travel in without using up as much fuel. Still, he has to have the small rocks
combine into planetesimals large enough to attract more material by gravity. The new model
is far from a complete theory. At this point, it is a little more than a chuckle during the
usual grief session.
This is a real-life demonstration of the
Harris cartoon that shows
a scientist doing a derivation with complex equations on the blackboard, with one intriguing
step inserted, Then a miracle occurs. Titling this story Planet
Formation Mystery Solved yields an even bigger chuckle.
Next headline on:
Solar System
Dumb Ideas
Is the Universe Hole-y? 08/29/2007

Cosmologists are trying to avoid a void. Since astronomers at U of Minnesota announced
a gaping hole in a distant part of the universe, representing a region of space devoid of
matter a billion light-years across, others are scrambling to discern what it means.
The issue was discussed on
EurekAlert,
BBC News,
Science Now,
and Space.com.
It even made the nightly TV news.
The Minnesota team compared observations from the Very Large Array of radio
telescopes with WMAP data, and looked closer at a region showing a remarkable drop in the
number of galaxies in a region toward the constellation Eridanus. Other voids have been
detected in the past, but never one this large.
Astronomers dont know why the hole is there, said science writer Robert Roy
Britt. Others dont know that its there.
Cosmological observations are so deeply intertwined with
theory, it is often hard to tell the one from the other. The hole could be real,
or it could be an artifact of the theory and techniques used. Some cosmologists (see
the BBC article) are claiming this a confirmation of dark energy. ScienceNow said it
contradicts the inflation theory. And it quoted
one astronomer who thought the conclusion was premature. The Minnesota team said their
announcement will need independent confirmation, so it is unwise to lean too heavily
on the reports. Still, its fun to see scientists get surprised once in awhile.
Next headline on:
Cosmology
Your hairy ears provide optimum sensitivity, from
08/09/2004.
Solar System News 08/28/2007

A flurry of discoveries about the Suns family has some scientists smiling and
others furrowing their brows.
Astrobiologists, as usual, are wielding their divining rods, looking for water.
Some of these reports surfaced at the European
Planetary Science Congress last week at Potsdam, Germany; see agenda and press releases at
Europlanet.
- Basalt assault: How did small objects in the solar system get hot
enough to melt? The European Space Agency is baffled to find evidence of basalt
on asteroids between Mars and Jupiter, reported
Science Daily.
Dr. Rene Duffard said, We do not know whether we have discovered two basaltic asteroids
with a very particular and previously unseen mineralogical composition or two objects of
non basaltic nature that have to be included in a totally new taxonomic class.
See also the Space.com
report.
The Dawn Spacecraft, scheduled to launch Sept. 26,
may be able to find out more about the asteroid belt when it orbits Vesta in 2011 and
Ceres in 2015. Basalt has been observed on Vesta, an asteroid considered large enough
to sustain internal heating. Before now, basalt-containing asteroids were thought to be
fragments from Vesta.
- Comet panspermia: Chandra Wickramasinghe (Cardiff U) is still pushing
panspermia, claiming comets are cosmic storks that seeded the Earth with life.
PhysOrg discussed his investigation
of comet interiors based on the Deep Impact and Stardust missions, and quoted his conclusion:
The findings of the comet missions, which surprised many, strengthen the argument for
panspermia. We now have a mechanism for how it could have happened. All the necessary
elements clay, organic molecules and water are there. The longer time
scale and the greater mass of comets make it overwhelmingly more likely that life began
in space than on earth.
- Jupiter: Earths protector? A report on
News@Nature
questions whether Jupiter is Earths bouncer, shielding our planet from impacting
comets. This was a claim in Ward and Brownlees book Rare Earth and
was also listed in Richards and Gonzalez book The Privileged Planet as an
indicator of Earths good fortune. Now, the case does not seem as clear cut.
National
Geographic also reported on the study presented at the European Planetary Science
Congress last week. Astronomers Jonathan Horner and Barrie Jones concluded that
Earth is no better or worse off with Jupiter present. Their model found, strangely, that
the highest risk to Earth would have come if Jupiter were about the mass of Saturn.
Many factors affect the risk analysis, so some disagreement remains.
Science Now
mentioned that asteroids and different classes of comets respond differently to the
gravitational pull of Jupiter.
- Comet bomb: Speaking of comets affecting Earth,
PhysOrg presented a story from
scientists at UC Santa Barbara that a large comet may have exploded over North America
12,900 years ago, explaining riddles that scientists have wrestled with for decades,
including an abrupt cooling of much of the planet and the extinction of large mammals.
They based this on iridium levels and microspherules with traces of gas said to be of
extraterrestrial origin. The cometary explosion would have affected ocean currents,
ice sheets, and global climate, they claimed.
- Enceladus no aquarium: Dont count on finding life at Enceladus, the
erupting moon of Saturn, reported a press release from the
University of Illinois.
A new model by Susan Kieffer invokes non-watery processes that dont require a hot
interior. Her model is being added to the mix of possible explanations for this
small moons activity.
- Sharp moon: The
European Space Agency is using
images from the SMART-1 spacecraft to try to piece together a story of our moons volcanic
history. They claim that Different pulses of volcanic activity in lunar
history created units of lava on the surface, yet did not mention a mechanism that would
re-awaken the moon periodically between long periods of silence.
The
BBC News reported that Arizona
State University is scanning Apollo moon photos at high resolution and releasing them on a new
Apollo moon archive website.
These ultra-sharp orbital photos, taken from Apollo 15, 16, and 17, have been
locked away in freezers by Nasa [sic] to preserve them. Digital scanning
at high resolution and contrast depth will allow these rarely-seen images to be widely viewed for
the first time since the 1970s.
- Uranus ring circus: Now that the rings of Uranus can be seen edge-on for the
first time in 42 years, scientists are taking advantage of the rare alignment to study them,
reported EurekAlert,
the European Southern
Observatory and the BBC News.
A group at UC Berkeley was surprised that their images show that the rings are changing
much more quickly than researchers had previously believed. In particular, the
inner rings are more prominent now than they were when Voyager 2 flew by in 1987.
A press release from UC
Berkeley mentions that similar, dramatic changes have been detected in the rings of Neptune and Saturn,
because a lot of forces act on the small dust grains in the rings. These forces include
pressure from sunlight, drag produced as the dust plows through ionized plasma around Uranus, and
even drag from the planets magnetic field. Impacts from larger bodies can also
affect the rings.
- Martian life redox: A German astrobiologist is claiming that life could still exist
on Mars, provided it uses hydrogen peroxide and water.
Science Now reported how
Dr Joop Houtkooper of the University of Giessen, Germany, looked at the Viking soil test results and
speculated that hydrogen peroxide may have been more suitable for organisms adapting to the cold,
dry environment of Mars. A 1979 Viking image adorned
Astronomy Picture of the Day along
with Houtkoopers speculative question. While admitting such speculation
is not definitive, it justified the story thus: debating possibilities for life on Mars
has again proven to be fun and a magnet for media attention. But Ker Than reported
for Space.com that other scientists
consider Houtkoopers claim bogus. Norman Pace (U of Colorado) said,
I dont consider the chemical results to be particularly credible in light of the harsh
conditions that Mars offers. He also noted that hydrogen peroxide is deadly to terrestrial cells
except when cells produce it locally to combat bacteria.
- Titan your seat belts: When the Huygens probe descended through Titans atmosphere
in January 2005, it had a bumpy ride.
EurekAlert reported that
Cassini scientists working with weather balloon specialists are getting a handle on understanding how
turbulence affected the probes descent. The feedback from Titan may actually help improve
weather balloon sensor design. We went to Titan to learn about that mysterious body and its
atmosphere, said Ralph Lorenz (Johns Hopkins U); its neat that there are lessons
from Titan that can be usefully applied here on Earth. The
Cassini site also echoed the story
that originated from the
European Space Agency.
Another story on Titan from the European Planetary Science Congress concerned the erosion
of Titans methane (see
Europlanet
press release). Vasili Dimitrov said The conditions of Titans accretion and evolution
are poorly understood, admitting that the long-term storage of methane on the giant moon is a
problem. Methane drives the chemical reactions in Titans atmosphere but, because its
so highly reactive and therefore short-lived, it must be replenished, he said. He suggested
that it might be stored in water-ice clathrates, like crystal cages,
but the best packing ratio would require temperatures close to
absolute zero. How and where Titans methane reservoir was stored is an unsolved problem.
- All you wanted to know about Hyperion: The
Cassini mission released a
PDF presentation about Hyperion by James Bauer (JPL) and Peter Thomas (Cornell), describing all that
is known from Voyager and Cassini about the sponge moon and its anomalous carbon dioxide
deposits on surface. Notable facts include the low density (40%), the dark deposits on crater floors,
and the apparent match between the dark material on Hyperion and on Iapetus. Speaking of
Iapetus, Cassini is aimed at a super-close
flyby of the black-and-white moon on September 10. On the way it will make fairly close passes by Rhea and Titan
on August 30 and 31. Cassinis last good look at Iapetus was from more than 76,000 miles away
in 2005. In less than two weeks, the spacecraft flies within 1,000 miles of one of the most
intriguing moons of the solar system.
- Saturn mysteries: Charles Q. Choi wrote for
Space.com that
the mysteries at Saturn are mounting. He catalogued some of the mysteries that Cassini has revealed
and so far been unable to answer, including the north polar hexagon, the purity of Saturns ring material,
the well-defined structures within the rings, the spin rate of the planet and the tugging effect by the little moon
Enceladus, and the energy crisis of unexplained heat in Saturns atmosphere.
Dave Mosher wrote last week in
Space.com about another Saturnian
mystery that scientists cannot explain: the
electrically-charged torus around Saturn is a lopsided mess. For those wanting to just
enjoy the pictures, Space.com
posted a Best Cassini Image gallery for visitors to vote on.
- Something nu under the sun: After 4.5 billion years, sunshine finally figured
out, said Andrea Thompson in her headline for
Space.com.
Thats odd, since recorded human history only extends back about one millionth of that time.
Anyway, Princeton researchers using an Italian neutrino detector have detected the low-energy neutrinos
expected from current models of solar fusion reactions. Neutrinos are notated by the Greek letter nu.
Solar energy was blamed for stripping Mars of its water, according to
Space.com.
Scientists reporting at the European Planetary Science Congress said that The water might
have been blown into space long ago by strong gusts of solar winds, new satellite observations suggest.
Effects of solar flares were studied by four spacecraft simultaneously: NASAs Mars Express, Venus Express
and Earth-orbiting GEOS satellite, and the European Space Agencys SOHO solar orbiter.
High-energy particles were detected at Venus, Earth and Mars simultaneously. The Earths atmosphere
is protected by its global magnetic field; Mars is not so blessed.
Want to see the stars from Earth any time? Go to the new Google Sky addition to the popular Google Earth, reported
Space.com. It shows Hubble Telescope images
against starry backgrounds and gives you a virtual tour of outer space.
These are great days for discovery about our solar neighborhood.
So much is happening in planetary science, its hard to take
it all in. Be sure to separate the observations from the speculations. Sometimes thats
like trying to unbutter toast.
Next headline on:
Solar System
Origin of Life
Geology
Physics
Tales of Two Footprints 08/27/2007

Footprints in the sands of time have been found at two different locations.
What tales do they tell?
One is a footprint of a Roman soldier.
EurekAlert
described how the sandal print was uncovered at Hippos, or Susita, on a hill east of the
Sea of Galilee. It hints that soldiers participated in building the walls of the city.
The Israel newspaper Haaretz
contained some more details about the find, and
Todd Bolen commented on its limited tie-in to Biblical history on his
Bible Places Blog.
Another print is claimed to be far older. The
BBC News reported what may be
the oldest human footprint ever found. The article did not describe the
print, but called it human instead of ape-like. The problem is that it is
claimed to be two million years old, or more as much as 3 million, maybe even older
than Lucy. The secretary general of the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities, Zahi
Hawass, is calling it possibly the most important discovery in Egypt.
Others are not so sure what to think of it.
You, too, could leave tracks that
will allow future scientists to speculate. For fun, leave a note with your next
footprint saying, Todays date is August 28, 1,598,251 BC.
Next headline on:
Early Man
Fossils
Evolution Takes Credit 08/24/2007

It may be more blessed to give than to receive, but evolution often just takes. The
following news stories show evolution taking credit for a variety of phenomena when it is
not quite clear how it earned it.
- Big insects: Scientists at Argonne
National Laboratory surmised that insects were larger in the past because there was more oxygen in the
air. In the late Paleozoic Era, with atmospheric oxygen levels reaching record highs, some insects
evolved into giants, the press release claimed. When oxygen levels returned to lower
levels, the insect giants went extinct. The article did not explain how oxygen could cause mutations
that would make insects bigger. It also did not explain how other systems in the insects would evolve to
compensate for the gigantism. It just said that they did: This would allow larger-sized
insectseven giantsto evolve. These questions are in addition to the conundrum of
why it would be considered evolution for insects to be larger and more numerous in the past than they are today.
Speculating about how 35% oxygen levels might have exacerbated forest fires is left as an exercise.
See also Science Daily.
- Radio bats: The horseshoe bats of Sardinia tune into their own frequency, reported
EurekAlert. This allows
each species to communicate on its own private bandwidth in order to avoid all
confusion between mainland bats and island residents. Although gene flow between related
populations is well documented, the article did not explain how the sophisticated sonar of these bats
arose by evolution nor how it diversified. Nevertheless, evolution took the credit:
Once again, islands turned out to be excellent natural laboratories to explore evolutionary
patterns and processes.
- Evolution helps you stay unevolved: Evolution seems synonymous with change, but some
species manage to stay the same even in changing environments. One would think this property, called
canalization, to be the antithesis of evolution, but an article on
EurekAlert about plants
found evolution in the lack of change. Dont ever change isnt just a
romantic platitude. Its a solid evolutionary strategy, the article quizzically began.
Even though canalization keeps you in the zone away from evolutionary change,
in many cases its better to just shake off the minor fluctuations in the environment
because in evolution, there are optimal traits to have, a place you want to be.
Evolution, therefore, explains non-evolution.
- Symbiosis kumbaya: A moth and a cactus live in such tight company, neither can survive
without the other. An article about this phenomenon, called mutualistic symbiosis, appeared
in EurekAlert.
The work of Nat Holland (Rice University) was highlighted. Though the short article did not
mention evolution specifically, it can be safely assumed that Holland, an
assistant professor of ecology and evolutionary biology, was not out to
discover any non-evolutionary explanations for this remarkable relationship.
- Panda thumbs an evolutionary ride: Those lovable giant pandas are not
an evolutionary dead end, declared an article on
EurekAlert.
A Chinese team has found that the decline of the species can be linked directly to human
activities rather than a genetic inability to adapt and evolve. No mention
was made of how giant pandas evolved in the first place, nor how they turned out to be successful
in their natural niches, but that was not a liability for Darwin. It only meant that
Our research suggests we have to revise our thinking about the evolutionary prospects
for the giant panda.
- Snakes as evolutionarily success stories: Snakes are very evolutionarily
successful, said a researcher reported by
PhysOrg who found a novel strategy snakes
employ to avoid starvation: lowering their basal metabolic rates. How snakes achieved this
remarkable survival skill was left unstated, but evolution took credit once again:
Understanding the physiology that allows them to succeed in low-energy environments will
help scientists further their understanding of the snakes evolution and their adaptation
to their current ecosystems.
This last quote illustrates how science reporters often confuse adaptation with evolution.
Everyone, creationist or evolutionist, observes the remarkable fit of animals and plants to their
environmentadaptation. Assuming that blind, purposeless processes of evolution produced these adaptations
seems to be, for these reporters, intuitively obvious.
We need to understand how the Darwin Party achieves its
consensus that evolution is a fact. They do it by assuming it. Like the campers
in the woods trying to figure out how to open their tuna can, they simply state,
assume a can opener. Assumption performs the miracles without all the
hard work. Say this often enough, and every camper can get on handsomely by assuming
can openers and whatever other tools real campers used to have to pack.
Evolution takes credit, this entry began. Thats true in another
sense, too. Evolutionists charge their explanations on Darwin Party credit cards.
These attractive cards have the advantage of never requiring payback. Why?
Look what happens when whistleblowers try holding the carriers accountable
(03/25/2007). As with citizens in a town
controlled by the mob, its much safer to just let them run up a bill and pay it
out of the public trust.
Next headline on:
Evolution
Mammals
Zoology
Fossil Gorilla Forces Hominid Ancestor Earlier 08/23/2007

A set of gorilla teeth found in Ethiopia pushes the evolutionary story of a split between apes
and humans back almost twice as far as previously thought. Nature reported the fossil
announcement that estimated the date of the teeth as 10.5-11 million years old.1
The prior estimate for a human-ape divergence was about 6 million.
The authors named the fossil a new species, but Rex Dalton in the same issue of
Nature2 reported the team lead saying that the teeth are collectively indistinguishable
from modern gorilla subspecies in form, size, internal structure and proportion.
Both papers alluded to an extreme paucity of fossils from the period of 7 to 12 million
years on the evolutionary time scale. Dalton claimed this fossil helps to fill in a huge gap
in the fossil record. Yet the original paper admitted that Phylogenetically, these fossils
represent the first Miocene ape species to be recognized as a strong candidate for membership in the
modern gorilla clade, because the teeth are indistinguishable from those of modern gorillas
except that they show a large size variation.
National
Geographic put a good-news-bad-news spin on the story. The good news, to them, was that the discovery
fills an important gap in the fossil record but at the same time, unfortunately for paleoanthropologists,
it could also demolish a working theory of human evolution. Why? It means that
everything has to be put back farther in time than expected. This gorilla was essentially
modern at least 2 million years earlier than the alleged common ancestor was thought to exist. The common ancestor,
therefore (for which there is no fossil evidence), had to live even earlier by millions of years.
1Suwa et al, A new species of great ape from the late Miocene epoch in Ethiopia,
Nature
448, 921-924 (23 August 2007) | doi:10.1038/nature06113.
2Rex Dalton, Oldest gorilla ages our joint ancestor,
Nature
448, 844-845 (23 August 2007) | doi:10.1038/448844a.
If you take out the evolutionary dates and assumptions, the
facts show this: modern-looking gorilla teeth of unknown age were found fossilized in water-laid sediments in Ethiopia.
Where is the evolution? There is none. The ancestry/phylogeny talk is all inference
based on the usual dogmatic evolutionary rules that require every fossil bone to decorate
Charlies tree somehow, even if the fit is poor.
They now have to believe that gorilla
evolution was even more rapid from the time of some mythical common ancestor that must also have
evolved rapidly from earlier primates. They even tried to wave the magic wand of convergent
evolution to explain some of the modern features. Their whole story just got
even more convoluted and implausible than it already was. The story was already more gap
than bone. Some nice transitional form would have been welcome but not modern-looking
gorilla teeth farther back than they were supposed to exist.
Nothing in the observable evidence suggests millions of years, nor
any evolution or any ancestry between chimps, gorillas and humans. Dont fall for the
evolutionists talking points. Instead, follow their eyes. The surprised looks
are more revealing than their claims.
Next headline on:
Early Man
Fossils
Mammals
Hollywood Film to Expose Darwin Dogma 08/22/2007

Darwin is going to get a surprise on his birthday next year. Ben Stein is releasing
a film on Feb. 12, 2008, entitled
Expelled:
No Intelligence Allowed.
The gift may not be what Darwin wants. The press release subtitle asks, Whatever
happened to free speech? Apparently Premise Media decided to document the trend
among Darwinists to crush any dissent:
What freedom-loving student wouldnt be
outraged to discover that his high school science teacher is teaching a
theory as indisputable fact, and that university professors unmercifully
crush any fellow scientists who dare question the prevailing system of
belief? This isnt the latest Hollywood comedy; its a disturbing new
documentary that will shock anyone who thinks all scientists are free to
follow the evidence wherever it may lead....
Ben Stein, the lovable, monotone teacher from Ferris Buellers Day Off
and The Wonder Years is on a journey to answer one of the biggest questions
ever asked: Were we designed or are we simply the end result of an ancient
mud puddle struck by lightning? Stein, who is also a lawyer, an economist,
a former presidential speechwriter, author and social commentator, is
stunned by what he finds on his journey. He discovers an elitist scientific
establishment that has traded in its skepticism for dogma. But even worse,
along the way, Stein uncovers a long line of biologists, astronomers,
chemists and philosophers who have had their reputations destroyed and
their careers ruined by a scientific establishment that allows absolutely
no dissent from Charles Darwins theory of random mutation and natural
selection.
The Discovery
Institute, one of the frequent targets of the Big Science Darwinian machine,
is looking forward to this documentary with cautious optimism. The movie
trailer can be found at ExpelledTheMovie.com.
It shows Ben in shorts and a tie blowing the bullhorn on suppression. The site contains
a blog,
newsroom and other resources for involvement.
Well, this is an interesting development.
Will the Darwin attack machine try to take on Ben Stein, or just ignore him? Do we finally have a
courageous reporter unafraid to ask the hard questions and stand up to institutionalized suppression?
What will the NCSE do to forestall a media crisis, right when they are trying to make Darwin Day an
international event? They certainly have ample warning, so this will be
a battle royale worth watching. We just hope that the comedy-documentary format will not
detract from the scientific and philosophical flaws of Darwinism. These need airing in serious circles among
trained minds. Still, sometimes a media focus can help shake a stalled discussion loose.
Steins appeal to the rebel instinct may attract some youthful bystanders to ask questions.
Most likely the Darwin Party will try to portray Ben Stein
as a clown who doesnt know what he is talking about, and treat the film like a small roadside protest
that can be safely ignored as Big Science marches on in the Darwin parade. We know their tactics:
whitewash the cases of suppression in the film as small-time aberrations, lie about all the overwhelming
evidence for evolution, pick on small flaws in the film but ignore the main points,
and marginalize Stein and film fans as religious nuts. It appears that
Stein and the producers will not take being pigeonholed so easily. They intend this to
start a nationwide debate. Well see. The Darwin Party has amassed a huge arsenal
to protect its idol. The thing about idols, though, is: the bigger they are, the harder they fall.
Pieces of the Darwin idol may one day become trophies as coveted as pieces of the Berlin Wall.
Next headline on:
Darwin
Intelligent Design
Education
Media
Editorial 08/21/2007: A stinging indictment of Darwinist tyranny by David Warren appeared
in the Ottawa
Citizen on Aug 19.
Crows Use Tools on Tools 08/21/2007

Crows can use one tool on another to get food. A report in
Science Daily
says they appear to use analogical reasoning, not just trial and error, to figure out
how to manipulate objects. They used a short stick to get a longer
stick out of a toolbox in order to reach a snack too far for the short tool. In this,
The birds tool-use skills rival those seen among great apes, according to the researchers
at University of Auckland.
Analogical reasoning was thought to be at the core of
human innovation. One said, It was surprising to find that these bird-brained
creatures performed at the same levels as the best performances by great apes on such a difficult problem.
Lets be good empirical Darwinists and take the evidence where
it leads. Chimps evolved into birds, which evolved into humans. Mustnt
let species bias cloud our reasoning, now. Darwinists have made a big deal over intelligence
as evidence of our evolutionary kinship to apes. Now, having to eat crow at this finding,
they must be feeling in the mood for some Old Crow at the Crow Bar.
Next headline on:
Birds
Amazing Facts
Two Ways to Look at a Fin 08/21/2007

Two science articles this month showed very different ways to look at a fish fin.
One looked for evolution; the other looked for design. One tried to trace an evolutionary
story with no practical application; the other tried to find ways to improve our lives.
The evolutionary story involved a fossil coelacanth.
Science Daily
reported that a fossil coelacanth fin found by researchers from University of Chicago
fills a shrinking evolutionary gap between fins and limbs. Yet it was
unclear how it did so, since the article went on to say that both the fins of coelacanths
and lungfish, once thought to be ancestral to tetrapods, are in fact actually specialized.
Matt Friedman, the team leader, denied even that coelacanth was a living fossil.
It was also unclear how this fossil helped the evolutionary story. With things like
this [fossil], he said, were beginning to hone in on the
primitive conditions of fins that gave rise to limbs later on.
This indicates that they do not have evidence of primitive fins only of advanced fins
that could not have been part of an assumed evolutionary sequence leading to limbs.
The other story, a press release from Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, described how a team is trying to imitate the swimming action
of fish fins. Inspired by the efficient swimming motion of the bluegill sunfish,
MIT researchers are building a mechanical fin that could one day propel robotic submarines.
The sunfish can hover, turn, and store energy. This particular species is able to propel
itself forward with no backward drag. As part of their research, the team
broke down the fin movement of the sunfish into 19 components and analyzed which ones
are critical to achieving the fishs powerful forward thrust. Then they built an
artificial fin using advanced polymers to mimic the motion. Some day, autonomous underwater
vehicles (AUVs) may use these principles to achieve greater maneuverability at less energy cost.
This effort gives us the potential to build machines or robots in a manner closer to how
nature creates things, said one, and will help engineers figure out how to best
adapt natures principles to designing robotic vehicles.
Compare the benefit of biomimetic research with the utter
uselessness of Darwinian speculation. The nonsense going on at U of Chicago, the Center
of Tetrapod Evolution Fability (01/16/2007
commentary), is wasting our time. They cannot connect the fossil dots in any believable
sequence between fish and amphibians, but have the gall to lie to us: first, about the shrinking
evolutionary gap between fins and limbs, and secondly by denying coelacanth is a living
fossil. Do they even know what a living fossil is? Here was a creature known only
from the fossil record, thought to be extinct from the age of dinosaurs, that was found alive
and well in 1938. It doesnt matter whether it is considered a transitional form now,
because it was thought to be so by all evolutionists then. When they found that it does not use its fins for
supporting its body on land, they had to quickly change their fable in light of the
facts in front of them. Theyve learned nothing in the intervening 70 years and
have done no one any good. Evolution is useless, vapid, evanescent speculation about
things they cannot know and cannot prove, holding us hostage to promissory notes about insight
that turns out to be positively anti-knowledge (see Luther
Sunderland comments).
The other story, by contrast, has real value. The researchers
saw an efficient design in nature. They were inspired to create a similar
mechanism that could improve our lives. Which kind of science do you prefer gets the
government funding? If the rascally Darwinist usurpers ever get ejected from the lab
for the crime of impersonating a scientist, civilization wont miss them. Real scientists
will suddenly see a surge in funding and resources that
had been wasted on fruitless storytelling. Help mankind: fire a Darwinist.
Next headline on:
Fossils
Darwinian Evolution
Marine Biology
Biomimetics
Physics
Stupid Evolution Quote of the Week:
Let Darwin Take Over 08/20/2007

Jack Szostak (Harvard Medical Center) wins this weeks prize for a comment in an
Associated Press article (see
PhysOrg) claiming that scientists
will create life in a test tube within 10 years. Szostak was explaining the process
of creating a cell membrane to the reporter:
His idea is that once the container is made, if scientists add nucleotides in the
right proportions, then Darwinian evolution could simply take over.
We arent smart enough to design things, we just let evolution
do the hard work and then we figure out what happened, Szostak said.
Several international organizations, such as ProtoLife in Venice, are in the competition
to create life from scratch, the article claims. Creating synthetic life
will need to overcome three hurdles: the membrane, the genetic code, and the metabolism.
Its the membrane that Szostak had said was not a big problem.
Mark Bedau of ProtoLife tried to assure the reporter that artificial life
will not get out and run amok. He claims artificial cells will be too weak to pose
a risk: But them getting out and taking over, never in our imagination could this happen.
One of our readers thought that Szostaks entry
deserved to be called Stupid Evolution Quote of the Century. But then,
there are already too many entries in that category. Tryouts are opening for
the millennium class.
Reality check: they are not creating life from scratch; they are copying
existing technology. To really make life from scratch, they would have to start
by inventing the universe. Copying the packaging, coding, and metabolism of existing life is a
huge, huge head start. These guys think they are dumber than Darwinism, and they are right.
Are they the ones you would trust to tell us that synthetic biology will be safe?
Next headline on:
Darwinism
Cell Biology
Origin of Life
Dumb Ideas
Can atheism survive an anthropic universe? from
08/16/2005.
Mystery of the Ultraconserved Elements, Cont. 08/18/2007

In 2004, Gill Bejerano et al reported ultraconserved elements in the human genome
(05/27/2004). These were non-coding regions that,
for some unknown reason, showed no evolution between mouse and human a time span
over tens of millions of years. Since many of these ultraconserved regions are also
found in bird genomes, they added that some genetic regions have maintained 100% sequence
similarity for 300 million years.
Now, Bejerano and others have reported in
Science that these ultraconserved elements are also ultraselected.1
It appears that strong purifying selection acts three times stronger on these regions
than on genes. The reason for the ultraconserved regions remains a mystery,
they said. They could offer no explanation for why natural selection would prevent
changes to these sections that are 200 base pairs long and longer.
Whatever they are there for,
These data argue that ultraconserved elements are currently, as well as historically,
strongly constrained functional elements.
Update 09/06/2007: A press release from
Berkeley
Lab talked about this, calling it a major challenge to our understanding of how
highly conserved elements of the genome persist. Mice with one of the
ultraconserved elements knocked out appeared to do just fine. Their paper appeared
in the September 2007 issue of PLoS Biology.2
1Katzman, Kern, Bejerano et al, Human Genome Ultraconserved Elements Are Ultraselected,
Science,
17 August 2007: Vol. 317. no. 5840, p. 915, DOI: 10.1126/science.1142430.
2Ahituv et al, Deletion of Ultraconserved Elements Yields Viable Mice,
Public
Library of Science: Biology 5(9): e234 doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0050234.
Evolutionists had predicted that once genes could be
deciphered, there would be a clear branching pattern of evolution retracing the assumed
millions of years of steady evolutionary change. The more diverged the groups,
the more the genetic differences would be found.
Well, that picture has not materialized. So now, Darwinites, since you have displayed
ineptitude in finding the way to the future of biology, will you get out of the drivers seat?
Next headline on:
Genetics
Darwinism
SETI Camp Promotes Make Believe 08/17/2007

Every kid loves to play make believe, wrote Lisa Grossman for
Space.coms
SETI Thursday feature. How did Lisa spend her summer? Playing
make believe with 16 undergraduates at a NSF- and NASA-funded SETI camp.
For many of us, the experience was nothing short of fantasy fulfillment,
she cheerfully said in her report entitled, How I Spent My Summer at SETI.
The SETI Institute organized the event.
Her report, in fact, seemed long on make-believe and short on evidence. For Grossman,
fantasizing began in third grade and carried through non-stop to SETI Camp (or, more formally, the
Summer Research Experience for Undergraduates).
I imagined a universe full of tiny, hardy life. Why not? Microbes can live comfortably
in the most absurdly unfriendly reaches of the planet. If these little creatures can survive
in volcanoes, at the bottom of the ocean, embedded in glacial ice, and even in countless human guts,
then they must be able to exist on other planets! Life must be absolutely everywhere!
I didnt know then that there was an entire community of scientists who felt exactly the
same way. I certainly didnt expect that before Id even graduated from college,
Id be working with them.
(Cf. 03/29/2007 entry.)
She mentions what some fellow campers worked on: searching for extrasolar planets, studying the
geology of Europa, working on a Mars lander instrument, watching meteors, and other projects.
Nothing Grossman mentioned, though, provided any direct evidence for life beyond Earth.
What the projects did do was to harness youthful euphoria for otherwise mundane research:
Another student spent her days studying the geology of Europa, one of Jupiters moons. Scientists
believe that it has a vast liquid water ocean beneath a layer of ice at the surface. She
analyzed images of Europa from the Galileo mission, looking for areas of the surface whose appearance changed
over time and trying to determine if those changes are what you would expect if there were a liquid ocean.
She thinks the possibilities for life on Europa are especially exciting. As soon
as I heard about Europa, I thought, Oh, awesome. Lets look for lobsters! she
said. So far, she hasnt discovered any Europan crustaceans, but shes enjoyed
learning more about geology and approaching biology and chemistry from an astronomy perspective.
Grossman discussed all the fun the others were having with their experiments not one of which found
any evidence for life out there. Just the possibility that might play some role in the hunt was enough to make
their scientific work a thrill of lifetime. Why, its just like in the movies:
All of us got to take a week-long field trip to the Hat Creek Radio Observatory, home of the Allen Telescope Array,
where Jill Tarter, SETIs director of research and the inspiration for Carl Sagans novel Contact,
explained how the telescopes work and what research theyll be used for. Several of us even camped
overnight in tents under the array. It wasnt very scientifically useful, but it was definitely
something to write home about.
So the hunting came up entirely empty; Nevertheless, whether we continue on in astrobiology or not,
this summer of playing alien hunters will stay with us. Thanks for the memories; sorry about the data.
She ended on a missionary appeal, encouraging readers to spread the word about next years
SETI Camp.
Heres a suggestion for them. The name Summer Research Experience for
Undergraduates is way dullsville and has no catchy acronym. Nor does it convey what the SETI Camp is
all about. It fails to encapsulate the experience of being there. They need something that connotes
vivid imagery and action, where anything can become vibrant and moving and animated, where even stars, bubbles and
volcanos can spring to life. Maybe they should call it Fantasia.
Should you awaken someone who is enjoying a fun dream? Whats
the harm of a blissful fantasy? Even if life is never found, and if the evidence continues to go against them
(read Michael Egnors comments
and see the 07/27/2007 and
02/15/2007 entries),
why spoil someones party? (read Larry
Caldwells comments). After all, lots of internet gamers and denizens of Second Life take their
fantasies very seriously. Maybe SETI Camp keeps them away from a life of idleness and crime. Maybe
something good will come from it, like chemistry did from alchemy, even if the hoped-for dream never materializes.
Their youthful zeal will advance our knowledge of extrasolar planets, the geology of planetary moons, the adaptations
of extremophiles, and mineral content of meteors, with or without mythical lobsters under Europas ice.
And the Intelligent Design community can continue to harvest the irony of Contact
(12/03/2005) whether or not the dreamers catch on.
Whats the matter, isnt this all worth a little taxpayer money? Still, its kind of sad....
Next headline on:
Origin of Life
SETI
Dumb Ideas
Artificial Selection Is Not Natural Selection 08/16/2007

From Nature1 comes this point to ponder:
Evolution has crafted thousands of enzymes that are efficient catalysts for a
plethora of reactions. Human attempts at enzyme design trail far behind, but may
benefit from exploiting evolutionary tactics.
The subheading summarized a commentary by Michael P. Robertson and William G. Scott (UC Santa Cruz)
on directed evolution experiments by Burkhard Seelig and Jack Szostak, reported in the
same issue of Nature.2 The commentary began:
Chemical reactions in living organisms are catalysed by enzymes, the vast majority of which are
proteins. These finely tuned catalysts are the result of billions of years of
evolution, and far surpass anything yet created by humans. Indeed, our ability
to design enzymes, on the basis of our knowledge of protein structure and
reaction mechanisms, can most charitably be described as primitive.
Burkhard Seelig and Jack Szostak used an iterative selection process to yield useful enzymes,
but did not claim this is how nature did it. They had a goal: product formation as the sole
selection criterion, they said, meaning they were watching for a match to an intelligently
chosen standard. Though they called this directed evolution and selection,
it was clear that the scientists were doing the directing and selecting.
Yet the commentary by Robertson and Scott said this was just like nature did it:
Although proteins have won the fitness contest of natural selection to become the pre-eminent enzymes,
billions of years ago life may have started with RNA enzymes ribozymes
in a putative RNA world that pre-dated proteins and DNA.4 The RNA bond-forming (ligation)
reaction is a favourite of those studying evolution from an RNA world, because it is presumed
to be the crucial chemical step of RNA self-replication. Szostak and fellow molecular biologist
David Bartel were the first to isolate a ribozyme ligase, using artificial selection. Their
technique is the prototypical method for the in vitro evolution of ribozymes, and has been
adapted for protein enzymes by Seelig and Szostak in the current study.
Artificial selection toward a goal, however, is very different from natural selection as conceived by
Darwin. Natural selection has no goal, no direction, no retained knowledge, and no reward.3
Even Darwin worried about his term natural selection, because it seemed to imply an intelligent selector.
He later acquiesced to Herbert Spencers term, survival of the fittest, as a better encapsulation of his idea.
The confusion between artificial selection and natural selection continued to the end of the article,
where Robertson and Scott said, Designing a selection process that includes
ground-state interactions (as Seelig and Szostaks study does) and transition-state interactions
(as the previous catalytic-antibody approaches did) might yield even better-designed enzymes.
1Michael P. Robertson and William G. Scott, News and Views: Biochemistry:
Designer Enzymes,
Nature
448, 757-758 (16 August 2007) | doi:10.1038/448757a.
2Burkhard Seelig and Jack W. Szostak, Selection and evolution of enzymes from a partially
randomized non-catalytic scaffold,
Nature
448, 828-831 (16 August 2007) | doi:10.1038/nature06032.
3Survival cannot be considered a reward in Darwinism. Reward implies a rewarder and
a goal that a contestant strives for. In the value-neutral, materialistic world of blind natural
selection, nobody could care if an organism survives or not. For these reasons, the commentators
characterization of a fitness contest won by evolutionary tactics is misleading.
4For problems with the RNA World scenario for the origin of life, see the
07/11/2002
and 02/15/2007 entries.
Even a middle school biology teacher or an NCSE staff member
would know this is not natural selection. How can the premiere science journal in the world
allow this egregious an example of the fallacy of equivocation
to make it into print? Happens all the time, folks. If the logical inconsistency was
obvious to you, youre wiser than eggheads at UC Santa Cruz and the editors of Nature.
Next headline on:
Darwinism
Dumb Ideas
Stupid Evolution Quote of the Week: Shark Chefs and
Finger Food 08/15/2007

A press release from University of Florida
wins this weeks prize for trying to make dogmatism funny (or at least appealing to snackers):
When the first four-legged animals sprouted fingers and toes, they took an ancient genetic recipe
and simply extended the cooking time, say University of Florida scientists writing in Wednesdays
issue of the journal PLoS ONE.
Even sharks which have existed for more than half a billion years have
the recipe for fingers in their genetic cookbook not to eat them, but to grow them.
But sharks dont have fingers, you say? Right; they just had the recipe but never used it:
the genetic processes necessary to muster fingers and toes existed more than 500 million years ago
in the common ancestor of fish with cartilaginous skeletons and bony fish more than 135 million
years before digits debuted in the earliest limbed animals, the article says.
And what were
these finger genes doing 135 million years before they were used? Just making fins, apparently.
...sharks and many other types of fish do not form more dramatic appendages during this
late phase of Hox gene expression because it occurs briefly and only in a narrow band of cells,
compared with the more extended time frame and larger anatomical area needed to prefigure the hand and foot
in limbed animals.
So for 135 million years, no animal ever tried the latent innovation.
But when it was time for fingers and toes to debut, their appearance was an extremely dramatic,
important point in evolution that has captured the interest of many. Otherwise we would
be playing finball instead of handball.
The finding shows what was thought to be a relatively recent evolutionary innovation existed
eons earlier than previously believed, the article says. The following paragraph
makes it all so plausible:
Weve uncovered a surprising degree of genetic complexity in place at an early point in
the evolution of appendages, said developmental biologist Martin Cohn, an associate professor
with the UF departments of zoology and anatomy and cell biology and a member of the UF Genetics Institute.
Genetic processes were not simple in early aquatic vertebrates only to become more complex as the
animals adapted to terrestrial living. They were complex from the outset. Some major
evolutionary innovations, like digits at the end of limbs, may have been achieved
by prolonging the activity of a genetic program that existed in a common ancestor of
sharks and bony fishes.
Question: What was the observation that gave rise to all this kitchen prose? Scientists at UFL watched
the pattern of expression in Hox genes in living sharks,
and discovered a phase of gene expression in sharks that
was thought until recently to occur only when digits began to form in limbed animals.
Well, then, (snap fingers): evolution is the only possible explanation.
Its the only possible answer because it is the only answer the
Darwin Party will allow in the arena, which has become a circus. Lets all do
Steve
Martins rendition of When the shark bites... while re-reading the quote at top right of this page.
Update: National
Geographic was quick to join the feeding frenzy. The discovery pushes back the date of the
evolutionary fin to limb advance by some 135 million years, the article said.
Which quote do you think should win? The one above or this one by Marcus C. Davis?
Dramatically different ways of beingnew forms, new functionsmay evolve through relatively minor
adjustments to existing genes and gene functions, Davis said.
It only requires modificationstweaksif you will, to previously
existing genetic systems, he said.
A symphony can play dramatically different compositions by changing the role each
musician plays, [but] only on occasion are instruments added or lost.
And here you thought all along that symphonies were played by intelligent design. Not this one. Its
Darwins overture to his comic opera Farcical, dopus 135M,
starring the fat lady who always sings last, Tinker Bell.
Next headline on:
Darwinism
Marine Biology
Genetics
Dumb Ideas
Largest Dinosaur Mass Grave in Switzerland Found 08/15/2007

As many as 100 plateosaurs may be buried in a mass grave in Switzerland, reported
the Reuters news service.
The finds show that an area known for Plateosaurus finds for decades may be much larger than
originally thought as much as a mile in width in the town of Frick, near the German
border. An amateur found bones while
investigating a construction site.
The article mentions that Germany has two other large
plateosaur burial sites. It described the animals as peaceful herbivores that lived along
a river delta. Plateosaur fossils are common in Europe. The four-legged herbivores, classified
as Triassic, grew over 30 feet in length and could weigh as much as 1500 pounds.
Must have been a bad day in dinotopia. Anyone know of a modern
example of hundreds of large animals like elephants or giraffes all being buried at the same time
over many miles while grazing peacefully along a river bank? We were once taught the present
is the key to the past. Remember the specimen found under the North Sea?
(04/25/2006).
Next headline on:
Dinosaurs
Fossils
Gophers: natures rototillers, from 08/02/2004.
Gratitude Protects Against Health Loss 08/15/2007

A study in the new science of gratitude showed that thankfulness is good therapy. Researchers at
UC Davis and Mississippi University
for Women tracked 12 female patients
who kept journals of their hospital stays while receiving organ transplants. A control group just reported
medication side-effects, how they felt about life overall, how connected they were to others and
how they felt about the upcoming day. Another group answered the same questions but was asked
to add five things they were thankful for, and why. Guess which group fared better.
After 21 days, mental health and general wellbeing scores had risen for patients in
the gratitude group but declined for those in the control group, the article continued.
Patients in the control group also reported a loss of vitality, while the grateful patients
experienced no change.
Gratitude is a healthful attitude. Its a Biblical
attitude. The Bible is filled with admonitions to be thankful
(e.g., I Thessalonians 5,
Philippians 4,
Colossians 3).
Even in a hospital, there
are many things to be thankful for. The patients in this study should have been grateful that
donors made their organs available for transplanting, and that medicine has advanced far enough to
make transplanting a life-saving option, and that the body is filled with wondrous repair mechanisms
(see next entry). It should be easy to list dozens of blessings.
How many things can you count right now? Dont do it just for preventive medicine; really be thankful.
If you do it just for the health benefits, youre not being grateful; youre being selfish.
Even with our modern affluence, gratitude is in short supply these
days. How many of your coworkers ever express true appreciation for the blessings they enjoy?
More often you are likely to hear the latest gripe about corporate politics, working conditions, the traffic
on the commute, low wages, how hard I worked without being noticed, the slop the cafeteria is serving,
or whatever. A day living in North Korea might cure a lot of that. Even the cheerful gossip often
suggests cynicism something stupid the boss did, an egregious mistake someone made, or the like
its the laughter of fools
(Ecclesiastes 7:6),
not the positive, uplifting joy of thankfulness. People would look at you funny if you said,
Wow, what a beautiful day! Is this a great country, or what? Im so glad to
feel terrific and have this awesome job. I can hardly wait to get to work!
But then, guess who is likely to be in better health.
Lack of gratitude rides on a current of pride and selfishness. It conveys the
attitude I deserve better than this or the world owes me something.
No you dont, and no, the world doesnt. Were all sinners and deserve judgment, remember?
We should be thankful for each moment of mercy. The beginning of your list might be,
Im very thankful for another day in which I did not get what I deserve.
Thanklessness and its root of pride and selfishness also underlies much of
the fixation on biological evolution. It makes God angry. Paul wrote in
Romans 1 that
the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men,
who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because the truth about God is self-evident within them
and has been revealed to them through what has been made (created). In spite of the evidence,
they exchanged the truth of God for a lie. And heres the tie-in: what is producing the
stream of atheistic rage against creationism
(08/08/2007) spewed by the sourpuss spokespeople of the
Darwin Party? because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God,
nor were thankful
Some people need a heart transplant. Recommended surgeon: the
Great Physician. Offices conveniently located
throughout time and space. Hours: 24 x 7.
Next headline on:
Health
Bible
DNA Repair Is Highly Coordinated 08/14/2007

The remarkable ability of cells to repair DNA damage has been the subject of several recent
articles. As a long, physical molecule subject to perturbing forces, DNA is subject to
breakage on occasion. If repair mechanisms were not in place, the genetic information would
quickly become hopelessly scrambled and life would break down.
Studies are revealing that multiple levels of control are involved in maintaining genomic integrity.
- Repair shop: A study reported by Lawrence
Berkeley Lab indicated that double-stranded break repairs tend to take place in specialized locations like
repair shops in the nucleus. They have found evidence that indeed there are
specific regions where broken DNA is concentrated for repair.
- Damage suppressor: Some sites in chromosomes are more subject to breakage than others. A report from
Tufts University reported by EurekAlert
said that tumors can result from stalled replication at these sites. Fortunately, there is a
tumor suppressor gene whose presence is important for preventing tumor formation.
Most of the time, the article says, broken strands are repaired correctly. Cancer can begin
when the repair process goes awry, deleting or rearranging segments of DNA.
- Speed translator: Researchers at
Einstein
School of Medicine found that RNA polymerase can translate up to 70 base pairs per second much
faster than has been previously reported. The molecular machine stalls and pauses for unknown reasons
along the strand, however, making the actual throughput less. The researchers believe that the
pauses are somehow involved in gene regulation.
- First response firefighters: A study from Texas A&M University reported by
EurekAlert found that
two independent pathways converge on repair: chromatin remodeling and DNA checkpoint and repair.
When molecular disaster strikes, causing structural damage to DNA, players in two important pathways
talk to each other to help contain the wreckage, the article began.
....If DNA damage is like a fire that spreads when impaired cells divide and multiply, then the DNA
checkpoint and repair system can be considered a first-response firebreak, the article stated.
This stops cell division and allows the cell time to assess the damage. Depending on the damage
report, The fire is either doused by DNA repair or by programmed destruction of the cell.
The chromatin remodeling pathway, which shuffles DNA around nucleosomes to regulate access to DNA, is
also involved, the report continued. Modification of histones by the large ATP-dependent chromatin
remodeling complexes serves to regulate the DNA checkpoint pathway. The article mentioned that
this pathway is conserved (i.e., unevolved) in all eukaryotes, from yeast to humans.
- Come again? A sample of the complexity of DNA damage response can be found in the jargon
of this paper from
PNAS by
Laura A. Lindsey-Boltz and Aziz Sancar at University of North Carolina
School of Medicine, titled
Reconstitution of a human ATR-mediated checkpoint response to damaged DNA.
If you have trouble following this, good thing your cells understand it: We show that the damage sensor
ATR in the presence of topoisomerase II binding protein 1 (TopBP1) mediator/adaptor protein phosphorylates
the Chk1 signal-transducing kinase in a reaction that is strongly dependent on the presence of DNA containing
bulky base lesions. The dependence on damaged DNA requires DNA binding by TopBP1, and, indeed,
TopBP1 shows preferential binding to damaged DNA. And thats just the introduction.
- Stall at the typo: Lindsey-Boltz and Sancar also suggested in a Commentary in
PNAS that RNA Polymerase II, the
DNA translator, could be The most specific damage recognition protein in cellular responses to DNA damage.
It acts like the the universal high-specificity damage sensor for three major cellular responses
to bulky DNA lesions, they said. When UV light has introduced an error, RNAP II stops and
calls for help. The resulting structure recruits proteins that initiate repair,
cell cycle checkpoints, or apoptosis [programmed cell death]. Maybe this is what is going
on when the translation process stalls: the word processing machine wont proceed till the typo is fixed.
- Repair champ: Raquel Sussman reported in
PNAS on a model animal that
is endowed with special qualities for detecting external as well as internal abnormalities
and can repair chromosomal lesions to a much greater extent than the human population.
The animal is the zebrafish. As an easy-to-study organism in the lab, it promises to help scientists
gain insight into the causes of cancer and DNA damage, which can include ultraviolet rays and chemicals
in the water.
The insights into DNA damage repair are part of a growing respect for the complexity of the cell.
A press release from U of Toronto reported by
EurekAlert
underscored this trend with its title, Unravelling new complexity in the genome.
Its not just the number of protein-coding genes that are significant any more. How the
genes are switched on and off and regulated is becoming the focus of research. Scientists used to
view DNA as the master source of genetic information, but something is controlling DNA at higher levels.
One outcome of these new studies is that the alternative splicing process appears to provide a
largely separate layer of gene regulation that works in parallel with other important steps in gene regulation,
the article said. The regulatory code now appears to be another level of genetic information
above the genetic code. It might be even more important than the information in the genes themselves.
Benjamin Blencowe (U of Toronto) remarked, The number of genes and coordinated regulatory events
involved in specifying cell and tissue type characteristics appear to be considerably more extensive
than appreciated in previous studies.
Isnt the cell wonderful? We each have trillions of them,
but each one deserves our love and respect. None of these articles, as usual, tried to explain
how blind evolution could have produced all this coded information with its self-healing mechanisms.
Instead of Darwinizing it, maybe we should Pasteurize it: use the
research to cure disease and improve the human condition, and to stand in awe of God. Like
Louis Pasteur said, The more I study nature, the more I stand
amazed at the work of the Creator.
Next headline on:
Genetics
Cell Biology
Amazing Facts
Science Confronts Philosophy, or Vice Versa 08/13/2007

Practicing scientists often disdain philosophy. To them, it seems like mumbo-jumbo
with convoluted arguments telling them why they dont exist or why two-ness cannot
be represented on a chalkboard. To a scientist dealing with real lab rats or chemicals
off the shelf, such ramblings seem detached and worthless. Who would know more what
science is than a scientist? Philosophizing about science seems far less productive
than just doing science. One described
philosophy as incomprehensible answers to insoluble problems.
Philosophys domain is all-encompassing. It attempts to
address, in a systematic and rigorous manner, questions about what exists (ontology), how we know
things (epistemology), and how we should live our lives (moral and political philosophy).
Philosophers ask the pointed questions
that give precision to our thoughts. A fairly new branch of philosophy is the
philosophy of science. The question what is science? is not and cannot
be a scientific question. It is a statement of philosophy about science,
describing the limits of its epistemology and the nature of its ontology.
On the rare occasions when the scientific journals
discuss philosophy of science, they usually delve into it only long enough to come back
to a reassuring verdict that objectivism is still the only philosophy worth believing
(i.e., that our sensations of the world correspond to what is objectively real).
Here were some examples in the form of book reviews in Science magazine.
- Perspectives on perspectivism: Perspectivism (a form of constructivism, i.e.,
that our view of reality is a construct of our sensations) claims that the human mind
cannot extricate itself from an observation in a bias-free manner: what we call a quark, for instance, or what
we perceive as red, is a function of how we, as humans, classify and perceive things. Peter Lipton reviewed
a recent book by Ronald Giere on this view, Scientific Perspectivism, in Science
May 11.1 Lipton reviewed the theories of Immanuel Kant and Thomas Kuhn
(Kant on wheels), and
discussed Gieres own position. Giere extended his discussion of color perception to
all of science, concluding that science is perspectival through and through.
Constructivists deny the view from nowhere. Science can only describe
the world from a human perspective. Objectivists claim that, on the contrary, there
is such a view. You cant think without thinking, but it does not follow that what you
are thinking about--baryons, say--must somehow include the thinker. Objectivists hold on
to the idea that the world has its own structure, which science reveals.
Lipton ended up disagreeing with Giere, but provided only fuzzy responses: he said the constructivist
position remains obscure and difficult to grasp. He said objectivists
will not be moved by the book, because it has an uncertain force.
Here was his summary case for objectivism:
Scientific descriptions surely are incomplete and affected by interest, but these
are features the objectivist can take on board. Completeness and objectivity are
orthogonal. Maybe in the end constructivism is true, or as true as a
constructivist can consistently allow. Nevertheless, the thought that the world has
determinate objective structures is almost irresistible, and Giere has not ruled out
the optimistic view that science is telling us something about them.
It is not clear, however, that Giere or other constructivists would be put off by these arguments.
There is no necessary connection between an argument being pleasing and it being true.
Are not descriptions like irresistible and optimistic some of the very
human perspectives Giere was talking about?
- Who watches the watcher? Chris Adami, usually known for his evolutionary computing
work, reviewed an unusual book by Douglas Hofstadter, I Am a Strange Loop, in Science
May 25.2 Hofstadter tried to give a completely materialist explanation of mind:
Hofstadters explanation of human consciousness is disarmingly simple. Even though he spends
most of the book giving examples and analogies from realms as disparate as particle physics and boxes
of envelopes, the main idea is simply that our feeling of a conscious I is but
an illusion created by our neuronal circuitry: an illusion that is only apparent at the level of
symbols and thoughts, in much the same way as the concepts of pressure and temperature are only apparent
at the level of 1023 molecules but not the level of single molecules.
In other words, Hofstadter denies consciousness an element of ontological reality, without denying that
our thoughts and feelings, pains and longings have an inner reality when we have them.
But to show that consciousness is a collective phenomenon of sorts, he needs to delve deep into the
theory of computation and, in particular, Austrian mathematician Kurt Gödels proof of his incompleteness
theorem, as these concepts are key to the idea the author wants to convey. And he does this
admirably in a mostly playful manner, choosing carefully constructed analogies
more often than mathematical descriptions.
Again, however, it is not at all certain a philosopher of another persuasion would be tongue-tied over
these arguments. Playful arguments have no necessary connection with truth. As skilled
and admirable as Hofstadters writing might be, he has a fundamental problem explaining consciousness
from particulars of neurons. To do it, he tried to extend Gödels incompleteness realms upward
into unknown territory where each higher realm provides the completion of each lower realm, then wraps
in on itself: Hofstadter suggests, our ability to construct symbols and statements that are about
these symbols and statements creates the strange reflexive loop of the books title
out of which our sensation of I emerges.
At this point, Adami (though admiring the book) comes close to bringing the case down
with a pointed question:
This ambitious program aimed at a deconstruction of our consciousness is not without peril. For
example, if we posit that our consciousness is an illusion created by our thoughts watching
ourselves think [as the philosopher of mind Daniel Dennett had previously suggested], we might ask
Who watches the watcher? Or, if I am hallucinating an I, who is hallucinating
it? However, an infinite regress is avoided because on the level of the neuronal circuitry,
the impression of having a mind is just another pattern of firings--something
consciousness researcher and neuroscientist Christof Koch of the California Institute of Technology calls
the neuronal correlate of consciousness.
Yet is this answer not begging the question? The issue is whether
a mind can be reduced to neurons, yet Adami just stated as a matter of fact that the impression of
having a mind is just another pattern of firings without arguing for how or why this could be so.
Adami clearly enjoyed the book as a companion to Kochs The Quest for Consciousness.
He accepted the premise that mind can be expressed as an artifact of neuron firing patterns. One
consequence is that humans should be able to build conscious robots some day. A second consequence
is almost purely metaphysical:
Second, the Gödelian construction suggests a tantalizing hypothesis, namely that a level of
consciousness could exist far beyond human consciousness, on a level once removed from our level of
symbols and ideas (which themselves are once removed from the level of neuronal firing patterns).
Indeed, Gödels construction guarantees that, while statements on the higher level can be patently
true but not provable on the lower level, an extension exists that makes the system complete on that higher
level. However, new unprovable statements emerge on the next higher level--that is, on a level that
maps an improbable jumble of our thoughts and ideas to, well, something utterly incomprehensible to us,
who are stuck at our pedestrian echelon. How incomprehensible? At least as inscrutable as
the love for Bartoks second violin concerto is to a single neuron firing away.
Thus Adami ends on an irrational leap. Appeals to higher levels of consciousness that are unknowable from our level,
even in principle, beleaguer any attempts to encapsulate mind within a materialist world
view. (And, as a materialist himself, Adami clearly did not intend to suggest that the highest level
includes God.)
Claiming such ideas are incomprehensible or inscrutable is no escape if Adami wants to play the
philosophy game. An interlocutor would call it another case
of Adami begging his own question: who watches the watcher?
1Peter Lipton, Philosophy of Science: The World of Science,
Science,
11 May 2007: Vol. 316. no. 5826, p. 834, DOI: 10.1126/science.1141366.
2Christoph Adami, Philosophy of Mind: Who Watches the Watcher?,
Science,
25 May 2007: Vol. 316. no. 5828, pp. 1125-1126, DOI: 10.1126/science.1141809.
These book reviews have been in the queue for three months but finally
needed airing, because they are important. Scientists cannot escape philosophy. They are
embedded within it, whether they like it or not. To pretend philosophy has no bearing on their work is itself
a philosophy. The question is not whether a scientist practices philosophy, but how well
he or she does it. These two did not do it very well. Both appealed to emotion and flights
of fancy to defend objectivism and materialism.
Christians are objectivists, but are the only ones who have a warrant for it.
Christian objectivism is founded in the eternal, unchangeable Creator. That anchor on the
infinite is what gives us confidence in objective reality. A materialist cannot anchor his
thoughts on anything universal, necessary, or certain; he is trapped in his cage of limited perceptions.
He cannot prove that his sensations and perceptions pertain to anything that is out there in
the world (the correspondence theory of truth). The Christian has an infinite-personal God that
gives us the completeness to our human incompleteness.
The case is stronger than this. Philosopher of science Greg Bahnsen forcefully
argued that only the Christian world view provides the preconditions of intelligibility for
any rational response to existence, epistemology and morality (see American
Vision for lecture series). A skeptic might accuse Christians
of having a world view based on faith (fideism). Bahnsens comeback is that without the
Christian world view, you cannot prove anything. The world makes sense from a Christian view; it
makes no sense from any other view. Christians accept that they start with a world view and its
presuppositions, just like everyone begins with presuppositions. But if you want to argue
anything rationally, you must start with Christian presuppositions, or your answers become arbitrary
or inconsistent, or both and once you permit arbitrariness or inconsistency, you cannot prove anything.
This, Bahnsen explains, is the transcendental proof of Gods existence.
Its not a slippery proof based
on reason (like Descartes), or on empiricism (like Paley), or on pragmatism (like ones personal
testimony), or on any of the other approaches that usually result in a
stand-off. It is a proof based on the preconditions of intelligibility: without the Christian
world view, you cannot prove anything. All rational discussion ends before it begins unless you
accept as a precondition that the infinite-personal God of the Bible exists. Then, and only then,
observations and arguments make sense
A corollary is that the only way that secularists like Lipton
and Adami can make their arguments is by pilfering the presuppositions of Christians. In a vivid
metaphor, Bahnsen says that the only way the bad boy can slap his fathers face is by sitting in his lap.
The Christian world view is also the precondition for intelligibility in science.
Both Greg Bahnsen and J. P. Moreland (see his
book Christianity and the Nature of Science)
have argued this case cogently that one must accept Christian
presuppositions before one can even do science. To do science, you must defend the correspondence
theory of truth, be able to account for a world of natural law, defend the validity of inductive inference and deductive
proof, accept the reality of the mind, believe in the universal applicability of the laws of logic,
and uphold universal standards of morality. All these
functions come included in the Christian world view package. They are indefensible in any other
world view.
Christianity, then, is a precondition for the intelligibility of science and for reason itself. This does not mean that
non-Christians cannot do science or use reason, because clearly they do; it means that they cannot account for
the validity of science from within their own world view. Whether they are aware of it or not,
they plagiarize Christian assumptions whenever they reason inductively or deductively about the
world. (This, Christians know, is because they retain the image of God impressed on their souls.)
The argument that a materialist, as a collection of particles and forces, can do science
without God has no more power than plugging an extension cord into itself. (That, indeed, would be a strange loop.)
For the power to flow, science has to be plugged into a socket named Christian Presuppositions.
We have minds that can reason about objective reality because we have an all-knowing, rational, all-wise
God who imbued some of that rationality into us. He is the completion to our incompleteness.
He is the one who watches the watcher.
Next headline on:
Theology and Philosophy
Oil made from marble, from 08/13/2002.
Immune System Appeared Early 08/12/2007

Social amebas or slime molds have gotten praise recently as inventors of the
immune system. These amebas can band together in a slug that can move as a unit
and generate stalks and spores. Science
Daily reported on research at Baylor College of Medicine that found sentinel cells
in a colony of amebas that patrol the slug and engulf invading bacteria or toxins.
Finding an immune system in the social amoeba (Dictyostelium discoideum) is not only
surprising but it also may prove a clue as to what is necessary for an organism to become multicellular,
the lead researcher, Dr. Adam Kuspa, said.
A Darwinian explanation was not long in coming. The article continued,
One way to estimate the characteristics of the organism that went before those that
were multicellular is to look for characteristics that are present in two, three or all four of these
main groups, he said.
Those were likely present in the progenitor organism, said Kuspa.
Because three of the four major groups of organisms have this pathway, I argue that means
that the progenitor of all multicellular organisms had this pathway. Since that organism was not likely
multicellular, it must have used it as some kind of signaling to respond to bacteria in the environment.
Looking at it from another point of view, its possible that one of the
properties of those (crown) organisms that allowed them to become multicellular was the ability to
distinguish self from non-self -- the hallmark of an immune system, said Kuspa. The
speculation is that a requirement of multicellularity is that you develop systems to recognize
pathogens and other non-self cells from yourself.
Kuspa did not describe how this might have come about by a blind process of random mutation and natural
selection.
Astrobiology Magazine picked up on this story, adding this comment to its article, We Are one
The evolution of multicellular organisms on Earth was an important step in the diversification of life
on our planet. Understanding these important moments in the history of life can help elucidate
the mechanisms through which life develops and evolves, which in turn can help astrobiologists
determine the potential for lifes development on distant worlds.
The original work was published in Science.1,2 Kuspa and his team only speculated
about the evolutionary significance of their description of sentinel cells. They said that this
first glimpse of an immune-related signaling system might represent an ancient function
in the common ancestor of plants and animals, but they did not explain how it arose; in fact, their discovery
represents another layer of complexity to the cellular cooperation observed in the social amoeba.
They ended with more speculation about this as a function present in the hypothetical common ancestor:
If true, it would suggest that this system of pathogen recognition was advantageous to organisms
before the evolution of multicellularity. Mitch Leslie said amen in his commentary:
the results suggest an early beginning for the specialized immune system now seen
in multicellular organisms.
By contrast, another paper on the immune system in Science the prior week said
nothing about evolution.3 Ira Mellman wrote that immune cells often exhibit remarkable degrees
of specialization and adaptation. The system comprises a variety of cell types
whose activities must be carefully regulated to act as a coherent unit for the purpose of host defense.
Because of the emerging complexity of the field, he encouraged cell biologists and immunologists to get their
heads together to try to understand how immunity works.
1Chen, Zhuchenko and Kuspa, Immune-like Phagocyte Activity in the Social Amoeba,
Science,
3 August 2007: Vol. 317. no. 5838, pp. 678-681, DOI: 10.1126/science.1143991.
2Mitch Leslie, A Slimy Start for Immunity?,
Science,
3 August 2007: Vol. 317. no. 5838, p. 584, DOI: 10.1126/science.317.5838.584.
3Ira Mellman, Private Lives: Reflections and Challenges in Understanding the Cell Biology of the Immune System,
Science,
3 August 2007: Vol. 317. no. 5838, pp. 625-627, DOI: 10.1126/science.1142955.
As usual in evolutionary fables, the observation-to-assumption ratio is
so low, the paper is indistinguishable from fiction.
They assume the millions of years, they assume a hypothetical progenitor, they
assume neo-Darwinian mechanisms can invent an immune system, and they assume it can evolve
into the highly-functional immune systems of higher animals and plants. Whats the
only observation? that an organism observed today (not millions of years ago)
has a clever way for ridding itself of harmful bacteria and toxins. Those not infected
by Darwin narcosis might think this to be evidence of design.
Dont assume is a security principle in almost every facet
of life except evolutionary biology. Dont assume the power switch is off. Dont assume
the gun is empty. Dont assume the items on the flight checklist have been checked. Dont assume
Dad knows hes supposed to pick up the kids. Dont assume the rock on the cliff will
support your weight.
Numerous Darwin Awards have been won by victims who
assumed things. The Darwinists who write in science journals, though, get away with their rampant
assumptions because they never have to face the consequences. We think its time
for them to learn a little responsibility, or else kindly help humanity by removing themselves from
the gene pool.
Next headline on:
Cell Biology
Darwinian Evolution
We have no idea why these galaxies grew so large so soon 08/11/2007

Five full-sized galaxies have been detected at the edge of the visible universe,
reported Science Now.
This continues a trend over the last few years where astronomers have been detecting old objects
at young ages
(e.g., 07/25/2007,
09/24/2006,
08/18/2006,
03/31/2006).
The galaxies, which are forming stars very
rapidly, are big for their age, meaning that astronomers might have to rethink current ideas about
galaxy formation.
Rethinking looms big as a theme in the article. The first stars were supposed
to coalesce slowly into the first galaxies, but this process was supposed to take billions of years.
A team using data from Hubble, Spitzer and Keck telescopes confirmed these are Milky Way sized galaxies,
not small members of a cluster. We have no idea why these galaxies grew so large so soon,
remarked Giovanni Fazio of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. I think we still have
a lot new to learn about whats happening in the early universe,
This is not a surprise to creationists. It is a surprise to big-bang secular cosmologists.
We hope the astronomers will rethink current ideas, but for significant progress, they will have to think
outside the bang.
Next headline on:
Astronomy
Cosmology
Dating Methods
Weird-Science Origin-of-Life Theories 08/10/2007

Two news articles on the origin of life seem bizarre at best. One even used the
word bizarrely in its own self-evaluation.
- Living dust: Zap the dust in your living room and it may come alive.
Is that the gist of this story in PhysOrg?
A team of international scientists thinks that cosmic dust in plasma takes on properties similar to
that of carbon-based life, like DNA. Heres the word bizarrely
Quite bizarrely, not only do these helical strands interact in a counterintuitive way in which
like can attract like, but they also undergo changes that are normally associated with biological
molecules, such as DNA and proteins, say the researchers. They can, for instance, divide, or
bifurcate, to form two copies of the original structure. These new structures can also
interact to induce changes in their neighbours and they can even evolve into yet more structures as
less stable ones break down, leaving behind only the fittest structures in the plasma.
So, could helical clusters formed from interstellar dust be somehow alive?
These complex, self-organized plasma structures exhibit all the necessary properties to
qualify them as candidates for inorganic living matter, says Tsytovich, they are
autonomous, they reproduce and they evolve.
It should be noted that these behaviors were noted in computer models, not in real plasmas.
- We could be Martians: The same scientists who revived bacteria from alleged 8 million
year old ice (see 08/04/2007) say their study helps refute panspermia.
Life could not have come on comets, says a reporter on
NorthJersey.com,
because radiation would have killed it. But since it might survive inside meteorites, it was OK for him
to trade one weird-science theory for his own. Because life was so hardy on Earth, and since Mars is
just one step away, isnt it logical? Staff writer Bob Groves ended on that note:
Microbes might survive a trip from Mars if encased in a meteorite, [Paul] Falkowski of Rutgers said.
So we could all be Martian
|