|
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
Watch for the Recycle logo to find gems from the back issues!
The Fruits of Two Worldviews 02/29/2008
Is this entry off-topic? Perhaps somewhat. But it is necessary to remember intently and frequently the stakes in the battle of worldviews. Lets recite the obligatory disclaimers first: not all atheists are genocidal maniacs, and not all Christians are merciful saints. Understood.
Could clay minerals have helped life get a start? A chemical evolutionist explains why not,
from 02/13/2006.
Movies Worth a Leap Year...: 02/29/2008
Is Cosmology Getting Wimp-y? 02/28/2008
The first stars to appear in the Universe may have been powered by dark matter, according to US scientists....Lets take stock so far. Some kind of mysterious unknown stuff has never been detected, but it determined the fate of the universe and all that it contains. The mysterious unknown stuff, remember, has never been detected, but it has a name: Wimps. Even though never detected, scientists are certain there was a lot of the mysterious unknown stuff at the beginning, colliding, fusing and obliterating itself, and forming the first stars, which would have looked quite different from the stars we see, even though they have never been detected, either. Now to the indirect evidence that is overwhelming. The article continues: Dark matter particles make up more than three-quarters of the mass of the Universe, says theoretical physicist Katherine Freese from the University of Michigan.It seems that this indirect evidence for the mysterious unknown stuff that has never been detected is an artifact of a popular current theory that postulates its existence (06/20/2003, esp. bullet 5). Our problem is that we cannot detect the billions of Wimps that MUST (Mysterious Unknown STuff) be passing through our bodies every second. So lets turn our most powerful space telescope to the edge of the universe, and learn if it sees what MUST be there: The nature of the first stars has long puzzled astronomers. Immediately after the Big Bang, the Universe expanded and cooled, so that for millions of years it was filled with dark, featureless hydrogen and helium and perhaps Wimps.So far, we have only observed KS (Known Stuff), not Mysterious Unknown STuff. The article gets even stranger. Scientists have figured out what MUST have occurred: to get from darkness to light, it MUST have pulled the universe together, causing it to change course on a path to stars, planets and life. Stranger still, the old story about mysterious unknown stuff has been replaced by a new one creating exotic new structures out of exotic unknown ingredients: It had been thought the hydrogen brought together by these dark matter haloes would collapse to make the first small stars, and would start to make inside themselves the first new elements carbon, oxygen, silicon and other materials needed by planets and life.Naturally, The details of what the stars would have looked like have yet to be worked out, since they cannot be observed. A good deal of effort and money is being expended to try to create some linkage between theory and observation. For instance, Science Daily described sophisticated new dark matter detectors being readied by Fermilab. One experiment described in another article on Science Daily failed to detect Wimps, the leading candidate for the mysterious unknown stuff. Astronomers have been looking for it for years (07/23/2007) but recently, the race to be first to detect it is picking up steam. Maybe the new Large Hadron Collider coming online this fall at CERN will help discover the mysterious unknown stuff that makes up the universe and determines its fate. One would almost think we are back in the dark ages, listening to wizards peep and mutter about mysterious vapors and essences and emanations that control our fate. They havent found Wimps yet but are already talking about Super-Wimps (07/02/2003). If the intellectually-wimpy believers in Wimpy dark matter dont find it soon, or if new theories gain ground that dont need it, these searchers are going to look very silly for having said 80% of reality consisted of superfluous nonexistent stuff.Why Blood Clots Are Stretchy 02/27/2008 ![]() A team of biophysicists at University of Illinois ran a computation for six months to find out why blood clots are stretchy. The primary protein in the clot, fibrinogen, can stretch two to three times its resting size. By studying the force on every atom in the protein, Science Daily said, they produced a force curve that matches the force measured on actual fibrinogen. Understanding clotting is important, because Blood clots can save lives, staunching blood loss after injury, but they can also kill, the article began. Let loose in the bloodstream, a clot can cause a heart attack, stroke or pulmonary embolism. It is important for clots to be elastic because they have a mechanical function to withstand blood pressure. Tots learn from their mommies that their scratches will heal, so they dont need to worry about being scarred for life. We grew up accepting that as a given. Imagine, though, having every scratch or cut from our youth a permanent disfigurement or point of blood leakage. We would be covered head to toe in bandages as adults. The life of hemophiliacs illustrates the point: when the blood clotting process breaks down, even a small cut is life-threatening.Sea Monsters Were for Real, and Other Wonders Under the Sea 02/26/2008 ![]() National Geographic News published a story about a real sea monster. A fossil pliosaur nearly 50 feet in length, the largest marine reptile ever found, was discovered in permafrost just 800 miles from the North Pole, on the Arctic island of Spitsbergen in Norways Svalbard archipelago. Scientists estimate it had such strong teeth and muscles it could have bitten a small car in half. The article about the huge creature, with a skull nearly 7 feet long and flippers 10 feet long, includes a photo gallery. Plesiosaurs often had long necks, but pliosaurs had massive heads and short necks. Page 2 of the article claims that the large concentration of marine reptiles in the area, one of the richest accumulations of marine reptiles in the world with 40 known specimens so far, resulted when the large animals swam in temperate seas and sank to the ocean floor after they died, where their bodies were preserved in soft mud. The Burgess Shale, now high in the Canadian Rockies, once hosted a rich marine biota. For a century it has been known for the exceptional preservation of its Cambrian fossils. A new theory reported in Live Science says that an undersea landslide was responsible for burying the animals quickly and suddenly so that even the impressions of soft parts of worms were preserved. The Cambrian Explosion was mentioned in the article: Today, the Burgess Shale represents a frozen sliver of life from a time when Earth and its life were completely different.A different surprise has appeared among the living. Shrimp-like crustaceans called krill had been thought to inhabit the upper ocean. What are they doing 3000 meters down under the Antarctic Peninsula? Sure enough, Science Daily reported, Antarctic krill were found by a deep-diving remotely operated vehicle in the dark depths, actively feeding and spawning as if this is a perfectly normal place to call home. The discovery completely changes scientists understanding of the major food source for fish, squid, penguins, seals and whales. Zalasiewicz said that there were no trees or higher animals when the Burgess Shale was buried by an undersea landslide. How would he know that? One would not expect there to be such creatures in that environment. Separate the interpretation based on worldview from the actual observations. The observations show that Darwinism could not be true. The 3-billion-year dates are part of the evolutionary tale. Just look at the fossils: all the major animal phyla appear suddenly at the beginning of the Cambrian. Appear is the operative word: they were not evolving. There were not primitive forms of these creatures in the rocks below. Boom! There they are, complete with eyes, complex appendages and a functioning ecology. That is not evolution. Its also true of the pliosaurs, plesiosaurs, and ichthyosaurs found at Spitsbergen. They appear in the record suddenly and fully operational. Extinct animals were usually larger and more diverse than their counterparts today. If this is evolution, it is going in reverse.
Why engineers envy the octopus, from 02/09/2005.
Prevent Drought: Hire a Beaver 02/25/2008
Beaver are pests to some, and a cash cow to others. In the early 1800s, they were coveted as a source of felt for gentlemens hats. Thats what opened the West to exploration and expansion by Americans, Europeans, other nations and individual pioneers, explorers, entrepreneurs and adventurers. We need to look at beaver in a better light. Theyre lovable, and theyre good for us. Time to watch the wonderful IMAX file Beavers again.Paleofantasy: Brain Evolution Is Mere Storytelling 02/22/2008 ![]() When it comes to explaining the brain, evolutionists are completely in the dark. That was the surprising message in a presentation to the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science by Harvard evolutionist Richard Lewontin. James Randerson blogged the presentation in the UK Guardian, beginning, We know nothing about brain evolution. Scientists are still completely in the dark about why the human brain evolved to be so big, according to Richard Lewontin. Randerson considers Lewontin one of sciences superb curmudgeons. Along with Stephen Jay Gould, Lewontin has historically argued against pan-selectionism, or the idea that natural selection produced every trait. Some traits are mere artifacts, they said, like the decorative spandrels on gothic pillars. Randerson said Lewontin was on fantastic curmudgeonly form at the Boston meeting: His campaign against pan-selectionism was in evidence. Evolution is not the evolution of traits but the evolution of organisms, he said.What are some of the reasons for Lewontins pessimism? Randerson summarized the main points:
How did Science, the organ of the AAAS, report this meeting?1 Richard Lewontin knows how to grab an audiences attention, the news report began. Then they quoted him grabbing some attention: We are missing the fossil record of human cognition. So we make up stories. Science reporter Michael Balter titled his article How Human Intelligence Evolved--Is It Science or Paleofantasy? Balter was quick to point out that others in the meeting disagreed with Lewontins pessimism. Dean Falk (Florida State) pointed to fossil evidence, and Christopher Walsh (Harvard Medical School) cited genetic studies. Leslie Aiello (Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research) pointed to research that can get us beyond the paleofantasy that Richard Lewontin is talking about. She said there is enough evidence for large shifts at certain points in evolutionary history, such as the split between the chimpanzee and the human lines about 6 million years ago and the invention of stone tools beginning about 2.5 million years ago. Some of these shifts can be correlated with climate change, she argued. All these appeared to be mere suggestions that may provide insight, though not collections of definitive evidence that produce sound conclusions. Marc Hauser (Harvard psychologist) said things that seemed to reinforce Lewontins pessimism. He argued that the gap between humans and other smart animals is greater than the gap between those animals and worms. Showing the many ways human cognition is unique, Hauser described the capabilities of smart animals as narrow, laser-beam intelligence for focusing on narrow problems, whereas humans have floodlight intelligence applicable to a wide range of problems. Even the tool use by chimpanzees is whoppingly different from what humans do, he said. Balter ended, He hopes that the manifold human differences summarized in his humaniqueness hypothesis will yield clues about how our species evolved. For more on Marc Hausers views on humaniqueness, which emphasizes four cognitive gaps between humans and animals (ability to recombine information, to apply information to novel problems, to use symbolic representations, and to think abstractly), see Science Daily. Hauser is quoted at the end of the article: For human beings, these key cognitive abilities may have opened up other avenues of evolution that other animals have not exploited, and this evolution of the brain is the foundation upon which cultural evolution has been built. This statement, however, assumes evolution rather than showing what mutations or variations crossed the divide in the first place. Measuring the width of a canyon is not the same thing as finding a bridge across it. 1. Michael Balter, News of the Week, How Human Intelligence Evolved--Is It Science or Paleofantasy? Science, 22 February 2008: Vol. 319. no. 5866, p. 1028, DOI: 10.1126/science.319.5866.1028a. You just saw a series of suicide bombs go off in the Darwin Party headquarters, carried in by Darwinites themselves. Can evolution recover from the admissions these guys made? This is not Duane Gish saying these things: they come from Mr. Cant-Allow-a-Divine-Foot-in-the-Door himself, Richard Lewontin of Harvard, a knowledgeable, committed Darwiniac if there ever was one. The upshot is that they are a bunch of know-nothings. Now we have a new label for the Darwin Party: the Know Nothing Party. Their motto is, I know nothing but my Darwinism Storybook, my whole Darwinism Storybook, and nothing but my Darwinism Storybook. Their favorite amusement park is Paleofantasyland.Evolutionary Theory Cant Handle Language 02/21/2008 ![]() Did a gene turn on speech? Five years ago, evolutionary geneticists were claiming that mutations in a gene called Foxp2 were the key to human language (see 08/15/2002, 05/26/2004). This was based on two observations: chimps do not have these mutations, and people with alterations to Foxp2 have language impediments. This idea is very unlikely to be right, claims a professor of computational linguistics at MIT, Robert Berwick. An article in Science Daily discusses his ideas: This kind of straightforward connection is just not the way organisms are put together, he says. When it comes to something as complex as language, one would be hard-pressed to come up with an example less amenable to evolutionary study. And the specific Foxp2 connection is based on a whole chain of events, each of which is speculative, so theres little chance of the whole story being right.Even defining language is hard, he said. Is bird song a kind of language? Whale song? If you cant define what it is, he said, why study it from an evolutionary point of view? If anything, Berwick said, Foxp2 is peripheral to the capacity for language just like a printer is peripheral to a computer system. Where does this leave research on the evolution of language? For himself, Berwick is looking for deeper, internal mechanisms. He sees some similarity to the rhythm in poetry and the song patterns in birds, for instance. This is unlikely, however, to do more than show some similarities without revealing causal mechanisms. The article ends by describing language as essentially a non-verbal function of the mind: Ultimately, the important thing is to understand that language is, at bottom, something that takes place inside the human mind and is independent of any particular sound, sight or motion. The same internal mental construction could be expressed through verbal speech, through writing or through sign language without changing its basic nature, Berwick says. Its not about this external thing you hear, he says. Its about the representation inside your head.A picture of Berwick in his lab is posted on the original press release at MIT. Intelligent design theorists and cognitive neuroscientists can have a field day with this! If language at its core is not a physical representation but a concept in the mind, then it has no basis in evolution.
Three unwarranted assumptions paleoanthropologists make about human origins criticized
by an anthropologist, from 02/19/2004.
Florida Wises Up and Teaches Evolution Uncritically 02/20/2008
In a move that could endanger Floridas flaky backwater reputation, the state Board of Education is poised to endorse the teaching of evolution as a science.Hiaasen continued his sarcasm against the compromise of calling evolution just a theory. OK, Lets start teaching gravity as a theory, too, he smirked. And dont forget the solar system -- what proof do we really have, besides a bunch of fuzzy, fake-looking photos, that Mars really exists? Hiaasen intimated that candidates like Mike Huckabee, a Christian, could help restore Floridas reputation for flakiness. Weve worked hard to keep ourselves so far behind in education, and we must stay the course. A taste of the acrimony generated on both sides of the evolution-as-theory debate can be seen in quotes listed in an article by World Net Daily Entertaining op-ed piece. Kind of like watching Groucho Marx or the Three Stooges calling smart people stupid. Hiaasens skill at sarcasm is only exceeded by his ignorance of the issues. His intellectual dysentery is the product of feeding on arguments from authority, bandwagon arguments, glittering generalities, non-sequiturs and the rest of the junk Darwin propaganda diet. By equating Darwins mythology with practical science, assuming that teaching evolution will bring in high-paying jobs, and confusing observational science with fability (01/16/2007 commentary), is it any wonder he wins Stupid Evolution Quote of the Week? The Discovery Institute should hire him for a sideshow, to illustrate the quality of ranting by the DODO heads (Darwin-Only 2x). Hiaasen is doing more to ensure Floridas ongoing flakiness than anyone siding with the Minority Report could have done.Dinosaurs of the Month 02/20/2008 ![]() The tools of paleontologists continue to turn up interesting things. Here are some of the latest dinosaur discoveries reported this month:
1. Wang, Kellner, Zhou, Campos, Discovery of a rare arboreal forest-dwelling flying reptile (Pterosauria, Pterodactyloidea) from China, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, published online on February 11, 2008, 10.1073/pnas.0707728105. 2. Evans, Jones, Krause, A giant frog with South American affinities from the Late Cretaceous of Madagascar, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, Published online on February 19, 2008, 10.1073/pnas.0707599105. Some paleontologists estimate we have only found 27% of the dinosaurs that actually lived (11/22/2004). This means that new, exotic discoveries can be expected for many years to come. Exciting as each new unusual form is, one cannot assume that the diversity in the dinosauria exceeds that in other groups, such as insects. Dinosaurs stand out in our minds because of their size and the fact they are all extinct. In many groups of plants and animals, the fossil record is richer than the living inventory.Distant Galaxy Surprises Astronomers 02/19/2008 ![]() Using the Hubble Space Telescope viewing a distant galaxy cluster as a gravitational lens, astronomers detected a new record-holder: a galaxy bright with stars almost as old as the big bang. The story on Science Daily called this a galaxy, with redshift 7.6, a strong contender for the galaxy distance record. According to theory, stars did not form till the end of the dark ages about 400,000 years after the big bang. Young galaxies emerging from the fog of particles might have had enough energy to evaporate the fog and bring the first stars to light, the article says. Still, to see a galaxy so soon after the dark ages was unexpected. An astronomer from UC Santa Cruz said, We certainly were surprised to find such a bright young galaxy 13 billion years in the past. The current age estimate for the universe is 13.7 billion years. The report was also posted on PhysOrg. See this other PhysOrg article for a gallery of Hubble gravitational-lens images. The measurements are indirect and highly theory-laden. The light astronomers measure exists in the present: here at our retinas on earth. Where it came from, and how long it took to get here, depends on theories and models that cannot be tested directly. How are you going to recreate a big bang and watch stars form? Are you going to wait 400,000 years to see if it happens according to your theory?
Poison can be good for you (in tiny doses), from
02/12/2003. Read about hormesis
a paradigm shift that might explain originally good uses for bad things.
For Healthy Society, Father Knows Best 02/18/2008
For example, we found various studies that showed that children who had positively involved father figures were less likely to smoke and get into trouble with the police, achieved better levels of education and developed good friendships with children of both sexes.This backs up the intuitive assumption that involvement with a biological father or father figure has a positive influence on children be it spending time with them talking, sharing in their activities, or playing an active role in their care and development. They said the father is particularly helpful for kids who are socially or economically disadvantaged. Public policy makers and employers need to recognize the importance of this role in a mans life, they said, for the good of society. Ask: who are the people who typically want to break down traditional marriage, confuse gender roles, and contribute to governmental policies (e.g., the welfare state, taxes that penalize marriage, promotion of alternate lifestyles) that make it harder for kids to have a father and mother at home? Sorry to insult your intelligence with such a giveaway question. You guessed it: liberals. Evolutionists, who are predominantly liberal in their politics, often portray Dad as nothing but a gene donor, a biological entity selfishly seeking to pass on his own genes at any cost, married or not. Is it any wonder a society immersed in evolutionary thinking is going to have little use for the traditional family? As a result of sick liberal, progressive policies (see book review), we have inherited a host of societal ills: crime, drugs, antisocial behavior, a sense of hopelessness, suicide. The kids most in need of a father economically disadvantaged blacks, for instance grow up predominantly in fatherless homes.Mars Life Hung Out to Dry in Salt 02/18/2008 ![]() Scientists have just about hanged the possibility for life on Mars. At first, the acid measured by the Spirit and Opportunity rovers made the environment look inhospitable. Now, we also appreciate the high salinity of the water when it left behind the minerals Opportunity found, said Mark Knoll on a JPL press release. This tightens the noose on the possibility of life. Dreamers of Martian microbes can now only hope that the two environments studied by the Mars Exploration Rovers are not representative of the whole planet, or that the most ancient environments under the surface may have been less salty. Life at the Martian surface would have been very challenging for the last 4 billion years, said Knoll, a biologist at Harvard and member of the rover science team. The press release was followed by another at JPL that potentially habitable planets around other stars may be common, based on infrared measurements of dust disks by the Spitzer Space Telescope (see also National Geographic News). The follow the water policy NASA astrobiologists use to search the most promising habitats for life, however, needs to consider more than just the H2O present. Not all water is fit to drink, Knoll quipped. Chemical evolutionists know that salt, a necessary nutrient for advanced life, is very detrimental to the formation of membranes and nucleic acids prior to the first cell (04/15/2002, 11/23/2007). Living organisms can regulate salt by means of specialized channels in their membranes. Prebiotic structures would have borne the brunt of salts damaging effects. Life could not have started in salty water, most astrobiologists agree. This announcement was reported also by National Geographic News. The stories did not ask whether the early earth had salt, and whether this would have posed a challenge to chemical evolution on our planet. This is old news; they should have given up long ago. Reports from the first year of the rovers on Mars (12/03/2004) worried about the high acidity and salinity of the water. Mars is dead; face it. So we can rule out one body on the list. Since evolutionists expect creationists to prove a universal negative, they will have job security for a long time.Nazi-Era Scientists Were Willing Colluders 02/17/2008 ![]() A seven-year study of the conduct of the German research funding agency, the DFG, was completed last month. Historians focused specifically on the Nazi years, 1933-1945. The report was mentioned by both Nature1 and Science.2 The upshot is that many German scientists went along with Hitlers regime without resistance. Ulrich Herbert, a historian at the University of Freiburg, said, The transition to National Socialism for most areas of research was not a very dramatic step. In 1933, Nazis came into leadership positions, but there was no specific Nazi agenda. Instead, contrary positions and voices were simply eliminated. German scientists were not particularly more racist, nationalistic or eugenicist than their American or Scandinavian counterparts, but contrary opinions lost support during the Reich. We found that the research community [in Germany] was seized by the same radical patriotism as the rest of society after the First World War, he said. Central control was not the only factor. The same attitudes prevailed at the decentralized universities as at the centrally-controlled Max Planck Society. Herbert told Nature, Universities ended up colluding with the regime because the conservative professors who were able to continue working there agreed, like the general population, with most Nazi policies. There was no organized opposition to the views and no public debate of different positions. The historians did not uncover any shocking new atrocities beyond those already described at the Nuremburg Trials and since, but one thing stood out: the ease with which ordinary professors and scientists signed on to the regime: But we learnt how exquisitely closely normal professors not just the mad Nazi types aligned their goals with the policies of the Nazi regime. Grant applications showed, for example, how many professors took part in developing plans for expansion to the east after Germany won the war (as they assumed). Plans that would have killed or enslaved more than 30 million people.Herbert also said that the nationalistic attitudes of the German scientists continued into the 1960s till a new generation emerged. Its good to know the dark side of ones history, he said. 1. Lessons from the dark side, Nature 755 (2008) | doi:10.1038/451755a. 2. Newsmakers, Science, Volume 319, Number 5865, Issue of 15 February 2008. Does anyone think for a moment that todays professors and academics in Big Science would not fall in line with another genocidal totalitarian regime, if the inducements were strong enough? The herd mentality makes it more comfortable to go along to get along. We already see the shameless ease with which they support experimentation on human embryos, the selfishness with which they demand public money for everything they want to do, and their willingness to lie openly about the evidence for Darwinism. Many individual scientists are the most honest and noble people you would ever meet, but the record of Big Science is not encouraging. How many of even the honest ones would risk everything to stand against incipient evil policies?
Remembering Dr. Henry M. Morris, Jr., father of modern creationism, from
02/25/2006.
Oldest Bat Fossil: Was It Evolving? 02/16/2008
The shape of the wings suggests that an undulating gliding-fluttering flight style may be primitive for bats, and the presence of a long calcar indicates that a broad tail membrane evolved early in Chiroptera, probably functioning as an additional airfoil rather than as a prey-capture device. Limb proportions and retention of claws on all digits indicate that the new bat may have been an agile climber that employed quadrupedal locomotion and under-branch hanging behaviour.Obviously, the researchers cannot watch a fossil bat fly in a fossilized sky. A creature capable of being called an agile climber as well as a flyer should not be judged primitive on that basis; are not two skills better than one? Possession of claws seems also a questionable measure of primitiveness. It would seem more primitive to lack a structure than to have it. As for that echolocation question, the discoverers were more hedged in their wording than the science reporters. After weighing the evidence, they said, there is no unambiguous evidence that Onychonycteris was capable of laryngeal echolocation. Their graph shows that the cochlea of this species is right on the borderline between echolocating and non-echolocating species. On the other wing, it was clearly capable of powered flight, they said. Speakman concurred: The bats wing morphology is very similar to that of extant species, except that it has claws on its digits, he said. But in all other respects this is clearly a bat capable of powered flight. In addition, the authors inferred that it most likely ate insects, as do modern echolocating bats. The only basis for claiming this bat was primitive, then, seems to be that it was found in strata assumed to be 52 million years old rather than 50 million years old, and according to evolutionary theory, Bats are thought to have evolved from terrestrial mammals, and scientists have long pondered whether they took to the air before or after they could echolocate. So said National Geographic. It looked like a bat, and it flew like a bat. It was labeled primitive simply because evolutionary theory assumes that older means more primitive. One other evolutionary question was considered. Why hasnt echolocation evolved among ground-dwelling mammals? An evolutionary answer was at the ready. Speakman spoke to that, but his answer raised other questions: However, around the end of the 1980s, evidence accumulated, including work from my own group, that favoured the flight-first hypothesis. One paper showed that, for a bat hanging at rest, echolocation is extremely energetically costly. This high cost probably explains why no terrestrial mammals have evolved full-blown echolocation systems such as those used by bats. However, a second paper showed that when a bat takes flight these costs disappear. This is because of a remarkable coupling of the beating of the wings with the ventilation of the lungs and production of the echolocation pulses. When a bat hangs stationary and echolocates, it must contract its muscles specifically to generate a forceful expiratory burst, and this is where the large costs come from. When a bat is flying, it is already contracting these muscles, so in effect echolocation when flying is free (or at least substantially cheaper).He did not discuss why flying hawks would represent more a threat than flying reptiles. He also did not discuss why any other complex organ that involves high cost (i.e., most organs in the body) would have evolved, if cost is such a hurdle to natural selection. For decades in his famous debates with evolutionists, Dr. Duane Gish of ICR pointed to fossil bats as an ideal test case for creation vs evolution. He pointed out the many modifications it would take to make a flying mammal out of a shrew or mouse, and how all these changes should be preserved in the fossil record as transitional forms. Then he would hold up a picture of the oldest known fossil bat, and say it was 100% bat. At the time, he knew about Icaronycteris, the alleged 50-million-year-old species exhibited in the American Museum of Natural History. He would quote Glenn Jepson from an issue of Science in 1966 saying that nothing related to a bat has ever been found in the fossil record that is any older than Icaronycteris, and it is essentially identical to a modern bat.3 It is unlikely this new discovery would cause Dr. Gish to change the core of his argument. In fact, he might claim it makes it stronger: Onychonycteris, found in the same Wyoming Eocene strata but lower than Icarnoycteris, was allegedly two million years earlier but it, too, was a 100% flight-capable bat. This only pushes the problem farther back for evolution. Now, all those specialized adaptations would have had to evolve in less time. There are still no transitional forms. Knowing Gish, he might have teased his debate partner by quipping that the evolutionist batting average is zero. 1. Simmons, Seymor, Habersetzer and Gunnell, Primitive Early Eocene bat from Wyoming and the evolution of flight and echolocation, Nature 451, 818-821 (14 February 2008) | doi:10.1038/nature06549. 2. John Speakman, Evolutionary biology: A first for bats, Nature 451, 774-775 (14 February 2008) | doi:10.1038/451774a. 3. Duane Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No, ICR 1995 revision, pp. 185-187. You see what the evolutionists do, dont you? You understand the modus operandi of their crimes. Their M.O. is, simply: assume evolution Evolution is their miracle worker, that appears on cue, like Tinker Bell with her miracle-mutation wand, to produce anything they need. Since the Darwinian storytellers have usurped the institutions of science, they have no need for proof, demonstration and evidence. Fossils and other observable things are mere props for their stories. The basic plot is fixed in stone. Like a counterfeit tree of life, the Darwinian story of common ancestry via unguided processes over millions of years is guarded against critical analysis by angles with flaming words (puns intended).Life Is Earths Waste Dump 02/15/2008 ![]() Exclusive Most evolutionists and philosophers recognize the origin of life as one of the most difficult questions to broach from a materialist standpoint. Dr. Michael Russell, however, made it sound very easy to a large audience gathered in JPLs auditorium on February 4. In a talk titled confidently, How Life Began on our Water World Over 4 Billion Years Ago, he argued that the emergence of life is a geological issue. In a classic statement of reductionism, he began, Metabolism or life is chemistrys answer to the physics of convection. He repeated this theme later in the lecture: For illustration, he had a lava lamp on stage. The thing never did start convecting despite his prediction. Presumably, he meant to imply that the people in the auditorium were glorified lava lamps, helping the planet generate waste products and run down chemically. Dr. Russell spoke on this topic at JPL three years ago (see 12/03/2004) but now has funding to build a hydrothermal reactor at the lab to test his ideas. Russell advocates the metabolism-first view of lifes origin, as expounded by Robert Shapiro (02/15/2007), a view roundly criticized by Leslie Orgel (01/26/2008) and others who advocate the genetics-first view. Russell believes in the RNA world scenario, but only after a metabolic form of life emerged. He did not explain where the RNA came from. He also swept through the topic of how ATP synthesis emerged. He agreed ATP is vital, but made it seem as if all earth needed was a proton motive force to get it started a gloss that startled David Nicholls two years ago (03/31/2006). Russell also portrayed homochirality as unnecessary at the beginning; one hand just won out after multiple experiments going on at deep-sea vents all over the planet. He explained this is like having automobiles, some of which are driving on the right side of the road, and some on the left; eventually, to keep order, one side would prevail. One could imagine human beings coming to such an agreement, but it is unclear how or why mindless molecules would do it. Russell confused natural causes with intelligent causes again by personifying geology as an experimenter. When asked how long he thought it would take for cycles to emerge, he said, Something like 100 years. Im being a bit glib, but think about what 35,000 postdocs could do, 365, 24x7, for 35,000 years. Its not going to take long. Its got to be quick, because otherwise youre going to run out of steam, so to speak; youre going to run out of fuel.Necessity is the mother of invention, however, for intelligent inventors. Russell did not explain why a chemical reaction, if depleted of fuel, would find it necessary to solve the problem and keep going or even recognize a problem existed. Most chemical reactions when depleted of reagents simply reach equilibrium and stop, shedding no tears about it. Whether Russells clouding of the distinction between minds and mindlessness was merely pedagogical or fallacious was not clear; he resorted to personification several times. At another point, he said, Thats what a planet needs to make acetate and methane, and eventually oxygen. Life, to him, was almost a geological necessity. He embraced this kind of geological/biological determinism. He called the metabolic stage of chemical evolution a Lamarckian stage, before the Darwinian stage could ensue with RNA and DNA. This lecture was advertised as part of a Science 101 series for the non-scientist. Russell used pithy analogies to keep the audience on track. Prius owners could relate: The earliest metabolic vehicle is a hybrid. And now comes the vehicles regulator or computer. Eventually we need the RNA to help guide these reactions so that they dont just happen chaotically. So we get to the RNA World.Thats one giant leap for atomkind, though (see 07/11/2002). Russell portrayed metabolism as a kind of life that forms first, then gets fancier with computer controls and regulators later. Russell preached that we should be concerned less with what life is, but rather by what it does. When asked for a definition of life, he deflected the question by saying, The philosopher never asks that question... the philosopher asks of a puzzle, what does it do? What does life do? Life takes carbon dioxide and hydrogen, sinks the oxygen into it (it found a way of using the oxygen in photosynthesis) and makes organic molecules. Thats what life does. Its a process.... Its understanding what it does that matters.No one asked the follow-up question about what life does: Does life understand reality in ways that are true, universal, necessary and certain? To be consistent, Russell would have to say that scientific explanations also are mere processes that emerged from planetary physics and chemistry. If so, then maybe scientific explanations are some of the waste products of convection. It was sad to see an audience of fairly well-educated engineers and scientists take this all in with smiling faces and expressions of rapture. They laughed at his jokes and gave him hearty applause. Most of them didnt seem to notice they were being had by a fast-talking charlatan. Read our earlier commentary on his previous JPL talk (12/03/2004).Titan Is Old-Age Problem, Despite News Media Coverage 02/15/2008 ![]() A paper in Geophysical Research Letters1 about Saturns largest moon, Titan, reads like a good-news, bad-news joke. The good news is that Titan appears to have more hydrocarbons than Earth. The bad news is that it is not enough to save the assumption that Titan is 4.5 billion years old. Several science news outlets picked up on the good news part after a press release from Jet Propulsion Lab announced, Saturns orange moon Titan has hundreds of times more liquid hydrocarbons than all the known oil and natural gas reserves on Earth, according to new data from NASAs Cassini spacecraft. Live Science interpreted this to mean, Titan Has More Oil Than Earth but only hinted at the age problem. Its not really oil as we know it, anyway: it is primarily methane (liquid natural gas, the simplest hydrocarbon CH4) and ethane, the next simplest, plus an assortment of heavier hydrocarbons and nitriles that are solids under Titan conditions. The large dunes that decorate Titans equatorial regions may be partly composed of these solid products of solar photolysis. What the science news reporters underplayed was the frustration that planetary scientists are feeling about Titans age. They all believe Titan is as old as Saturn and the rest of the solar system, presumably 4.5 billion years, but Titans unusual atmosphere sets severe constraints. Methane is being eroded at a rapid rate compared to such a timescale. Scientists estimate that known reserves of methane on Titan would be gone in 100 million years maybe even 10 million. So why is there any left? 100 million years sounds like a long time, but is 1/45 the assumed age. 10 million is 1/450th. The problem can best be illustrated by quoting what Tobias Owen said in 1999 before Cassini arrived. (Toby Owen was leader of the team that took the pictures of Titan during the Huygens Probe descent in January, 2005). In the reputable planetary science textbook The New Solar System (4th ed. Cambridge Press, 1999), written by the worlds leading planetary scientists, he said (p. 280): Here we have another puzzle: Titans methane and hydrogen are constantly being broken apart, with some fragments escaping into space while others form new constituents that condense in the cold atmosphere and precipitate to the surface. At the present rate of destruction, all of the methane now in the atmosphere will be gone in just a few million years. This is a tiny period of time compared to the 4.5-billion-year lifetime of the solar system, so there must be a source of methane that replenishes the atmosphere. Could it be comets? Volcanoes? Underground springs? We simply dont know.Theres another problem. Owen also described what scientists expected to find on the surface under the haze: One can calculate how much ethane has been produced on Titan over the entire history of the solar system (it is the most abundant byproduct in the photochemical destruction of methane). The result is that this remarkable moon could be covered by a global ocean of ethane with an average depth of up to several kilometers!(Ibid., p. 282). Scientists already knew from earth-based radar observations that this ocean probably did not exist, but were not sure till Cassini began its reconnaissance in 2004 (10/16/2003, 10/28/2004, 12/05/2005). The Huygens Probe gave them ground truth that the surface was dry (01/15/2005, 01/21/2005). The Cassini Orbiter has now performed 40 flybys of Titan and has mapped about 20% of its surface with radar (next flyby, #41, happens on Feb. 22). The new paper by Lorenz et al provides the latest reliable status report: is there a source for the methane? What happened to the ethane ocean? The problem is just as severe now as it was in 1999. To be sure, Cassini did spot some sizable lakes. A number of dark, flat regions were detected by Cassini radar that are most likely lakes filled with hydrocarbons (water, of course, would be frozen hard as rock at Titan temperatures). The lakes, however, are restricted to north polar regions (07/24/2006), above 70 degrees latitude; and surprisingly, only a couple of lakes have been found near the south pole so far. Some of the lakes, several bigger than the Great Lakes or the Caspian Sea, could be 100 meters deep. Collectively, these lakes could store vast quantities of hydrocarbons (assumed to be primarily liquid methane and ethane), amounting to hundreds of times more than all the natural gas and oil on Earth (assumed to be about 130 billion tonnes). The scientists gave estimates ranging from 8,000 to 300,000 cubic kilometers of liquid in Titans lakes. Unfortunately, this falls embarrassingly short of Owens prediction the whole globe would be submerged in an ocean with an average depth of several kilometers. The dunes (03/01/2007, bullet 3), covering 40% of Titans equatorial regions, may store some of the hydrocarbons, but it is not clear what they are made of. The grains might be made primarily of water ice. Ethane, which should be liquid under surface conditions, is probably not a principal constituent (cf. 10/18/2006). Assuming they are half ice and half tholins (hydrocarbon-nitrile derivatives), there could be at least 400 times more material than the proven coal reserves on earth. As astonishing as these numbers are, they still fall short of expectations. A steady rain of liquid ethane and methane from the atmosphere should have precipitated into deep oceans over 4.5 billion years. Clearly, it has not. Did Cassini find new sources for methane? Radar images do show some apparent cryovolcanos (06/09/2005). This means that something appears to erupt from underneath and flow out over the surface in places. The paucity of impact craters (03/28/2007, bullet 4) also suggests geological activity. Huygens produced clear images of runoff channels presumed to be drainage from occasional methane cloudbursts. None of these sources, however, seems adequate to balance the budget and allow withdrawals for billions of years. If they were, the authors would not have said this: The total inventory we measure is substantially smaller than the reservoir estimated to be produced throughout the age of the solar system if methane photoloysis were to have occurred continuously at its present rate. The apparent dearth of material (compared to these model predictions a summary is given by Lorenz and Lunine [1996], of several hundred meters thickness, or ~107–108 km3) may indicate one or more of four things. First, other undetected organic materials are present, but not morphologically distinct. It is commonly assumed on the basis of bulk cosmological abundance that Titans bedrock is dominated by water ice, but the near-surface may in fact be dominated by organic material. Furthermore, even at the low latitudes dominated by arid landforms like dunes, the Huygens probe indicated that at least some surface materials are moistened by liquid methane [Lorenz et al., 2006b; Niemann et al., 2005] so some amount of liquid is present (perhaps in very large amounts) beyond the obvious lakeforms. Second, the photochemical models may not correctly predict the ultimate yields of surface deposits (c.f. the relative yields of solids and liquids see next paragraph). Thirdly, photochemical production may have been interrupted for long periods in Titans past if the delivery of methane to the surface was episodic and led to occasional methane depletion. The identification of cryovolcanic features on the surface [Sotin et al., 2005; Lopes et al., 2007] supports such a picture. A final more speculative possibility is that some process has destroyed or subducted the deposits, such that they no longer exist at the surface.Each of the proposed solutions seems ad hoc, invoked only to save the billions-of-years age. The present is supposed to be the key to the past in typical geological parlance. Proposing episodes where the observed processes stopped for long periods seems contrived. Besides, the photochemical destruction of methane is supposed to be irreversible (03/11/2005). Once ethane rains down, it should stay put and remain liquid. Cassini found otherwise. They reiterate the problem: Finally, the liquid inventory, while extending over a large enough area to permit evaporative fluxes to match photochemical depletion on short timescales [Mitri et al., 2007], is not enough in volume terms to sustain the concentration of this greenhouse gas in the atmosphere on geological timescales. Put another way, there is an order of magnitude less liquid in the lakes than there is methane in the atmosphere, and photochemical models predict that inventory to be depleted in ~10 Myr [million years]. This makes the present climatic situation somewhat precarious the observed surface reservoir, even if mostly methane, is unable to buffer the atmospheric methane for long, and unless volcanic resupply matches methane loss at just the right rate, significant climate change is likely in the future and by implication in the past....In other words, if methane could not have been sustained in the atmosphere for 4.5 billion years, it should have been long gone. One consequence would be that its greenhouse warming of Titan would also have stopped leading to a catastrophic condensation of most of the nitrogen to the surface! (01/17/2002). If Cassini continues working for several more years, scientists hope to find out if the north polar lakes will migrate to the south as the seasons change and the south pole becomes warmer. It seems unlikely at this point, though, that vast quantities of the missing liquids will turn up (09/14/2006, 01/09/2007, 11/14/2004). A positive footnote was sounded by World Net Daily: if oil doesnt come from dead dinosaurs, maybe Earth has more than we think. 1. Lorenz et al, Titans inventory of organic surface materials, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 35, L02206, January 29, 2008, doi:10.1029/2007GL032118. Why do the science reporters ignore the bad news for evolution and long ages? Here was a falsification of a clear prediction, calculated from the laws of chemistry and physics. The only rational solution is that Titan is not as old as claimed. The ethane budget is monstrously short of predictions. Only trace amounts were found in the atmosphere or on the surface. The leading planetary scientists who wrote this paper, some of whom have been studying Titan for more than 20 years, are completely baffled and can only offer weird-science explanations that cannot be observed to salvage their long age belief.Facile Fixes for Fossil Foibles 02/14/2008 ![]() Can biologists see Darwin in the fossils? Only if they look hard. Andrew P. Hendry (McGill University) wrote in Nature that Darwin has been there all along; we just werent looking right.1 Hendry argues that our methods of statistically analyzing the fossil record are guaranteed not to see Darwin. To explain the patterns we see, we shouldnt use randomness as a null hypothesis. Positive selection and stabilizing selection should get equal footing. When we do that, he argues, patterns of Darwinian evolution begin to emerge. The example he gave was a sequence of stickleback fish fossils in Nevada that he said go back 21,000 years with 250-year resolution. When the ancestral sticklebacks invaded freshwater lakes, the story goes, the fish began to lose their characteristic bony armor, because predation was less severe in the new habitat. Hendry likes this case because it should represent directional evolution. Using standard statistical methods, however, a team led by Gene Hunt could not eliminate the null hypothesis that the changes |