Watch for the Recycle logo to find gems from the back issues!
Cosmology at the Outer Limits 06/30/2008

June 30, 2008 Those who think cosmology could not get any weirder than it
already is (01/15/2008)
may want to take note of recent pronouncements by the gurus of universal
physics. Physics teachers in particular may feel an obligation to state
Bob Bermans disclaimer (10/06/2004)
before class: viz, Warning: The following contains contemporary cosmology.
Reading it can produce disorientation and confusion. Nobody knows whats
going on and nothing you read here is likely to be true.
- Questioning sacred Q.M.: The development of Quantum Mechanics
in the 1920s and 1930s was one of the iconic scientific revolutions that is hailed
as one of the greatest achievements in physics. It had far-reaching
consequences for science, philosophy and even religion. Numerous books have
stated that it undermined determinism once for all. The uncertainty principle was embedded
in the very core of fundamental physics, we were told. Einstein struggled in
vain to find hidden variables that would explain the apparent indeterminacy
of QM behavior. QM has an impressive record in technology, providing the basis
for lasers, Josephson junctions in computers, quantum cryptography and much, much more.
How, then,
could Nature
News dare to state on May 15, why quantum mechanics might be wrong?
Sure enough, an alternative hidden-variables theory called Bohmian mechanics is
vying for attention. One of its promoters feels he can test his predictions
against those of QM with observations of the cosmic background radiation.
At stake is not the huge body of evidence and mathematics behind QMs success,
but the Copenhagen Interpretation the leading explanation of quantum mechanics
that had almost reached the status of accepted truth. The contest is just
beginning. Bohmian mechanics is the underdog. Stay tuned.
- Time travel: In QM, we were taught that observing a quantum event
collapses the wave function and gives classical reality to alternative outcomes.
The textbook illustration is Schrödingers thought experiment of a quantum cat in a box being
both dead and alive until an observer peeks in and gives reality to one of the two states.
The Copenhagen Interpretation of QM has led many to teach that observation creates reality.
Now, however, Nature
News just reported a breakthrough experiment in which researchers
pulled back a Schrödinger-Cat type of phenomenon from the brink of classical reality
back to a state of quantum indeterminacy.
What does this mean? For one thing, it
means that our understanding of how classical reality emerges may be naive.
One British physicist said, It tells us that we really cant assume
that measurements create reality, because it is possible to erase the effects of
a measurement and start again. Reactions to the paper are mixed.
An Australian physicist commented on the experiment, The quantum world has become more tangible,
and the nature of reality even more mysterious. Nature whimsically
subtitled sections of the article with the concepts of reincarnation and time travel.
- Fractals fracture assumptions: An article in
New
Scientist Space offered up a weird conjecture: is our universe arranged in a
fractal pattern? The question is not without empirical evidence.
A new study of nearly a million galaxies suggests it is, the article
began, though there are no well-accepted theories to explain why that would be so.
Critics are saying the pattern is an optical illusion. A lot is at stake,
the article continued, and the matter distribution has become a source of
impassioned debate between those who say the distribution is smooth and homogeneous
and those who say it is hierarchically structured and clumpy, like a fractal.
Smooth-and-homogeneous has been the assumption underlying essentially all cosmological
models for the past few decades.
Looking for patterns in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey of 800,000 galaxies
and 100,000 quasars, two Russian cosmologists claim the data show a fractal pattern
out to 100,000 light-years at least. A fractal model of the universe will be
hard to sell to traditional cosmologists. Many cosmologists find fault with
their analysis, largely because a fractal matter distribution out to such huge scales
undermines the standard model of cosmology, the article said.
According to the accepted story of cosmic evolution, there simply hasnt
been enough time since the big bang nearly 14 billion years ago for gravity to build
up such large structures. Moreover, it would leave cosmologists
without a working model, like acrobats without a net.
Much of the case for smooth-and-homogeneous is based on patterns in
the cosmic microwave background (CMB). The article revealed some problems
with how that was established. Cosmologists may have missed a fractal pattern,
if there is one, by projecting the 3D CMB map
onto a 2D surface. Measurements of distant radio galaxies to probe
homogeneity are also too uncertain to rule out alternatives, the article said.
The implications for dating the universe and for big bang cosmology
if the fractal interpretation were to become accepted could hardly be overstated
to say nothing of how this would affect scientists confidence in being able to understand
the universe and make progress in their scientific explanations.
The traditionalists are wagering a case of wine that the apparent fractal pattern is not real.
- Question time: Time always runs forward, right? The second
law of thermodynamics dictates that Humpty Dumpty will never be put back together
by the forces of physics. Your coffee will never unstir itself, and you will
grow older, not younger. Not so fast, argued Sean M. Carroll in
Scientific
American last month. One of the most basic facts of life is that
the future looks different from the past, he began. But on a grand
cosmological scale, they may look the same. This could only mean that
for those parts of the universe where time moves forward, an equal number could have
clocks that run backward. Why? Because the laws of physics dont
care which way time runs they work equally well regardless.
Entropy, furthermore, remains a puzzling concept. Why should
things move toward disorder instead of becoming more orderly over time?
Carroll repeated his criticism of inflationary cosmology mentioned
in our Paper View segment from 05/11/2006
(see also 04/18/2008).
He also reiterated the problem that for the universe to be in its current state of
low entropy now, the entropy at the beginning would have had to be inconceivably
low. He criticized inflation as an assumption impersonating an explanation:
Inflation does not, by itself, explain why the early universe has a low entropy;
it simply assumes it from the start. Nor does the once-popular proposal
for an eternally oscillating universe get around the entropy problem.
Along with Jennifer Chen, a colleague from the University of Chicago,
Sean Carroll has instead proposed a time-symmetric universe.
The parts of the universe in which time runs forward are balanced by regions where
time runs backward. Entropy can increase without limit through the
creation of new baby universes. The jury is still out on this model,
however, because Cosmologists have contemplated the idea of baby universes
for many years, but we do not understand the birthing process.
Goo-gol, this is getting too weird. Time out. On second thought, would
a time-out act the same in a domain where time flows backward? Growing younger
till you become a romantic thought in your parents minds sounds kind of cool.
Readers may recall that in March, Nature printed an article by a cosmologist
who seriously questioned a bedrock of cosmological assumptions, the Copernican
Principle (03/15/2008).
Is nothing in science sacred?
For a revealing article on the feeble state of modern cosmology,
see what Michael J. Disney wrote last fall for Sigma Xi
American
Scientist. He described big bang cosmology as not a single theory but a structure
of five layers held together with the ugly bandages of inflation,
dark matter and dark energy. A skeptic is entitled to feel that a
negative significance, after so much time, effort and trimming, is nothing more
than one would expect of a folktale constantly re-edited to fit inconvenient
new observations, he charged. The real problem, he ended (quoting historian of science Daniel
Boorstin) is not ignorance but the illusion of knowledge.
Its sad that Carroll has retreated into the
darkness after asking such good questions back in 05/11/2006.
He could have been heaven-bound by now by logically thinking through the evidence from
fine-tuning for a Creator, but is now wallowing in his intellectual vomit.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
If you have been led down the primrose path in your education to
believe that science is all about discovering the truth and making steady progress
toward understanding reality, get real. No one can properly reason about
reality without the preconditions for intelligibility provided by guidance from
an eternal, timeless, omniscient, omnipotent and righteous source.
Fortunately, that has been revealed to us by the only One who knows what is real.
Come to the light.
Next headline on:
Cosmology
Physics
Dating Methods
Are ants invading your kitchen these hot summer months? Before exercising
genocide on them, take a moment to ponder their built-in pedometers. Its
all part of the sophisticated ant navigation system, described in the
06/29/2006 entry.
Yellow Journalism Invades Science 06/28/2008

June 28, 2008 James Kerian, a mechanical engineer, has a colorful term for science
reporting these days: yellow science. Writing for the
Wall
Street Journal June 25, he accused scientists of the same kind of sensationalism
that disgraced journalism in the days of William Randolph Hearst.
The
occasion for Kerians criticism was reporting about man-made global warming,
but the accusations apply in other areas where scientists make pronouncements
beyond what is warranted by the evidence. Just as it is far easier to
publish stories without verifying the sources; so is it much more convenient to
practice yellow science than the real thing, he said. It takes
far more courage, perseverance, and perspiration to develop formulas, make
predictions, and risk being proved wrong than to look at historical data and
muse about observed similarities. He rebuked those who say the
debate is over and make appeals to scientific consensus.
The public needs to be aware of the flaws of yellow science.
He advised, one does not need an advanced degree in natural science to
understand that whatever follows the phrase most experts agree or
no one can measure the exact effect but is not real science.
In fact, if there is no possible way that a statement can realistically be tested,
it probably fails to meet the standards for any professional community and is of
no real use to the public.
Kerian has a simplistic view of science; he suggested
that there is one scientific method, and that falsification is the criterion for
testing. These standards have been analyzed and criticized by philosophers
in the 20th century. Nevertheless, his label yellow science is
apropos. Many have noted the same dogmatism and fear-mongering used by evolutionists
as by propagandists of man-made global warming. The same spirit of absolute
trust in what scientists say is a common flaw.
Next headline on:
Media
Public Views on Darwin Not Evolving 06/27/2008

June 27, 2008 A new Gallup Poll shows that American views on evolution have
changed little for 26 years. Since 1982, the Gallup organization has periodically
polled a random sample of adults to see if they believe humans evolved millions of years ago (with or without
Gods help) or were created by God in their present form within the last 10,000 years. The
results never seem to change much. In seven polls now, 43% to 47% have given the recent-creation
answer, and 35-40% the theistic evolution answer. That means 85-90% of American
adults include God in the explanation. Only 9-14% accept the
secular evolutionary answer that humans evolved with no divine guidance.
According to the
Gallup
organization, Perhaps surprisingly to some, the results for the broad sample
of Americans show very little change over the years. Republicans were
much more apt to give the recent-creation answer (60%) over independents (40%)
and Democrats (38%). Gallup explained this divergence by saying that
Republicans are more likely to attend church.
This flat-line trend is all the more surprising
in light of the vigorous dogmatic-Darwinism campaign waged in the media, the
schools and the scientific institutions. Why is evolutionary propaganda so
ineffective? Evolutionists probably attribute much of the poll result to
the inability of Bible-thumping fundamentalists to understand science.
Maybe, instead, a lot of adults view the dogmatic Darwinists as a bunch of unattractive
ideologues without common sense (04/13/2008).
This is not an issue of science, but of world views.
The same facts are accessible to both camps. The Apostle Paul said that
Gods divine nature and omnipotence are clearly seen in the creation
(Romans 1).
What each individual faces is the science of Christian theism, incorporating the
observations within a view of purposeful design, or the science of Darwinian naturalistic religion,
incorporating the observations into a picture of chance, purposelessness and meaningless death.
The choice is clear. Paul is appealing, but Darwins appeal is appalling.
Next headline on:
Evolution
Bible and Theology
Birds of Different Feathers Evolve Together 06/26/2008

June 26, 2008 Are pigeons like parrots? Are hummingbirds like hawks? And are falcons unlike eagles?
Scientists are all a-flutter after results of a massive genetic comparison of birds
has put some members in unlikely pigeonholes. The largest ever study of
bird genetics has not only shaken up but completely redrawn the avian evolutionary tree,
said Science
Daily. The study challenges current classifications,
alters our understanding of avian evolution, and provides a valuable resource for
phylogenetic and comparative studies in birds.
That last clause seems unjustifiably optimistic considering what news
reports are saying about this study. Here is a short list of quotations gleaned from
Science
Daily,
New Scientist,
Reuters,
and the blog Living
the Scientific Life. They give you a sense of the upheaval among scientists upon finding out that
birds appearances tell little about their supposed evolutionary history.
- The findings challenge many assumptions about bird family relationships and
suggest many biology textbooks and bird-watchers field guides may need to be changed.
- One of the lessons weve learned is appearances seem to be very deceiving.
Things that are quite different-looking sometimes end up being related.
- [Sushma] Reddy said these quick changes have made bird evolution hard to pin down,
and several smaller prior studies have led to conflicting results.
We didnt have a good sense of how any of these major bird groups
were related to each other, said Reddy, who worked with researchers at several other labs.
- Their findings suggest birds can be grouped broadly into land birds, like the
sparrow; water birds, like the penguin; and shore birds, like the seagull.
But there are many paradoxes within these groupings.
- This analysis effectively redraws avian phylogeny, or family tree, thus
shaking up our current understanding of the early, or deep,
evolutionary relationships of birds.
- So why is avian taxonomy suddenly in such a state of upheaval?
- These analyses reveal two major findings: First, the classifications and
conventional wisdom regarding the evolutionary relationships among many birds
is wrong. Second, birds that have similar appearances or behaviors
are not necessarily related to each other.
- Shorebirds are not a basal evolutionary group, which refutes the widely
held view that shorebirds gave rise to all modern birds.
- This research also affect publishers and birders because biology textbooks
and birdwatching field guides will have to be rewritten.
- This new tree contains several notable surprises. For example,
falcons are more closely related to songbirds than to other hawks and
eagles. The closest kin of the diving birds called grebes turn
out to be flamingos. And tiny, flashy hummingbirds, according
to the new tree, are just a specialised form of nighthawks, whose squat,
bulky bodies make them an unlikely cousin.
- In fact, the new tree ended up regrouping about a third of all the orders
in earlier phylogenies of birds.
- For example, the new tree puts an order of flying birds, the tinamous,
squarely in the midst of the flightless ostriches, emus and kiwis.
If true, this implies either that flightlessness evolved at least
twice in this lineage, or else that the tinamous re-evolved flight from a
flightless ancestor. A lot of us actually dont believe their result,
says [Joel] Cracraft, who says that further studies will be needed to resolve the issue.
- Similarly, distinctive lifestyles (such as nocturnal, raptorial and pelagic,
i.e., living on the ocean or open seas) evolved several times.
- The results of the study are so broad that the scientific
names of dozens of birds will have to be changed, and biology textbooks and
birdwatchers field guides will have to be revised.
So what are scientists to believe their eyes or their phylogenetic software?
The results defy common-sense arrangements. They render morphological
classification (the way Darwin and his followers did it before genetics became
a science) unreliable. That is why Cracraft and others are finding it hard
to believe. The anonymous writer of the Living the Scientific Life
blog tried to explain why the data are so confusing:
So why is avian taxonomy suddenly in such a state of upheaval?
The precise evolutionary relationships between major groups of birds
have long been contentious because they underwent an explosive radiation
event sometime between 65 million and 100 million years ago. Nearly all
of the major avian groups arose within just a few million years -- a very
short period of evolutionary time. As a result, those groups of
birds, such as parrots, doves and owls, that are united by distinct morphological
characteristics seem to have appeared suddenly because there are few, or no,
known evolutionary intermediates that provide clues to their
deeper relationships with other avian groups.
She thus tried to save the appearances within the evolutionary framework
by appealing to a lack of data. The hidden events that led to the emergence
of groups of birds left no trace in the record. Whats more, the new
phylogeny requires more appeals to convergent evolution Now,
scientists will have to believe that unlikely events occurred multiple times in
unrelated groups.
The five-year Early Bird study was part of the Assembling the Tree of
Life (AToL) research project funded by the National Science Foundation
(10/30/2002, 09/08/2006).
This entry falls in the category of Everything you know is wrong.
Throw out the field guide and forget everything your teacher told you about how
birds evolved. Now we know the truth about bird evolution.
Evolutionists play this game every once in awhile to look busy.
It provides job security. You need the evolutionist to interpret the world
for you lest you be misled by your senses and common sense.
Evolutionary theory is looking more and more like divination
(cf. 06/12/2008).
The mystery religion of understanding the deep relationships in Darwins mythical
tree requires faith in the professionals. Ordinary bird-watchers should not
try this at home. It requires the skill of the duly possessed shaman who alone
has the power to conjure up the image of Charlie in the crystal ball of the genes.
Next headline on:
Birds
Genetics
Evolution
These rocks took millions of years to ... uh, correction, just a decade to form. See the
06/30/2005 entry.
Not Another Tetrapod Missing Link 06/25/2008

June 25, 2008 Fossils dont contain light bulbs, but almost every time
a new one is found, scientists claim it sheds light on evolution.
The BBC News kept
that tradition going with this line, Scientists say a fossil of a four-legged
fish sheds new light on the process of evolution. What, exactly, was
found? Whatever Ventastega curonica was, it would be hard to claim it
helped shed any light on evolution, because according to the article, it was an evolutionary
dead end.
A close look at the article reveals other evolutionary conundrums.
Ventastega was placed after Tiktaalik, but was more primitive.
The BBC News article also said, Scientists once believed that these early
amphibious animals descended in a linear fashion, but this discovery instead
confirms these creatures diversified into different branches along the way.
The animal is made up of a curious mosaic of features. It would have looked
something like an alligator, they said, but allegedly had fishy features like a tail fin
and gills. Interesting, also, is
the fact that this fish-o-gator from Latvia was found in sand. Somehow these
sediments, said to be 365 million years old, had not solidified into rock.
Since popular news reports tend to exaggerate, a look at the original
paper in Nature1 might shed light on the wattage of this fossil.
The Editors Summary in the June 26 issue said it resembles a simple intermediate
between Tiktaalik and Acanthostega, with the skull shape of an early tetrapod, but
proportions more closely resembling a fish. Sounds promising so far.
The next sentence, however, undermined the missing-link story in a one-two punch:
But the picture is more complicated than that, due to the unexpected
morphological diversity of early tetrapods, and the fact that their initial
diversification was earlier than had been thought.
On to the original paper. Ahlberg et al opened by claiming
that the long-mysterious fish-to-tetrapod gap has been beginning to close, and that
their fossil narrows it further. But then they said that the paucity of complete
fossils makes it hard to fill in the gap. Even after the highly-publicized
find of Tiktaalik, Acanthostega and Ichthyostega are
still the only Devonian tetrapods known from near-complete skeletons,
they said, adding: We know less about the fish–tetrapod transition than the
taxic diversity suggests.
The fossils are not new discoveries. They had been collected
between 1970 and 2001. In addition, the fossil did not declare itself a
transitional form. This deduction was done with software. The team plugged various traits
they deemed significant into tree-building algorithms. Though they got
consistent results with different permutations,
the interpretations were not straightforward. The fossil contained both primitive
and derived (evolved) features. The paper suggested that the authors
were puzzled about where to fit the pieces from Ventastega and other specimens.
They ended by saying it was tempting to interpret Ventastega as a
straightforward evolutionary intermediate (i.e., missing link).
However, this simple picture should be approached with a degree of caution.
Why? Because it contains trait combinations that are substantially different
from alleged earlier fossils. At a minimum this demonstrates the
presence of considerable morphological diversification among the earliest tetrapods,
they said, ending on a positive note that this fossil and Tiktaalik fit
expectations of what a transitional form at a particular point in the
phylogeny should look like.
All the papers caution was cast to the wind by the popular press.
Science Daily,
with artwork to prove it, trumpeted, New Fossils Of Extremely Primitive
4-Legged Creatures Close The Gap Between Fish And Land Animals.
National
Geographic News admitted that the diversity of the Devonian tetrapods was surprising,
but nevertheless labeled them as Fishy Ancestors of Humans. Only
on page 2 was some caution sprinkled in: So researchers have a rough idea
of the major evolutionary changes that took place but still have their work
cut out for them when it comes to filling in the gaps.
Shaun Doyle critiqued the claims being made about this fossil in an article on
Creation Ministries International.
1. Ahlberg, Clack et al, Ventastega curonica and the origin of tetrapod morphology,
Nature
453, 1199-1204 (26 June 2008) | doi:10.1038/nature06991.
Probably this was just Jennifer Clacks latest
attempt to one-up Neil Shubins fish-a-pod after the press gushed on him
without shame or restraint (04/06/2006) and
made him a celebrity (01/16/2008).
Clack had been the darling of PBS till this rival muscled in. Remember her
sermonette on 04/06/2006
that one skeleton is unlikely to unlock the key to understanding of evolution,
and that the concept of missing links, though having a powerful grasp on the imagination,
contains unfounded notions of evolutionary progress?
Does anyone really believe a fish-o-gator (or whatever it was) from
Latvia decided to swim over to Canada where the evolving conditions were better?
We could make up a better case for an evolutionary sequence with living fish and
amphibians than these ideologues can with fragmentary fossils that their worldview
demands be placed into ancient epochs without observers. When the Darwin
story collapses, sociologists will use these phylogenetic rivalries to shed
light on how scientists can deceive themselves into seeing what they want
to see.
Next headline on:
Marine Biology
Fossils
Evolution
Bacterial Flagellar Motor Has a Protein Clutch 06/24/2008

June 24, 2008 The bacterial flagellum, the whiplike outboard motor that has
become an icon of intelligent design, has another artificial-looking part: a clutch.
Science reported this in machine language as follows:1
The bacterial flagellum, powered by a motor that generates 1400 pN-nm of torque,
can rotate at a frequency of greater than 100 Hz. EpsE [the clutch protein]
disabled this powerful biological motor when associated with a flagellar basal body and,
in a manner similar to that of a clutch, disengaged the drive train from the power sourcee
(fig. S5B). Clutch control of flagellar function has distinct
advantages over transcriptional control of flagellar gene expression for regulating
motility. Some bacteria, such as E. coli and B. subtilis, have many
flagella per cell. The flagellum is an elaborate, durable, energetically expensive,
molecular machine and simply turning off de novo flagellum synthesis does not necessarily
arrest motility. Once flagellar gene expression is inactivated, multiple rounds of
cell division may be required to segregate preexisting flagella to extinction in daughter
cells. In contrast, the clutch requires the synthesis of only a single protein
to inhibit motility. Furthermore, if biofilm formation is prematurely aborted,
flagella once disabled by the clutch might be reactivated, allowing cells to
bypass fresh investment in flagellar synthesis. Whereas flagellum expression
and assembly are complex and slow, clutch control is simple, rapid, and potentially
reversible.
The clutch thus puts the flagellum in neutral and lets the motor idle without having
to be shut down.
Among the co-authors of the paper was Howard Berg of Harvard, who has spent many years
studying the molecular motor. The paper did not attempt to explain how a clutch
might evolve by natural selection.
For popular reports on this finding, with illustrations of how the clutch works, visit
NSF News,
Nano.org,
Photonics.com,
PhysOrg and
Science Daily.
ARN
discussed the paper from an intelligent design perspective.
1. Blair, Turner, Winkelman, Berg and Kearns, A Molecular Clutch Disables Flagella in the Bacillus subtilis Biofilm,
Science,
20 June 2008: Vol. 320. no. 5883, pp. 1636 - 1638, DOI: 10.1126/science.1157877.
This is another of many instances of one of the
best-established laws in nature: evolutionary storytelling is inversely proportional
to observational detail. A good scientific law needs a popular name.
Write in with your suggestion.
Next headline on:
Cell Biology
Intelligent Design
Amazing Facts
Animal Patterning Keeps Scientists Puzzle-Solving 06/23/2008

June 23, 2008 Heres a fascinating area of research for a budding
young scientist: the development of animal patterns. Look at the dazzling
wing patterns on butterflies in an illustration on
Science
Daily or consider a zebras stripes. How do such patterns emerge
from a single fertilized egg? Although this has been studied for years,
said a researcher at Johns Hopkins University, there is still a lot we dont understand.
Clues from gene knockout experiments have shown that the patterns
can be disrupted if one or another of two genes is not expressed properly.
During development, it appears that pairs of genes do a sort of tug-of-war.
As cells migrate, their protein products work against and battle each other: when
one gains a slight advantage, the other weakens, which in turn causes the first
to gain an even bigger advantage, the article said. This
continues until one dominates in each cell. Sometimes one protein wins,
sometimes the other. Thus a black stripe can appear in one place on a zebra
and a white stripe in another.
This is only a partial answer, however. It explains how a
pattern can emerge from no pattern, but does not explain why the pattern unfolds
in the exact places it does. Something tells the cells where to move and
when to stay put. What regulates and choreographs all this motion?
More research will be required.
We need bright, young, curious kids to go into
science with a design mentality. This is another area ripe for intelligent
design research.
Discovering a physical mechanism for how patterns form in a
developing embryo will not explain it away. Does deciphering Morse Code
lead to a conclusion the code evolved? No; it opens up new avenues to
understand purposeful communication. Design-theoretic research that unlocks the mystery of animal
patterning will only reinforce the design principles that make possible a
peacocks tail, a tigers stripes, a giraffes tile patterns
and the spots on your dog Spot. Evolutionists have nothing to offer
but fables.
The insights that could be gained from this budding branch of genetics
and developmental biology could be huge. Once we understand the design
principles behind animal patterning, many spinoffs come to mind. Doctors may
be able to monitor and control the migration of cancer cells, for instance.
Nanotech engineers may be able to mimic the push-and-pull actions of proteins to
assemble microscopic machines. Computer scientists may be able to apply
the principles in fuzzy-logic applications.
Get your kids off the junk food of entertainment
and onto substantive matters. Inspire them to become ID-motivated
scientists. They might be able to improve the lives of millions.
Next headline on:
Genetics
Terrestrial Zoology
Mammals
Intelligent Design
Biomimetics
Four years ago on June 30, the Cassini spacecraft
entered orbit around Saturn. Re-live the anticipatory entry from SOI Day on
06/30/2004, then search
for "Cassini" in the search bar for articles about the string of discoveries made by
the most advanced outer-planet mission in history. On July 1, Cassini begins
a 2.3-year Extended Mission (see
JPL
press release).
Love Your Heart: Look at Nature 06/22/2008

June 22, 2008 Heart patients can get instant relief from stress by simply
looking out at nature through a window, reported
Science
Daily. It worked better if the patient looked at the real thing, not
just a picture on TV.
In a study funded by the National Science Foundation, scientists
tested the heart rates of patients who looked at nature out a window, natural scenes on a plasma screen,
or a blank wall. A psychologist at the University of Washington who participated in the study
said,
We are losing direct experiences with nature. Instead, more and more
were experiencing nature represented technologically through television
and other media. Children grow up watching Discovery Channel and Animal
Planet. Thats probably better than nothing. But as a species
we need interaction with actual nature for our physical and psychological well-being.
Young people today are suffering from environmental generational amnesia,
he said. They are so used to air pollution and cityscapes that they have lost the
memory of an experience with real blue sky, fresh air and trees. The researchers
were surprised to find that looking at
such things on a TV screen was no more beneficial than staring at a blank wall.
For more on the benefits of exposure to nature, see the entries from
12/05/2001, 03/27/2001
and 03/23/2001.
Watching TV programs about animals and nature is
worse than nothing if it preaches the usual evolutionary sermon. Get
outside and see what God made: go on a
Creation Safari.
Next headline on:
Health
Media
Evolutionist Learns from Neo-Creationists 06/21/2008

June 21, 2008 Neo-creationists: the Intelligent Design (ID) people as well
as the active old creationists, are still to be despised and expelled, thinks
an evolutionist. That doesnt mean, though, that they arent making
some good points.
The evolutionist is Gordy Slack, a science writer from Oakland,
California, who previously wrote a book about the Dover trial. Writing for
The Scientist, he
admitted that theyve gotten some things right. Here are some lessons he
has learned by hanging around them:
- Origin of life: First, I have to agree with the ID crowd
that there are some very big (and frankly exciting) questions that should keep
evolutionists humble, like the origin of life. He admitted that scientists
are in the dark about this question. He rejected, though, the idea
that biologists can ignore it and start after life began:
Still, I think it is disingenuous to argue that the origin of life is irrelevant to evolution. It is no less relevant than the Big Bang is to physics or cosmology. Evolution should be able to explain, in theory at least, all the way back to the very first organism that could replicate itself through biological or chemical processes. And to understand that organism fully, we would simply have to know what came before it. And right now we are nowhere close. I believe a material explanation will be found, but that confidence comes from my faith that science is up to the task of explaining, in purely material or naturalistic terms, the whole history of life. My faith is well founded, but it is still faith.
- Complexity of the cell: Another valid point made by neo-creationists
is that life is far more complex than Darwin could have imagined. Slack again
expressed faith that natural explanations will be found, But scientists still
have much to learn about the process of evolution if they are to fully explain
the phenomenon. He even allowed for major surprises like finding
compelling evidence for a designer, though he doubted that would happen.
- Inner knowledge: Another observation that Slack has trouble computing
into his materialism is the fact that so many people find creation obvious.
Millions of people believe they directly experience the reality of a Creator
every day, and to them it seems like nonsense to insist that He does not exist,
he noted. Unless they are lying, Gods existence is to them an observable fact.
He admitted that he cant deny his own psychological empiricism.
No amount of persuasion by cognitive neuroscientists, for instance, that neurotransmitters
give him the illusion of free will could make him doubt that he really loves
his children. Material explanations may
look good on paper, but I have too much respect for my own experience.
He did not elaborate on whether reason itself could be reducible to physics and chemistry.
- Blind faith: The most striking point of agreement he saved for last.
Are evolutionists the unbiased, white-lab-coat objective empiricists seeking
knowledge and finding evolution to be the clearest explanation? No; many are
blind followers, just like the ID people claim. He has empirical evidence for this.
A few years ago I covered a conference of the American Atheists in Las Vegas. I met dozens of people there who were dead sure that evolutionary theory was correct though they didnt know a thing about adaptive radiation, genetic drift, or even plain old natural selection. They came to their Darwinism via a commitment to naturalism and atheism not through the study of science. Theyre still correct when they say evolution happens. But Im afraid theyre wrong to call themselves skeptics unencumbered by ideology. Many of them are best described as zealots.
Not that he is against zeal, but Slack says its coincidence with a theory
proves nothing about that theorys explanatory power.
- Demarcation: On an unlisted point in his conclusion, Slack
conceded that Looking for evidence of design in the natural world isnt itself unscientific
it would even be big and fascinating news. He thinks,
however, that a designer would be necessarily supernatural (assuming
he knows how to define natural).1
Liberal-minded modern as he is, Slack upholds the freedom of outsiders to pursue their
very eccentric and outlying theory. After an article full
of modest agreement, it was surprising to hear Slack describing neo-creationists
as people who would dismiss evolution as hogwash while holding to
an improbable hypothesis (see online
book). He praised evolution as the
cornerstone of modern biology. Maybe that is why The Scientist
allowed him to publish it.
1. Intellectual historian Charles Alan
Kors (U of Pennsylvania) has said, there are few terms more equivocal,
more ambiguous, that have more multiple meanings, than the term nature.
For each sphere of phenomena a philosopher would wish to circumscribe with this
slippery word, clever interlocutors could find appeals to phenomena
outside the sphere. These, by definition, would also be supernatural
meaning, above, or beyond nature, whatever it is. If nature is
defined as that which is open to sense perception, for instance, are black holes
and unobservable entities like strings, quarks or dark matter extra-natural?
If nature encompasses only particles and forces, what of reason or the laws of logic?
It was unusual of the dogmatic Darwiniacs to allow
one of theirs to say something deferential about their most despised enemies.
We appreciate the gesture, but its not enough.
We demand complete and unconditional surrender. They have no ground to
stand on empirically, philosophically or ethically. False humility and
crocodile tears are a ruse (as in Michael Ruse). The Darwiniacs took scientific institutions through deceit
and manipulation, so until and unless they relinquish power, they are still at the
top of the Most Wanted Ideologues.
A key part of the neo-creationist strategy must be a protracted siege.
No longer will we allow them to raid theistic
presuppositions under cover of darkness. Since they cannot grow their own
self-consistent presuppositions within their worldview castle, they will eventually
starve or demand our help, which we will only grant provided they acquiesce all
power and confess their sins. Dont expect that anytime soon.
It will be a long siege. Freedom, scientific integrity, honesty and
self-consistent rationality are worth waiting for.
Next headline on:
Education
Evolution
Origin of Life
Politics and Ethics
Bible and Theology
Intelligent Design
Sunshine Is for Health 06/20/2008

June 20, 2008 The old wisdom: stay out of the sun. The new wisdom:
your life could depend on getting sunshine: about 10-15 minutes of exposure
three times a week.
Science
Daily reported that Vitamin D, produced in the skin by exposure to sunlight,
provides more health to the body than previously thought. Health professionals
have known for a long time that Vitamin D is necessary to prevent rickets and
bone disorders. Now, evidence is growing that Vitamin D also fights
cancer, cardiovascular disease, and autoimmune diseases.
No one is suggesting overexposure. Clearly, too much sunlight
raises risks of skin cancer and ages the skin. Still, many people are
probably getting too little sunshine in their life. Those at northern latitudes, and those
with dark skin, may need to take more steps to get their arms and legs and faces
out in the noontime sunshine. The elderly and office workers may also be
vulnerable to Vitamin D deficiency.
Use the Search Bar with keywords "Vitamin D" and
sunlight for a half dozen previous articles on this subject.
One thing not stated in the article is the
remarkable correlation between the energy of sunlight reaching the earth and
the chemistry of proteins and enzymes that are activated with this energy.
The lower energy of light from red dwarf stars might not be sufficient for
biological reactions, while the light from hot blue stars would produce too much
ionizing radiation.
This is one of many Goldilocks parameters of
physics and astronomy that is just right for our health. The correspondence
of astronomy with biology, that permits
sentient beings to make scientific discoveries, is silent witness of intelligent
design. Expose yourself to that light.
Next headline on:
Health
Physics
Stars
Intelligent Design
Sea shells: to sell them, she would first have to learn how to make them,
from 06/26/2003.
Hopes Die for Enceladus Longevity 06/19/2008

June 19, 2008 Ever since Enceladus, the little 300-mile-across moon of Saturn
was found in 2005 to be erupting out its south pole, scientists have tried to explain
how it could be possible. They have looked high and low for an energy source
to power the geysers of the little moon dubbed Cold Faithful for billions
of years. There have been no answers yet, and none seem to be forthcoming.
An article on Space.com
says this little moon should be frozen solid. All they can give as a plausible
length of time for geysering activity is 30 million years. That is less than
1% the assumed age of the solar system (4.6 billion years). The geysers put
out 5.8 gigawatts of heat. Neither tidal heating nor radioactive decay are
sufficient to produce that kind of energy output, given Enceladus size and
the nature of its orbit.
James Roberts
(UC Santa Cruz) lamented, There is no possible combination of parameters that
allow for a thermally stable ocean under the icy crust. Researchers
trying to keep this little moon hot for billions of years are resorting to ad hoc
scenarios like imagining prior episodes of eccentric orbits. Such historical, unrepeatable
events are not observable. They also do not explain why neighboring moons,
though larger, show no activity like Mimas, though it is subject to more
tidal stress than Enceladus.
The consensus old age of the solar system has been
falsified. They just wont admit it. How much longer do you want
them to tweak their models to keep Enceladus hot? Remember, they have to do
it with Io and Neptune and Uranus and Pluto also. Numerous phenomena in our
solar system mandate an age limit far shorter than 4.6 billion years.
Long ages are no longer necessary for planet formation or for any other geological
feature. The only one who wants them is Charlie, and he doesnt count.
So many requirements of evolution have been falsified, the superstructure
of evolutionary theory floats disconnected from the ground of evidence, supported by the hot air
of its defenders. They cant keep it up forever.
Next headline on:
Solar System
Dating Methods
Physics
Long Live the Seed 06/18/2008

June 18, 2008 A seed buried under the rubble of Herod the Greats fortress
took root and is now growing into a palm tree. Science
Now reported this as verification of claims that ancient seeds can still grow.
See also the National
Geographic News report that added this record beats out the previous verifiable
claim of ancient seed germination by 700 years.
The Israeli research team nicknamed the tree Methuselah after the Old Testament man
who sets the Guinness record for human longevity at 969 years.
Radiocarbon tests of other seeds from the cache showed dates of
1995-2110 years. That makes this remarkable tree a date palm in more than one sense.
This seed lay buried in a fortress in the hot Judean
desert for two thousand years and was still alive. It has been growing now for two years into a healthy,
green plant. Can you imagine Herod the Great with all his wise men designing
a machine that could be unpacked and made to work after two millennia? If so, youre
probably thinking of a simple machine like a lever. Try a miniaturized robot
that reads codes, can grow and draw up nutrients from the desert and
produce sweet fruit, then duplicate itself. Amazing. If all the kings horses and all
the kings men couldnt pull off a trick like that using intelligent design, dont expect
blind evolution to do it.
Next headline on:
Plants
Bible
Amazing Facts
Human Face Book Is Customized 06/17/2008

June 17, 2008 Make a face. How do you make a face? We are all
made with faces that can make unique facial expressions, thanks to unique combinations
of subcutaneous muscles. Nature News
said that humans have unique faceprints of 16 common expression-making muscles.
We all have the same 5 subcutaneous muscles that can make us look
angry, happy, surprised, afraid, sad and disgusted. But we have different
combinations of 11 more muscles that allow us each to have our own idiosyncratic
facial expressions. This was announced by researchers who examined 18
Caucasian cadavers. It means that all humans can express shared emotions
important for social communication, but each of us can add our own nuance.
One of the researchers speculated that this can be explained in
evolutionary terms. Humans have been selected to communicate the same basic
emotions, he said, but have differences to allow for creating relationships
within social groups. He did not explain why this strategy never occurred
to social bees, ants, schooling fish and flocks of birds.
Well just ignore that little evolutionary
fable with an expression of disgust and move right along. Facial expression
is one of many unique traits among humans who were created like animals in many
ways but with special features to express an inner spirit made in the image of
God: intellect, emotions, will, love, personality, and faith. To communicate our rationality, we needed
a voice apparatus appropriate for the sophisticated nuances of human language.
For combined spiritual and physical intimacy, we needed skin instead of hair.
For face-to-face communication and stewardship, we needed upright posture.
For work, we needed hands with opposable thumbs. None of these is quite the
window of the spirit as a persons unique countenance.
We have the most versatile
bodies and faces in nature appropriate for accountable souls. Think of the
importance of facial expressions in comedy sitcoms, vocal solos, plays and movies; visualize
the clown or mime using faces to get a laugh. Perhaps you have taken a silly
family photo with everyone making funny faces. Even humor is a gift of God.
Chimpanzees and dogs and parrots can seem to comprehend fun, but try to tell them
a joke, and no comprendo. Human laughter and a hearty smile is a joy of life
that only spirits operating physical equipment can fully understand and appreciate.
We have more equipment than needed to just eat and survive because we have a special role
in Gods creation: to be His stewards, to love Him, and to love one another. Facial expression is an intrinsic part of
our unique ability to relate to one another visually and verbally. That we
each have unique faces and combinations of facial muscles fits the description of
humans being unique individuals with a special role in the world.
Look at one penguin and youve seen them all. Same for prairie dogs,
antelope, honeybees, wildebeest, flamingos and any other wild social animal.
Though specialists can tell them apart, other primates have limited diversity and
expressivity on their faces. They can curl their lips into funny ways, and
bare their teeth and scream, but have you ever seen a chimpanzee with an expression
of altruistic love, faith, thoughtful contemplation, solemnity, gratitude or inner joy?
The variety of human faces, though, is astonishing: just look at the faces of any
crowd on the street or in a public event. And the number of expressions you
can contort your face into in front of a mirror is equally astonishing.
We often remember a face when we cannot remember a name. We can pick easily out
faces we know from hundreds of strangers in a yearbook. Faces are put on Wanted posters.
We normally take pictures of ourselves that emphasize our faces. Magazines
and newspapers (except for certain kinds) concentrate on the faces of people in the news.
We normally take pictures of people to emphasize their faces.
This makes sense if we are individual created souls distinct from the animals.
It makes no sense in evolutionary terms, or else you would see extreme facial
diversity and expressivity all over the animal kingdom. What other animal invented FaceBook?
The face is the interface for rational and emotional communication.
Face it, were all different said the Nature News
article. Yes indeed, Nature, face up to it. We can make faces
because He made our faces. Go smile at someone and start a spiritual
communication.
Next headline on:
Human Body
Amazing Facts
Evolutionary trees are positively misleading, claim two evolutionists; tree-building
methods are guaranteed to produce erroneous results, from
06/08/2006.
Big Dino Site Found in Utah 06/17/2008

June 17, 2008 A big dinosaur fossil quarry has been found in Utah near
Hanksville, reported the Associated Press (see copy on
PhysOrg). The Bureau
of Land Management says it may be comparable to the Dinosaur National Monument
site and other well-known quarries in the region. Apparently feeling a need to
appeal to the MTV generation, a National
Geographic article mentioned it contains big sexy dinosaurs.
No new species were identified, but the 50 x 200 yard mass burial
contains clams and large petrified tree trunks in addition to sauropods, two
carnivores and a stegosaur. The bones were found in a sandstone channel of
an ancient river, the article says, and the preservation is excellent.
These animals were sure dumb to keep wandering
into floods that would bury them alive. The trees were dumb, too. Scientists,
of course, have it all figured out.
Next headline on:
Dinosaurs
Fossils
Magic Box in the Cell Baffles the Experts 06/16/2008

June 16, 2008 Put a string of amino acids into this magic box, and it comes
out all precisely folded into a protein. How does it do it? A molecular
machine described by Science
Daily has scientists baffled. Ironically, its name is TRiC.
TRiC is a chaperonin, a member of a class of molecular machines that
chaperone or guide polypeptides emerging from the ribosome (the translation machine,
02/21/2007) into their
final folded shape. The shape of a protein is essential to its function.
Most polypeptides find their native fold without help, but about 10% need a chaperonin shelter,
like a private dressing room (05/05/2003) to get in shape.
The article shows that TRiC looks like a barrel-shaped box with
two lids. Each lid opens and closes like the iris of a camera. Scientists
cant see what goes on inside when the box is closed. The press release explains,
TRiC, like all chaperonins, consists of a double-ringed structure that gives it a
barrel shape. One ring opens to admit the raw protein into the inner recesses
of the folding machine, then closes tightly while, inside the chaperonin
black box, the mysteries of molecular origami unfoldor,
more correctly, fold. Upon completion of the folding, the ring at the other
end opens up to push out the finished product.
It is really like a nanomachine. It closes off,
the protein is trapped inside and somethingwe dont understand
whathappens inside this chamber, and the protein comes out folded,
Frydman said. It is a very complex mechanism.
Whats remarkable about this cellular magic trick is that there are many more
possible incorrect folds than the right one. How this machine can fold each
protein correctly, like solving a Rubiks Cube in the dark without hands,
is one of those mysteries of life science is trying to unlock.
Its not just the shape of the box that matters. The two iris-like lids
have to open at the right time, and keep the protein inside the right amount of
time, or it doesnt work and the product comes out misfolded.
Judith Frydman at Stanford discovered TRiC in 1992 and has been
trying to figure it out ever since. Co-director of the Center for Protein
Folding Machinery, Frydman describes TRiC as a two-stroke motor
wherein the opening of one end is linked to the closing of the other end.
What has been so intriguing is that everything is connected, she
said. This is a very large machine and every part of the machine is
communicating with the other parts.At first her team thought the machine opened
like the flaps on a cardboard box, but then they discovered the iris-shutter mechanism.
She thinks the twisting of the lid
transfers rotational motion to the interior and this helps the folding process,
but so far the secret is still hidden inside.
If Frydman and her team
figure out the TRiC, new medical advances may be forthcoming. She said,
If one could understand what the environment in there looks like, what this
machine does, what the cell does to fold its proteins, then we could begin to
design ways to fold proteins for therapeutic purposes. This implies
design following design. In fact, no mention of evolution or natural selection
was made in the press release, originally published by the
Stanford
University news service. The chaperonin is called a machine eight
times in the brief article.
This science project needs evolutionary theory
like a fly needs a swatter. Tell us, Charlie, how the protein machinery that codes,
transcribes, translates and folds proteins originated without the machinery to do it.
We want scientific facts, not stories.
Magic tricks intrigue us, not because
we think real magic is happening, but because we want to know how the trick is done.
TRiC is inspiring Frydman and her colleagues to reverse-engineer the implicit
design of this complex black box and put their findings to practical use for improving
human health and well being. Isnt that what science is all about?
Surely no one from Darwins day through the 1950s could have imagined
that the secrets of life would depend on complex, precision machinery, with moving
parts, made out of molecules, manufactured to spec from coded instructions.
Enough reports like this one, and Darwinism itself will be interred in a black box:
coffin-shaped and nailed shut, so the folding of rigor mortis inside
wont gross anyone out.
Next headline on:
Cell Biology
Intelligent Design
Amazing Facts
Worlds Fastest Computer Approaches Brain Power 06/13/2008

June 13, 2008 IBM has broken the petaflops barrier. Whats that,
you ask? In computing lingo, it stands for a quadrillion floating-point
operations per second. The new Roadrunner supercomputer at Los Alamos National
Laboratory has set a new
record for computing speed that may usher in a new era of scientific analysis of
complex systems: Roadrunner gives scientists the ability to quickly render
mountainous problems into mere molehills, or model systems that previously were
unthinkably complex. Such as?....
Science
Daily reported something even more amazing. Roadrunner is now able to
mimic some of the complex neural reactions going on in the human brain.
To date, computers have been unable to match human performance on such
visual tasks as flawlessly detecting an oncoming automobile on the highway
or distinguishing a friend from a stranger in a crowd of people, the
article said. Roadrunner is now changing the game.
One test program called PetaVision tries to model how the brain
performs vision. PetaVision models the human visual system--mimicking
more than 1 billion visual neurons and trillions of synapses. Because
there are about a quadrillion synapses in the human brain, an artificial brain
is finally entering the ballpark of keeping up with the biological computer.
One researcher put it, Just a week after formal introduction
of the machine to the world, we are already doing computational tasks that existed
only in the realm of imagination a year ago. Imagination is a human
intellectual skill carried on with the aid of the brain. Its not clear if
the researchers have calculated how many petaflops would be required to perform
that feat. It might require exaflops (quintillions), zettaflops (sextillions)
or yottaflops (septillions), if one can imagine such numbers.
Did you catch the point of this story?
Decades of human intelligent planning and engineering and experience have gone
into producing a monstrosity of big iron that is just now getting up to the capability
of keeping up with one operation of your brain, vision. The man-made machine
occupies a room of metal, wires, and sophisticated circuitry that requires
electricity, artificial cooling and a team of system administrators, to say
nothing of programmers, to operate.
Your brain, by contrast, occupies only three pounds of soft
tissue. It is self-contained on a mobile platform. And its doing a lot more
than processing vision. It is keeping tabs on trillions of cells, running
your heart, lungs, digestive tract, spleen, pancreas, liver, glands, immune system and dozens of
other systems in the background without your conscious control, responding to
hearing, smell, taste, touch, balance, temperature and kinesthetic senses,
searching through memories, thinking, imagining, feeling and much more.
All this occurs in a compact space of only 1350 cc. You dont have to
plug it in. You dont have to keep it in a refrigerated room. You can
take it skiing or out to the desert, and you can even swim with it.
And it runs on hamburgers and water!
This article should be standing in awe of the brain, but its
all about glorifying man for building his own paltry excuse for a computer.
Inside their own skulls is the most astonishing supercomputer in the known universe!
Where is the praise to the Creator that should be due for His gift of such a powerful
and multi-functional machine? On the contrary, the common mythology of our day
is that brains evolved by chance over millions of years of undirected, random processes.
Learn to see the real take-home lesson in science news.
The important lesson is not always the hyped one.
Next headline on:
Human Body
Amazing Facts
Darwin Partying: Miller Time in the Astrobiology Lab,
06/16/2005;
intellectual sex orgies, 06/17/2005;
war games, 06/22/2005.
Divining the CMB 06/12/2008

June 12, 2008 What do you see in
this pattern? Look very closely. The Cosmic Microwave
Background (CMB) is a faint glow of electromagnetic radiation that pervades the universe.
What it means is a matter of intense and sometimes bizarre speculation by cosmologists.
The spectrum of the CMB matches almost perfectly that of an ideal radiator, or blackbody, with a peak
temperature of 2.7° Kelvin (graph)
The spectrum is so smooth that it took years of analysis of the COBE satellite data to find
any variations inhomogeneities or anisotropies, as they are called.
In 2001, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe teased out the
variations to the highest resolution ever measured for a blackbody
(picture).
In the maps, the colors exaggerate the variations. They are exceedingly faint
on the order of 18 microkelvins, or parts per 100,000. They can
be compared to tiny ripples on a calm sea. What does this imply?
Does it shed light on the origin and nature of the universe?
Cosmologists advertise that the discovery of the CMB by Penzias and
Wilson in 1965 (for which they received the Nobel Prize) was a confirmation of the
Big Bang theory. It represents the cosmic afterglow of the primeval fireball, they said.
Though such a glow had been predicted by George Gamow, Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman,
the predicted value (28K) was higher than the measured value. Moreover, finding
the spectrum to be so extremely smooth exacerbated the lumpiness problem
in cosmology: if the universe began from a uniform explosion, where did the lumps
come from? The universe is made up of lumpy aggregates of matter like galaxies and clusters of galaxies with
near vacuums of empty space between them. The discovery of inhomogeneities,
therefore, was latched onto quickly as an explanation: these tiny ripples
grew into gravitational attractors for material that coalesced into the lumps.
The discovery of the inhomogeneities won George Smoot the Nobel Prize in 2006.
Today, cosmologists continue to probe the CMB for clues to even
grander visions. Heres what some recent reports are claiming are
visible in maps of the CMB that, to a layman, would look as meaningless as modern art.
- Donuts: The universe might be donut shaped. Thats
what Nature
News reported May 28, complete with a drawing. Mmm... Universe,
teased the caption. Calculations show it really might be shaped like
the snack favourite. How does one salivate over visions of donuts while
looking at a CMB map? The vision lies in missing long wavelengths, which some cosmologists
interpret as indicating the universe might be finite but non-spherical. Of the possible
wrap-around shapes, a 3-torus seems to match the WMAP data best, they think. Yum.
- Treasure: The BBC
News reported in March that the WMAP data constitutes a treasure trove
of information about the universe not only its age and early history, but its
fate. A group from Oxford University believes that they see the faint glow of
neutrinos in the map. Dr. Joanna Dunkley said, We see patterns in light,
light that has been travelling for billions of years, affected in the
early infancy of the Universe by whatever the Universe was composed of
at that point.
This is more fun than an amusement park fortune-teller.
Dr. Dunkley now sees an impression of conditions billions of
years ago by inferring from the amount of helium today a sea of neutrinos
that must have been given off early on by nuclear reactions, assuming it was built
inside stars. Most neutrinos pass right through the earth
without stopping. Very few are detected in the very few detectors built to
look for them. There they are, right on the WMAP plot, staring us in the
face. Dont you see?
Dr. Dunkley also sees fog, but it clears up in her
crystal ball. The dissipating fog reveals secrets about the first stars.
We basically have the first evidence
that how the first stars switched on was a long, drawn-out process that
took half a billion years, she said. We werent
able to see that before. Some of us are
wondering how she sees it now.
- The Land Before Time: The familiar WMAP plot showed up in a story
on the BBC News
that suggested other universes are betraying their presence in the data.
The possible observation of a slight asymmetry in the CMB from one direction to
the other could clue us in that we inherited a structure from a parent universe,
says a Caltech group. The fluctuations in the CMB are telling us that
new universes could be created spontaneously from apparently empty space.
If so, From inside the parent universe, the event would be surprisingly unspectacular.
Its just one of those ordinary things everything from nothing, bubbling off
in a flash from a previous universe that cannot be observed.
Sean Carroll (Caltech), who proposed the second idea, wants to convince
his colleagues to think big. Were trained to say there was no
time before the Big Bang, when we should say that we dont know whether there was
anything or if there was, what it was. Why say anything, then?
Carroll admits that we dont
know if universes can bud off from pre-existing ones. But if ours did,
he thinks it would explain why time flows forward instead of backward in our universe.
Much work remains to be done on the theory: the BBC said; the researchers first priority will
be to calculate the odds of a new universe appearing from a previous one.
An untrained layman looking at the CMB would be astonished that such inferences
could be conjured up out of faint color changes on a bland-looking map.
The know-nothings
(02/22/2008 commentary)
seem to know an awful lot (emphasis
on awful). They have a lot to say about things they admit they cant say.
Did it occur to any of them that science was meant to be restricted to phenomena
that are observable, testable and repeatable? Yes; tell us about the odds of
getting a new universe from a previous one. Tell us all about it.
Do a demo in the lab. Tell us about the infinite regress while youre at it, and why there was
something instead of nothing.
Today, we no longer need a calf liver, pendulum or water witch to
play around with divination. We have trendier things with which the Babble-onions, Chaldeans
and sooth-slayers can respectably practice their ancient Craft. The only thing they seem unable to divine is the Divine
Nature (Romans
1). Odd; most of us lacking the divination tools can see it clearly all over the place.
Next headline on:
Cosmology
Physics
Dumb Ideas
Few Typos Get Past Your Spell Checker 06/11/2008

June 11, 2008 Inside your cells are thousands of spell checkers that put
any human typist to shame. In a process critical to all living things,
RNA Polymerase II transcribes DNA into RNA rapidly with high fidelity.
Even very similar chemical letters are accurately discriminated by this wonder
of a molecular machine that is described in
Science
Daily.
The article describes its performance as exquisite precision
and unerring accuracy. RNA Polymerase II (Pol II) has been studied for years
(01/10/2003,
01/05/2006),
but new secrets continue to pour forth. Two teams found out more details
about how the proofreading works. Mutations, they found, caused severe losses
in fidelity. The researchers said their findings
not only offer unprecedented details about the fidelity mechanism of Pol II, but
likely about fidelity in all cellular genetic copying machines.
What? You mean theres more? Absolutely
(03/21/2002). From transcription
to translation, each stage of protein manufacture from the DNA template is checked
for errors by molecular machines
(03/22/2002,
05/17/2002,
06/13/2002,
01/19/2005,
03/31/2005). When those machines break down due to
mutations, bad things happen. The last word: As DNA polymerase is
responsible for gene replication, the result of its malfunction could be a burst
of gene mutation causing an error catastrophe that could lead to genome
instability and cancer formation.
This is the science of intelligent design (ID) at work
(05/18/2005).
No mention of the E-word evolution was heard in these labs
(cf. 06/17/2002). The researchers
were hot on the heels of major discoveries about how biological machines achieve
phenomenal accuracy. And at what do they achieve phenomenal accuracy? the
translation of coded information
(12/17/2007). Information is a very ID-friendly
word. Evolutionists speak very little about information. What can
they say? that material particles subject to various non-intelligent forces
built the most accurate code-storage and translation mechanisms known in nature?
How long would it take Lenski to evolve that? (see next story). Lets
take off the Darwin leg irons and propel science full speed into the Information
Age.
Next headline on:
Cell Biology
Genetics
Intelligent Design
Amazing Facts
Darwinism Demonstrated in the Lab 06/10/2008

June 10, 2008 Lenskis done it. The champion of Avida,
a computerized evolution demo (see Evolution
News) has demonstrated Darwinian evolution with real live organisms.
His achievement announces his inauguration into the prestigious National
Academy of Sciences.1
Lenski and team ran one of the longest-running evolution experiments
ever with E. coli bacteria. After more than 30,000 generations, some
of the bacteria traversed several random mutations to achieve a new function: the
ability to digest citrate. This occurred without any guidance and quickly
made the new variety more fit in the culture.
New
Scientist trumpeted this as a demonstration of a major evolutionary
shift in the lab that has unfurled right before the researchers eyes.
Darwin critic Dr. Michael Behe, biochemist at Lehigh University,
author of Darwins Black Box, seems unconvinced. He thinks, as
he discusses on his Amazon
blog that Lenski has only demonstrated something far less Darwinian: the
Edge of
Evolution. A response was also posted on
Access
Research Network.
1. Zachary Blount, Christina Borland and Richard E. Lenski,
Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli,
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
USA, June 4, 2008, 10.1073/pnas.0803151105.
Its a good thing Dr. Behe quickly dispelled
the significance of this experiment. It saves us a lot of work having to
trudge through the overhyped claims in the paper. Basically, the E. coli
already had the machinery to digest citrate, but just lacked a gateway to get the
nutrient inside, which was not that improbable a hurdle for a couple of mutations to
permit. This accomplishment is orders of magnitude simpler than the kind of
luck required to build the machinery in the first place. Its like
blindly pushing and finding a weakness in a fence. This is all the longest-running lab
experiment in evolution was able to accomplish in 20 years of trying, with almost
40,000 generations. Are you impressed? If you can tell a lawyer is
lying when his lips are moving, you can tell an evolutionist is lying when the
reporters go wild about how Darwin has been vindicated.
Next headline on:
Cell Biology
Evolution
Three great space triumphs of 2004: our only close look at Saturns moon Phoebe,
four years ago this Saturday, from 06/14/2004;
Stardust team deciphers comet dust, from 06/18/2004;
and Cassini enters Saturn orbit to begin its spectacularly successful tour, from
06/30/2004.
The Andes: Pop-Up Mountains 06/10/2008

June 10, 2008 The majestic Andes of South America did not rise smoothly and
gradually, a team of geologists reported in Science.1
Instead, long periods of stasis for tens of millions of years were punctuated by
rapid periods of uplift. It sounds as if punctuated equilibria theory has
been stolen from evolutionary biology and applied to geology. They say the
Andes the second largest mountain chain in the world could have risen
over 2 km in about a million years.
The authors explain this erratic motion by saying, Periodic punctuated
surface uplift of mountain belts probably reflects the rapid removal of unstable,
dense lower lithosphere after long-term thickening of the crust and lithospheric mantle.
It had long been thought that shortening and thickening of continental
crust gave rise to mountains, they said. Now, however, they think that
measurements of surface isotopes show that the two processes dont seem to
work together so should be worked out separately.
The international team measured various factors amount
of erosion, outgassing from volcanoes, isotope ratios in clays and carbonates, and
sediment thicknesses. They took into account paleo-elevation data
tying each stratums position in the geologic column in relation to its
elevation. They plugged the values into models in an attempt to
infer the history of the mountain range. Other assumptions, such as
climate history and behavior of the upper mantle, were included.
Richard A. Kerr summarized the paper in the same issue of Science,2
titling his article, The Andes popped up by losing their deep-seated rocky load.
One problem he noted about the pop-up theory is that crustal compression doesnt
happen that fast. The team explained it by suggesting that a section of
ballast under the mountains might have fallen away into the mantle,
allowing the rapid rise above. The timing and style of volcanism in the
central Andes suggest that the mantle lithosphere fell away suddenly--as a
huge drop dripping off the crust or as a layer peeling away--just when the isotopic
data indicate a punctuated uplift, he said.
Other geologists are not convinced. One, for instance, thinks
that the rise of the mountains alters the climate and can give false paleo-elevation
data. Some wish to rely more on models; some wish to give more weight to
field data. For a popular write-up of the new theory, see
Science Daily,
which begins, Mountains may experience a growth spurt that can
double their heights in as little as two to four million years--several times
faster than the prevailing tectonic theory suggests.
1. Garzione et al, Rise of the Andes,
Science,
6 June 2008: Vol. 320. no. 5881, pp. 1304-1307, DOI: 10.1126/science.1148615.
2. Richard A. Kerr, The Andes Popped Up by Losing Their Deep-Seated Rocky Load,
Science,
no. 5881, p. 1275, DOI: 10.1126/science.320.5881.1275a.
What is the take-home lesson of this article?
That scientists recognized their past sins of omission and have now come clean?
That science is progressing toward a true understanding of the history of the
earth? If so, we have a piece of Jurassic mantle on the auction block.
Geological models like this are a hopeless hodgepodge of assumption,
presumption, paradigm, social pressure, tradition, arbitrary classification and
motivation, mixed in with a little bit of data as seasoning. Step back and
look at how geologists do this kind of work. Is it reasonable to think that
some isotope ratios in groundwater, or some measurements of volcanic gases, are
going to tell you what happened 40 million years ago hundreds of kilometers below
a mountain chain, where no human could ever go, to a time in the past no human
has ever seen? Will a model on a computer, with inputs from field work mixed
in with assumptions, provide a reliable account of processes at work in a massive
mountain range spanning the length of a continent over millions of years? (see
02/05/2008 about
climate models).
How could they ever know? There is no possible way to rerun the millions of
years to find out. How could they be sure the model does not omit one or more
crucial parameters that might dramatically alter the conclusions?
If you still trust the geologists story, consider that these scientists just
upset their predecessors apple cart. They said it had long been
thought that the Andes rose up gradually. Now we are supposed to
know that was wrong, and we should accept the pop-up theory.
What assurance does anyone have that someone a decade from now will not overturn
this paper? It happens. In the years of reporting at this site, for instance, we have
seen geologists change their story dramatically about the Grand Canyon.
In 2000, geologists were considering it might be less than a million years old.
That was a drastic change from earlier estimates, carved into National Park signs
as The Truth, that the canyon was 70 million years old. Later, The Truth was down to
5 million years. Now, in the last few months, they have been revising the date
upward again; first to 17 million, now to 55 million or more
(03/05/2008, 04/10/2008).
Reality has been buried in these conceptual sediments. The only clue visible to a casual observer
is that, when it comes to the true history of the earth, geologists are clueless.
Understand the difference between observational geology and historical
geology. If a geologist can help Exxon find oil, or help you decide if your property
is stable enough to build a house on, thats great. Thank goodness
there are people trained in the observational skills and mechanics of rocks and soils
and minerals to figure these things out. There are quite a few geological skills
one can learn in the university that are very useful. We can watch geological processes,
like volcanoes and earthquakes and floods, and make reasonable inferences from them about
how certain formations came about. Some processes can be studied with
experiments in flumes and shake tables. Even then, however, nature surprises us.
The eruption of Mt. St. Helens overthrew several major assumptions
about the speed and power of geological processes. A flume experiment recently
challenged a long belief about how mudstones form (see 12/14/2007). We cant even be
sure of things we can see in real time; how much less about processes in past
mythical millions of years?
To the extent geology can help us organize our experience, and give us a measure
of explanation, prediction, and control, it is useful. Notice the operative
word is useful, not true. Historical geology, though, is
wedded to belief systems about an unseen past. It is useless except, perhaps,
as entertainment. Its belief systems are not
derived from science. They are imposed on science. Historian of geology Martin
Rudwick said,
Even at the opening of its heroic age [ca. 1790-1830], geology was
recognized as belonging to an altogether new kind of science, which posed problems
of a kind that had never arisen before. It was the first science to be
concerned with the reconstruction of the past development of the natural world,
rather than the description and analysis of its present condition. The tools
of the other sciences were therefore inadequate. The processes that shaped
the world in the past were beyond either experiment or simple observation.
Observation revealed only their end-products; experimental results would only
be applied to them analogically. Somehow the past had to be interpreted
in terms of the present. The main conceptual tool in that task was, and is,
the principle of uniformity.
Martin J.S. Rudwick, The Principle of Uniformity,
History of Science, vol. 1 (1962), p.82; cited by Terry Mortensen, Ph.D.,
The Great Turning Point (Master Books, 2004), p. 229.
From philosopher and scientist William Whewell in 1840 to
David Raup in 1983, observers have pointed out that geology is a different kind
of science. It cannot test and repeat things like you can with pendulums
and space flight. Historical geology is profoundly theory-laden.
Data are interpreted according to popular models and prevailing ideas.
Rare is the maverick willing to think outside the box.
Mortensen documents in his book that Lyell and other 19th-century geologists effectively
commandeered and institutionalized a certain approach to geology, uniformitarianism,
that has ever since been beating its head against contrary evidence
(05/22/2003, 03/31/2007).
The millions-of-years mentality has become uncritically-accepted dogma. The standard
geological column has been ensconced as a monument to Lyell and Hutton,
like the temples of the ancient Greeks (read the telling quotes by Stephen J. Gould and Derek Ager
in an article by CSM in England, Lyells country).
Long ages and uniform processes are accepted before the data are even examined. Geologists are
not discovering these vast expanses of time. They are making measurements
in the present, and offering them as votive sacrifices to the paradigm.
Historical geologists may make modifications to the temple, add new rooms and change the
artwork, but it would take a religious conversion to make them change temples.
Next headline on:
Geology
Dating Methods
Evolutions Tinkerer Creates the Brain that Creates Evolutionary Theory 06/09/2008

June 9, 2008 A tinkerer usually implies a human being with a brain.
A man in his garage, for instance, might look around for spare parts to arrange
into some new contraption. What would he think if he were told that his own
brain was made that way? Thats what evolutionists commonly teach:
our bodies and our brains were organized not by design or plan, but by natures
tinkerer: a blind, aimless physical process that somehow cobbled parts together
to allow us to think, and tinker, and even design master plans.
A good example of this tendency in the popular press was published
in Science
Daily and PhysOrg.
They reported on the Genes to Cognition Programme at the Wellcome
Trust Sanger Institute, a group attempting to discern connections between genes
and brains (see original
press release).
The team concluded that brain size alone was not the deciding
factor in human cognition. More complex synapses the junctions between
neurons had to evolve first. Surprisingly, some of these complex
junctions appear in yeast and other organisms we think dont think.
Some of these junctions humans use in learning and memory.
The first arrival was the
most impressive: The number and complexity of proteins in the synapse first
exploded when multicellular animals emerged, some billion years ago.
Thats even before the Cambrian explosion, when all life was single-celled.
Another explosion occurred at the arrival of vertebrates, they said.
This all suggested to the researchers a vision of the human brain
as an example of tinkering. The view was best expressed by team member
Richard Emes, lecturer in Bioinformatics at Keele University. He said,
It is amazing how a process of Darwinian evolution by tinkering and
improvement has generated, from a collection of sensory proteins in yeast,
the complex synapse of mammals associated with learning and cognition.
The project head, Seth Grant, used his tinkered brain to think that this is
bringing human cognition closer to understanding its origins.
This work leads to a new and simple model for understanding the origins and
diversity of brains and behaviour in all species, he said. We are
one step closer to understanding the logic behind the complexity of human brains.
He did not specify how many steps have been traversed, how many lie ahead, or
what direction to go, assuming he himself is tinkering with ideas that emerged
from a product of tinkering. Can such a product have any assurance its
cobbled neurons are capable of understanding anything?
The tinkering metaphor was echoed in another context by Meredith Small
at Live Science.
She was trying to explain why men have breasts and nipples. Her explanation
combined immiscible concepts: that we were produced by an aimless process,
yet are somehow capable of thinking rationally about that process:
In fact, mens breasts are a good lesson in the higgledy-piggledy way that evolution works.
Natural selection chooses for and against body parts, but there is no master plan that aims for
the perfect creature. Men have boobs, women get facial hair, and we all stand
in front of the mirror asking, Why?
Each person is, in fact, a Rube Goldberg sort of organism pieced together
by biology and made up of good parts, bad parts and parts that are inconsequential.
She also claimed that we all start out as women in the embryo, but males only
become male after testosterone kicks in about the sixth week of development.
She called femaleness the default or fallback position of the human form.
How she could know any of this was an unasked and unanswered
question.
Ironically, philosopher and astronomer John Herschel
ridiculed Darwinian theory as the law of higgledy-piggledy after reading
The Origin of Species. He was not
speaking of how natural selection works. He was speaking of the concept
of natural selection itself. Proposing a law of nature that depends
on higgledy-piggledy ways is a higgledy-piggledy scientific idea, he meant;
a law that acts haphazardly is no law at all.
Some day these evolutionary explanations are going
to sound so stupid, students will shake their heads in disbelief that smart people
could have believed such things. Lets hasten the day. Did it occur
to Ms. Small that Rube Goldberg designed his comical devices by intelligent design,
not by chance? As kludgy as they looked, they were quite effective.
How much more effective are her eyes, hands and brain? It seems highly
inconsiderate for her to employ them with finesse and then call them hodgepodges of
bad parts.
These scientists have convinced themselves that there is no master
plan. Nothing in reality was designed. Everything is the result of
happenstance. Parts emerge from the void. New neurons appear in
unthinking cells, without any foreknowledge that some day scientists will employ
them to think rationally. From the growing garage of various parts that
emerged from the void, Tinker Bell, the goddess of evolution, sets to work,
cobbling brains and breasts and everything else, and presto here we are.
How on earth can Meredith Small and her friends have any standards of rationality to
know this is true? How can she have any standard of ethics to call
parts good or bad? How can a cognitive I emerge from this
mess to ask Why? or any other question, and believe itself
capable of finding an answer, let alone comprehending it?
If this mythology gives some comfort to the evolutionist, well,
its a free country. We would like to just tug on their garment and
say, ahem; by thinking, you are refuting your story. Yes indeed: stand in
front of the mirror and ask, Why? Why do Meredith Small and
Richard Emes and Seth Grant believe they are in touch with reality? Why
do they claim an ontology that grounds an epistemology?
Think, and think that your thinking matters, and you are now dealing
in concepts. Concepts are not physical.
Thought is not reducible to neurons, proteins and genes. Thought
can employ material objects; it can even tinker with them and be influenced
by them. But the moment you employ concepts, you cannot look in the mirror
and see the image of Tinker Bell. You see the image of God. Whether you
see or understand His Master Plan is debatable. But by thinking, you acknowledge
that one exists.
Next headline on:
Human Body
Evolution
Dumb Ideas
Will Evolutionary Psychology Be the First Darwinian Theory to Go? 06/06/2008

June 6, 2008 Evolutionary psychologists are not getting much respect these
days. Some evolutionists, like Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin,
criticized them for years. Now, a new book came out against them and
Science gave it a good review.1 To turn
a Darwinian phrase, reviewer Johan J. Bolhuis said that the field of evolutionary psychology is
undergoing negative selection pressure.
The book under review also turned a Darwinian phrase in its title,
Evolutionary Psychology as Maladapted Psychology, by Robert C. Richardson,
a philosopher of science. Bolhuis, a member of the Behavioral Biology Group
at Utrecht University, tied this maligned field to Charles Darwin right
in the first sentence: As we approach the 150th anniversary of the publication
of On the Origin of Species, the theory of evolution is still not without
controversy in the popular domain. It seemed logical to many to extend Darwins
theory of evolution to cognition, as Darwin himself did in The Descent of Man
when he considered human characteristics such as morality or emotions to have been evolved.
Both the author and reviewer accept evolution, and
assent to the claim that our psychological capacities are evolved traits.
Nevertheless, they have problems seeing evolutionary psychology as a
scientific enterprise. Its flaws include:
- Blind reasoning: It is questionable whether particular human cognitive traits,
such as language or human reasoning, can be seen as adaptations.
- Tunnel vision: Evolutionary psychologists tend to see everything in selectionist terms.
The main problem with evolutionary psychology is that it usually does not
consider alternative explanations but takes the assumption of adaptation through
natural sel
|