How the Evolution Story Became Like Jellyfish   09/30/2008    
Sept 30, 2008 — “How the [blank] got its [blank]” is the template for story titles imitating Rudyard Kipling’s Just-So Stories: i.e., How the Camel Got His Hump and How the Leopard Got His Spots.  Kipling wrote these as silly stories to entertain children, not to be taken seriously by scientists.  Knowing that creationists often criticize Darwinian explanations as Just-So Stories, was Amber Dance being sarcastic or whimsical when she titled her article on Nature News “How the jellyfish got its sting”?  Apparently the latter (or neither) because she dove into the genre forthwith: “From a bacterium, surprisingly.”
    The article discussed apparent evidence for widespread lateral gene transfer among multicellular animals.  In particular, a French team supposed jellyfish got the toxin in their stinging cells from bacterial genes.  Comparing genomes, they deduced that the same gene jumped between cnidarians (jellyfish, corals, and anemones), sponges, worms and fungi.  The team lead said, “horizontal gene transfer is often neglected, and could sometimes be more important than we thought.”
    If true, this scrambles attempts to understand common descent.  It’s understandable that other evolutionists didn’t want to take that plunge.

“There are other explanations for the incongruencies they see in the tree,” agrees Casey Dunn, an evolutionary biologist who studies phylogenetic problems at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island.
    For instance, the gene could be vertically transferred from a distant progenitor, before being lost from some organisms.  Or, it may be possible that more than one animal independently evolved the gene; such sequence conversion is not unheard of, Dunn says.  “At the end of the day, it will probably take far more data to paint a conclusive picture of what’s happening.”
    Rabet responds that since the PGA synthase gene is approximately 1000 bases long, it is statistically unlikely to be the product of multiple distinct genes converging on the same sequence.
    And if the gene was lost from all but the cnidarians and a few other animals, it must have disappeared from all related organisms.  “It’s possible, but we need to imagine a lot of lost genes,” he says.

Using phylogenetic analysis, Rabet and his colleagues found that the cnidarian gene fits well into the bacterial family tree.  They also showed that the gene turns on in at least one jellyfish, Clytia hemisphaerica.  The same gene pops up in certain sponges, worms and fungi, suggesting it jumped between species more than once, the scientists say.  It is not yet clear how the transfer might have occurred, or why this particular gene would be so well-travelled....
Scientists are finding that horizontal gene transfer, once thought to be the domain of single-celled critters, is not uncommon in the animal world, says Syvanen.  “Horizontal gene transfer with the animals is going to turn out to be more widespread than anybody believes now.  When that realization comes down, it will definitely change the way people think about evolution.”

With the new Stupid Evolution Quote of the Week cartoon, we welcome Brett Miller to our website talent pool.  His drawing of Emperor Charlie’s New Clothes removes all need for comment (click image for larger version).  Watch for his occasional eye-catching graphics in days to come.  Thanks, Brett!  Your cartoon made our day.
See more of Brett’s work at EvidentCreation.com.
Next headline on:  Marine Biology • Genetics • Darwinism • Dumb Ideas

• Evidence from the fossil record for the origin and evolution of this system is extremely limited, because lungs do not fossilize and because the bellow-like air sacs in living birds only rarely penetrate (pneumatize) skeletal bone and thus leave a record of their presence.
• Principal findings: We describe a new predatory dinosaur from Upper Cretaceous rocks in Argentina, Aerosteon riocoloradensis gen. et sp. nov., that exhibits extreme pneumatization of skeletal bone, including pneumatic hollowing of the furcula and ilium.  In living birds, these two bones are pneumatized by diverticulae of air sacs (clavicular, abdominal) that are involved in pulmonary ventilation.  We also describe several pneumatized gastralia (“stomach ribs”), which suggest that diverticulae of the air sac system were present in surface tissues of the thorax.
• The advent of avian unidirectional lung ventilation is not possible to pinpoint, as osteological correlates have yet to be identified for uni- or bidirectional lung ventilation.
• The origin and evolution of avian air sacs may have been driven by one or more of the following three factors: flow-through lung ventilation, locomotory balance, and/or thermal regulation.
• As a result of an extraordinary level of pneumatization, as well as the excellent state of preservation of much of the axial column and girdles, Aerosteon helps to constrain hypotheses for the evolution of avian-style respiration.
• The capacity of the cervical air sacs to invade centra to form invaginated pleurocoels may have evolved independently in sauropodomorphs (sauropods) and basal theropods and appears to have been lost several times within theropods.
• The osteological or logical correlates needed to support some of these inferences have been poorly articulated, which may explain the wide range of opinions on when intrathoracic air sacs like those in birds first evolved and how these relate to ventilatory patterns.
• Based on the osteological correlates we have assembled (Table 4), we would argue, first, that until we can show evidence of the presence of at least one avian ventilatory air sac (besides the non-ventilatory cervical air sac), it is problematic to infer the presence of flow-through ventilation or a rigid, dorsally-attached lung.  Second, we know of no osteological correlates in the gastral cuirass that would justify the inference of abdominal air sacs.  Potential kinesis of the gastral cuirass and an accessory role in aspiration breathing potentially characterizes many amniotes besides nonavian dinosaurs.  The absence of gastralia in crown birds or in any extant bipeds also hinders functional inferences.  And third, it is not well established that abdominal air sacs were either first to evolve or are functionally critical to unidirectional ventilation.
• Avian lung ventilation is driven by muscles that expand and contract thoracic volume by deforming the ribcage and rocking a large bony sternum.  Basal maniraptorans have many of the features associated with this ventilatory mechanism including a large ossified sternum, ossified sternal ribs, uncinate processes a deepened coracoid that contacts the sternum along a synovial hinge joint.  By contrast Aerosteon and the abelisaurid Majungasaurus lack these features.  Does that mean that maniraptorans had evolved unidirectional lung ventilation?  Or does it indicate only that the maniraptoran ribcage functioned in aspiration breathing more like that in avians?  We do not know of any osteological correlates that are specifically tied to uni- or bidirectional lung ventilation (Table 4), which may explain the range of opinion as to how and when avian unidirectional lung ventilation first evolved.
• The factors driving the origin and evolution of the functional capacity of avian air sacs and lung ventilation remain poorly known and tested.

The bluffing about evolution in many science news reports is shameful.  Search on Aerosteon and you will find examples, like this one on InTheNews.co.uk: “Dinosaurs: Breathed like birds.  A carnivorous dinosaur with a bird-like breathing system has provided more evidence of the connection between the two groups of animals separated by millions of years.”  The whole article is fluff.  “Palaeontologists are now satisfied Aerosteon provides the evidence needed to seal the connection with birds,” it ends.  One cannot bluff about fluff.
    National Geographic must have panicked at our expose, so they cranked out a propaganda piece immediately announcing, “New Birdlike Dinosaur Found in Argentina.”  They even put imaginary feathers on it: “The new dinosaur probably had feathers, but did not actually fly,” they said (cf. 06/13/2007).  OK, so we went hunting for feathers in the original paper.  “The fossil evidence for intrathoracic air sacs now closely overlaps that for feathers, which had evolved in coelurosaurian theropods most likely for heat retention.”  That was the only mention of feathers.  This appeal to imaginary feathers was followed by more storytelling in lieu of empirical evidence:

Air sacs may have initially been employed as an antagonist to feathers in theropod thermoregulation.  Although this hypothesis has been criticized for lack of empirical evidence in living birds, air sacs have been implicated in avian heat transfer and/or evaporative heat loss, and Aerosteon and many other theropods had a body weight more than an order of magnitude greater than that for any living bird.  A thermoregulatory role for the early evolution of air sacs in nonavian dinosaurs should not be ruled out without further evidence from nonvolant ratites.

Can you believe that?  They invented imaginary feathers out of thin air for this big heavy meat-eater to compensate for imaginary air sacs that they presume existed near its hollow bones.  So now their evolutionary magic produced two imaginary thermoregulatory systems competing with each other – what, for survival of the coolest?
    For the fun of it, let’s grant them air sacs and even imagine with them a respiratory system that had some birdlike features; after all, any two vertebrates, like mice and camels, or frogs and penguins, are bound to have similarities as well as differences, depending on what you decide to focus on for the moment.  Paul Sereno told National Geographic that the beast didn’t fly (obviously, unless you can imagine wings on a T. rex), so NG concluded, “even though this species was birdlike [sic], feathers and air sacs didn’t necessarily evolve for flight.”  So their point is... ?  All the hype about feathers was supposed to reinforce the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs.  They were practically ready to name this thing Tweety Rex, and now they seem to be telling us this beast evolved air sacs for a completely different function, about which no one is sure, and it was an evolutionary dead end anyway.  Even NG’s accompanying slide show didn’t show feathers.  The only suggestion of a birdlike respiratory system was in slide 2, where colored regions represent the imaginary air sacs in the thorax. 

But excuse me, Mr. Scientist sir, did any of that soft air-sac material fossilize?  “Evidence from the fossil record for the origin and evolution of this system is extremely limited, because lungs do not fossilize and because the bellow-like air sacs in living birds only rarely penetrate (pneumatize) skeletal bone and thus leave a record of their presence.”  Are you telling me there was no direct evidence for the air sacs in this dinosaur?  “Some of its postcranial bones show pneumatic hollowing that can be linked to intrathoracic air sacs that are directly involved in lung ventilation.”  They can be, you say, but how strong is the inference?  “We do not know of any osteological correlates [fossil evidence] that are specifically tied to uni- or bidirectional lung ventilation (Table 4), which may explain the range of opinion as to how and when avian unidirectional lung ventilation first evolved.”  But isn’t a unidirectional lung ventilation system the primary distinguishing feature in birds?  Are you telling the court that this is all inference, not evidence?

The tale gets more speculative and implausible with each lawyer’s question.  Darwin’s defense attorneys are sweating in their seats.  NG quoted a colleague admitting, “It shows that evolution is not a chalk line—there are many dead ends.”  Being interpreted, this means evolutionists can always concoct a story for any possible combination of data.  (Chalk is erasable, you know.)  We think a scientist who wants to feather his monster should produce the feathers in the fossil, not draw feathery dragons on the chalkboard and tell the press that it “probably had feathers.”  Chalk lines are supposed to be snapped to a level that has been carefully measured.  So he’s right; evolution is not a chalk line; it’s a crooked crack in the wall of a theory that is about to collapse.  Don’t build to it.
    We brought you extended quotes to illustrate the difference between original sources and the news media hype.  The lesson: always check out the original data.  The authors with the bones in their hand usually know better than to make any outlandish claims to their colleagues.  In front of reporters, though, they lose restraint.  Reporters go ape to praise Darwin.  For example, Live Science, that perennial Darwin billboard, shouted Extra! Extra! “Bus-sized Dinosaur Breathed Like Birds.  A huge carnivorous dinosaur that lived about 85 million years ago had a breathing system much like that of today’s birds, a new analysis of fossils reveals, reinforcing the evolutionary link between dinos and modern birds.”  That, in turn, got passed around to all the major news outlets as gospel truth.  This is bad breath, not bird breath.  The sound of flapping dino-feathers is only the pompons made of synthetic material manufactured for the Darwin Party cheerleaders.
Next headline on:  Birds • Dinosaurs • Fossils • Evolution

Darwinists Root for Obama   09/28/2008    
Sept 28, 2008 — Ministers in churches are not allowed to promote political candidates, even though they do not take government money.¹  Scientists, who often do take federal money in the form of grants, openly take positions on the presidential candidates they feel will further their interests.  Is this proper?
    Both Nature and Science this week did extensive reporting on the presidential and vice-presidential candidates.  While the magazines and the organizations behind them do not receive tax money directly, they act as the leading voices of scientists who are largely supported by grants, and thus they stand to profit directly from the level of funding a President supports.  Nature’s editorial bluntly stated, “The most worrying thing about a McCain presidency is not so much a President McCain as a Vice-President Palin.”  Their concern was over her opposition to embryonic stem-cell research, and the claim that “She is a creationist” (but see Evolution News).  In fact, Nature went out of its way to point out the differences between Obama and McCain on the issue of intelligent design, quoting Obama’s answer with apparent satisfaction:

I believe in evolution, and I support the strong consensus of the scientific community that evolution is scientifically validated.  I do not believe it is helpful to our students to cloud discussions of science with non-scientific theories like intelligent design that are not subject to experimental scrutiny.

McCain has courageously bucked his party’s more parochial viewpoints in the past, as when he fought for a cap-and-trade system long before it was politically popular.  But his selection of Palin as a running mate suggests a new-found willingness to pander to his party’s far-right wing.

There is a crisis in scientific literacy in the United States: only 25% of Americans accept our evolution from ape-like ancestors, yet 74% believe in angels.  Republicans make it worse by proposing that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public-school science classes.  Anyone aspiring to be president should have a basic acquaintance with evolution and with the masses of evidence that it’s not just a theory, but a fact.  Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species comes to mind, but it is outdated and written in turgid Victorian prose that is uncongenial to modern readers.  Future US leaders should read a short, popular work that lays out the evidence for evolution and dispels the spectres of creationism and intelligent design without dwelling on religion.  Sadly, no book fills this niche.  My attempt, Why Evolution is True (Viking, 2009), will be published only after the election.  Until then, I suggest Richard Dawkins’s brilliant exposition of natural selection.  If a presidential candidate doesn’t accept evolution after reading this book, there is no hope.

Interesting that Coyne ridicules the majority of Americans who believe in angels, while he believes in spectres.*  Too bad he didn’t get his little sermon book published in time for the election.  Anything he writes has a high probability of backfiring.  Who wants to bet that Why Evolution is True will showcase examples of microevolution, which is not controversial even among young-earth creationists, but will then extrapolate microevolution recklessly into molecules-to-man macroevolution?  Don’t hold your breath that Coyne will deal honestly with Darwin’s enigmas, like molecular machines, the origin of life, the fine-tuning of the universe, complex specified information in DNA, and the Cambrian Explosion.
    We hope several things are evident from this story: the lack of objectivity among scientific institutions; their far-leftist leanings (they adore Obama, who is the most liberal member of the Senate); their obstinate refusal to distinguish between intelligent design and creationism despite years of clarification by ID advocates; their illogical conflation of scientific literacy with acceptance of Darwinism; their identification of Darwinism and atheism with their political persuasion; their ability to lie with impunity in print about what ID leaders advocate in education; and the level of vitriol they can display toward religion.  They might barely tolerate a theistic evolutionist who prostrates himself before the Shrine of Darwin, but will explode in wrath against any member of the meaningless class labeled “People of Faith” who dares to suggest that a Designer (no matter how vaguely characterized) might interact with the world in any way.
    This is the way of the People of Froth (09/26/2005 commentary).  Add to that their pattern of refusing to publish opinions from the conservative or pro-ID side, and one has grounds to question their objectivity.  Isn’t objectivity a core value of science?  Where is it?  Is this how scientists and their institutions ought to behave?  Observe.  They exercise their political advocacy with the help of your tax money, but would forbid that freedom to ministers.
Next headline on:  Politics and Ethics • Religion and Theology • Education • Intelligent Design • Darwinism

---

*Coyne can’t get out of logic jail by accusing us of reifying his figure of speech.  He may not be calling creationism and intelligent design actual spectres (demonic spirits), but what are they if not concepts?  Concepts and angels are not made of particles.  He can’t assume matter in motion created everything, then turn around and judge concepts that require reference to matters of truth, knowledge, morality and logic.  These realms are not reduceable to particles.  Our Spectre Inspector, therefore, still finds Coyne guilty as charged: a hypocrite floudering in mid-air without a leg to stand on.

  Codes within codes: alternative gene splicing may be common, from 09/23/2005.

Fastest Squirt Gun in the Fungi   09/26/2008    
Sept 26, 2008 — A paper on PLoS One described the highest-speed flights in all nature: the spore discharge mechanisms in certain fungi.  A dozen scientists in Ohio worked to capture the action on ultra-high-speed cameras.  It took 250,000 frames per second to reveal how fast the projectiles accelerate.  The answer: from 20,000 to 180,000 g (where g = the acceleration of gravity).  One species launches its projectiles at almost 2 million meters per second squared – winning the title of “fastest recorded flights in nature.”
    In their introduction, they discussed the variety of ways that fungi disperse their spores.  Their language sounds downright military: “Mechanisms include a catapult energized by surface tension that launches mushroom spores, the explosive eversion of a pressurized membrane in the artillery fungus, and the discharge of squirt guns pressurized by osmosis.”  Well, maybe squirt guns are for kid’s playground battles, but army engineers might learn a few things from these lowly fungi.  That’s why the authors said the study of spore-discharge mechanisms has implications for biomimetics (the imitation of nature).  Who else would want to imitate this?
    The four species of fungi studied live on cow manure.  They need to launch their spores out far enough onto the grass so that cows will eat them and spread them around.  Each species has variations on the mechanism, but basically, the spores are ejected in a mass (either in a fluid or solid), within a sporangium, or capsule.  The sporangium usually separates during flight..  This trick, reminiscent of a spacecraft ejecting its cover after achieving orbit, allows the spores to minimize viscous drag on the ascent, then disperse on descent and landing.
    How are such superlative accelerations achieved?  The answer lies not only in the structure of the catapults, but in the viscosity of the specific sugars and ions in the spore capsules.  The liquids allow the build-up of 4.4 atmospheres of turgor pressure.  As the “pressurized squirt gun” undergoes a “controlled and rapid rupture,” almost none of the energy is lost to friction.  The “supremely fast movements” represent a “a series of remarkable feats of natural engineering,” they said.
    Engineers might be curious how these feats were designed.  Their answer was, simply, they “have evolved.”  The authors stated this twice: “A variety of spore discharge processes have evolved among the fungi,” and, “Squirt gun mechanisms are responsible for launching spores at the highest speeds and are most common in the Ascomycota, including lichenized species, but have also evolved among the Zygomycota.”

---

1.  Yafetto et al, “The Fastest Flights in Nature: High-Speed Spore Discharge Mechanisms among Fungi,” Public Library of Science ONE, 3(9): e3237 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003237.

It evolved because it evolved – this is the theory of evolution in a nutshell (see 05/25/2005).  This is sufficient to explain the origin of any feat of natural engineering.  It evolved.  Darwin sure simplified biology, didn’t he?  Scientists used to have to produce explanations the hard way, with logic and evidence.  Now, a simple two-word answer suffices for everything in the world that used to inspire awe, wonder, curiosity and motivation.
Next headline on:  Plants • Biomimetics • Evolution • Amazing Facts

The article did not mention evolution.  Here is another amazing fact, right under biologists’ noses, that was unknown till now.  If an observable, measurable phenomenon in the present can escape detection for so long, how can biologists speak so glibly about factors in mythical worlds millions of years ago?  How could a communication network among brainless plants evolve?  This was discovered by good old-fashioned field work.  Taxpayers donated funds for the research.  Darwin donated nothing.
Next headline on:  Plants • Amazing Facts

1. Light shields:  EurekAlert reported earlier this month problems with oxygen.  Ratios of oxygen isotopes in a meteorite are very different from those in all other solar system bodies, including the Earth, moon and Mars.  A leading theory that UV photoshielding would yield the anomalous ratios was tested and found to be wrong.  Did a nearby supernova seed the early nebula with the isotopes?  That’s too unlikely and ad hoc an explanation for most scientists.  One other theory is being tested, but the article was titled, “Theory of the sun’s role in formation of the solar system questioned.”
       Science Daily provided more detail.  One researcher for the Genesis mission, that collected samples of the solar wind, commented, “You can see the ratios of the isotopes brought back by Genesis, but that doesn’t tell you how they came about.  The isotope ratios themselves don’t tell you why they were different in the early universe than they are today, so there’s lots more science to do in the laboratory.”
2. Comet upsets:  Astrobiology Magazine reported on the surprise discovery that comets are not the pristine objects from the fringes of the solar system as was long thought (12/27/2007, 01/25/2008).  “Observations from this sample are changing our previous thinking and expectations about how the solar system formed,” a Stardust mission researcher said.  Models now have to worry about how material can migrate radially across the disk.  “This really complicates our simple view of the early solar system,” said another.  The apparent mixing of material near and far from the sun is “causing a revision of theories of the history of the solar system.”
       Science Daily agreed.  “Chemical clues from a comet’s halo are challenging common views about the history and evolution of the solar system and showing it may be more mixed-up than previously thought,” the subtitle read.  A Stardust team member explained, “They were originally hoping to find the raw material that pre-dated the solar system.  However, we found many crystalline objects that resemble flash-heated particles found in meteorites from asteroids.”  Such heating was supposed to be impossible beyond the “frost line.” a theoretical radius beyond which volatiles in the early solar system would have frozen into comets, never to heat up again till tugged toward the sun long after their formation.
3. Demolition derby:  Watching planets form would take a long time, but watching them get destroyed is quick and easy.  Space.com and Science Daily reported the collision of two Earth-like planets around a sunlike binary star 300 light-years away (an apocalyptic ending for any life there).  Benjamin Zuckerman of UCLA said, “Astronomers have never seen anything like this before.  Apparently, major catastrophic collisions can take place in a fully mature planetary system.”  Astronomy Picture of the Day posted the artwork of the proposed collision.  (Actually, the collision was inferred from dust, not witnessed.)
       OK, so planets destroy each other, but does this observation provide any evidence for how they form?  Not exactly; the article mentioned theories that our moon formed from a collision, and that the dinosaurs went extinct because of a collision.  They surmised that the planets that they think collided were in the final stages of its dust disk’s evolution.  But there seemed to be more surprise than confirmation of theory.  For one, they were surprised planets could form at all around a binary star.  For another, they were surprised to see a collision in such a mature system: “How do planetary orbits become destabilized in such an old, mature system, and could such a collision happen in our own solar system?” asked one.  The observations here seem to relate more directly to planetary destruction models, not planetary formation models.
4. Shooting gallery:  Last month, Science Daily reported on computer simulations at Northwestern University.  Results showed that our solar system is “pretty special” to have ended up with nice, stable rocky planets in nearly circular orbits inside the habitable zone.  Even assuming that planets can coalesce from a dust disk, most of the time wild things happen: the star eats up the planets, the large bodies fling the small bodies out of the system, and the remaining ones end up with elongated orbits that would prohibit life.  Out of a hundred runs on “very powerful computers,” none of the systems ended up like ours except under Goldilocks conditions – ones that were “just right.”  The senior author of the report commented on what they learned: “We ... know that the solar system is special and understand at some level what makes it special.”

What we see in the above examples are destructive processes, not creative ones.  The creative ones exist only in the minds of the scientists and in their contrived models.  It may make someone feel good to imagine worlds forming naturally.  It may conform with their world view: an evolving universe, full of evolving stars, with evolving planets, on which life emerges and evolves.  Everything happens naturally (whatever that ambiguous word means).  If it feels good, call it a belief.  Science, however, demands we stick with observations that are measurable and repeatable.  Thomas Kuhn would look at the number of anomalies in current models and predict a paradigm shift.  Sidney Harris would look at the number of miracles inserted into the models and draw a cartoon.
    There are numerous problems with solar system formation theories we have addressed before (e.g., 03/21/2006, 08/06/2004, 02/03/2004, 09/22/2003, 11/20/2002).  This time, notice primarily that there is no way to distinguish between whether we are seeing planets forming out of dust disks, or pre-existing planets grinding down into dust disks.  The latter would seem to comport better with well-known processes of thermodynamics and probability.  Dust particles lack the gravitational mass to accrete and grow.  It is much more plausible that disks erode into dust rather than self-assemble into planets.
    Simplistic models need not apply.  Chondrules, comets, and coincidences that make life possible must be explained with observation, measurement and repeatable experiments.  A model is not evidence.  One cannot assume what needs to be proved.  Let the scientific empiricist show his evidence; until then, we must classify planet formation theory what it is thus far: a belief, not a science.
Next headline on:  Solar System

Designed for Health   09/24/2008    
Sept 24, 2008 — Recent science reports on physiology and health contain suggestions of intelligent design as well as challenges to evolutionary theory.

1. “Amazingly elegant, amazingly precise and very complicated” kidneys:  Scientists studying the effects of hypertension on kidneys have found that ATP acts not only as an energy source but an extracellular messenger.  It’s involved in helping arterioles constrict to the right size in the glomeruli where the filtering of blood plasma takes place.  According to Science Daily, one team member who is “trying to figure out how this all fits together” was struck by the “amazingly elegant, amazingly precise and very complicated” processes involved.
2. Bee nice:  The thought of a bee sting makes us shiver, but honeybee venom contains a molecule scientists can use to study hypertension.  Science Daily reported that a molecule called terpianin can restrict the flow of potassium ions out of a particular membrane channel.  This may allow medicines to adjust the level of salt reabsorption by kidney cells, and thus treat high blood pressure.
3. Got stem cells?  Scientists have found a source of multipotent stem cells right on the cell walls of blood vessels.  Science Daily reported that these adult stem cells apparently have the “unlimited potential to differentiate into human tissues such as bone, cartilage and muscle.”  Advances in regenerative medicine are within sight with this discovery.  One researcher described what may be soon be possible: “These cells can be extracted easily and painlessly from convenient sources such as fat tissue, dental pulp, umbilical cord and placental tissue, then grown in culture to large numbers and, possibly, re-injected into the patient to heal a broken bone, a failing joint or an injured muscle.”  The ingredients have been right inside you all along.
4. Clear eyes:  “Every tissue has evolved unique adaptations that allow it to perform specialized functions.” began a paper in PNAS.¹  “Such adaptations are especially evident in the lens of the mammalian eye, where many of the usual cellular metabolic pathways have been sacrificed to achieve one overriding goal: transparency.”  The paper explained that one of the aquaporins (membrane water channels, 12/20/2001, 04/18/2002) in lens cells acts slower than others in its family.  That slow flow in aquaporin AQP0, though, has a function: “We hypothesize that the structural features leading to low permeability may have evolved in part to allow AQP0 to form junctions that both conduct water and contribute to the organizational structure of the fiber cell tissue and microcirculation within it, as required to maintain transparency of the lens.”

The references to evolution in the PNAS paper are useless.  As is so typical, the Darwinspeak provides only an aftermarket narrative gloss on the scientific content so as to preserve the philosophy of naturalism.  Evolution doesn’t perform any function in the body of scientific knowledge.  It’s like a tumor.  Human brains and science will be much healthier after undergoing a radical Darwinectomy.*
Next headline on:  Health • Human Body • Intelligent Design

---

*CEH radiation therapy, with its gentle non-invasive beams of truth, is known to be a relatively painless and effective alternative treatment for shrinking Darwin tumors, provided the patient continues exposure on a regular basis.

A reader wrote in: “I’d already had my radical Darwinectomy years ago.  But I can personally vouch for the ongoing medicinal benefits of regular doses of CEH radiation therapy to help purge any residual evolutionary cancer.  And it’s great for the heart, too (Proverbs 17:22).” – a PhD biologist in Australia who was a former atheist.

Neanderthals have always been treated like the poor relation in the human family.  From the recognition of the first partial skeleton from Feldhofer, Germany, in 1856, Neanderthals made scientists uneasy.  Initially they were viewed as too physically apelike to fit into Homo sapiens and too brutishly primitive to have been capable of modern human behavior.  Now, new information on Neanderthal adaptations has come from Gibraltar, an island where an adult Neanderthal cranium and pieces of a Neanderthal child’s skull were found previously.  As reported in this issue of PNAS, evidence from Vanguard and Gorham’s caves indicates that Neanderthals used unexpectedly modern and complex subsistence strategies.

Paleoanthropologists currently debate whether any set of attributes of material culture can distinguish between modern and archaic human behavior.  In particular, McBrearty and Brooks challenge the paradigm that there was an abrupt “human revolution” ~40,000 years ago in Europe that marked the invasion of modern humans and the onset of modern behavior (but see ref. 16 for another view).  In Gibraltar, Neanderthals and modern humans apparently shared similar or identical “modern” subsistence practices at ~28,000, yet Neanderthals were clearly outside of the range of morphological and genetic variability of modern humans.²  If behavior did not separate “us” (modern humans) from “them” (Neanderthals), what did?

The answers aren’t elusive at all.  It’s only evolutionary blinders that obscure the obvious to those who refuse to see.  Creationists aren’t surprised.  They feel vindicated
    The whole human evolution story is a farce.  Think about this, for starters: now that we know Neanderthals were the mental equivalents of modern humans, evolutionists would have us believe that these people lived among and hunted all the big mammals for over 100,000 years – ten times all recorded human history – and in all that time never learned to ride a horse (11/09/2007, 08/16/2008) or plant a farm or build a city.  Is that even remotely credible?  Even when “modern humans” showed up 30,000 years ago it supposedly took them 22,000 years to figure it out.  Does that match anything you know about our curious, inventive species?  In the Darwin paleofantasyland scenario (02/22/2008), some lucky mutation must have just switched on abstract language (02/21/2008), architecture and agriculture out of nowhere (02/22/2008), because archaeology shows these abilities full blown from the start.  Who can believe the evolutionary tales any longer?  Look how goofy they can get (see 05/29/2008, 05/02/2008, 10/28/2007).
    The next day after Shipman’s commentary, National Geographic News tried to do damage control.  Their article repeated the same fictional plot line, this time with feeling: “Neanderthals and modern humans are distinct species that split from a common ancestor several hundred thousand years ago.”  This was followed by “Test your Neanderthal knowledge with our online quiz,” which being interpreted, means, “Let’s make sure your indoctrination level is safe before we reveal the next admission.”  This was followed by an astonishing backtrack:

Why modern humans thrived and Neanderthals ultimately failed has long been a topic of scientific intrigue, and previous research had suggested that the ability to exploit marine resources was one of the defining characteristics for the success of modern humans.
    But the new research may eliminate sophisticated foraging skills from the list of potential advantages unique to humans.
    “I don’t think that the success of one or the other had to do with subsistence, with the way they hunted or fed,” Finlayson said.
    “There may be other factors coming into this, or it may just have been a question of luck.”

Emphasize that word intrigue (def: “to accomplish or force by crafty plotting or underhand machinations”).  Pay attention: this quote is a complete admission of ignorance.  “It could be this factor, it could be that factor, it could be Lady Luck”  (cf. 03/18/2008).  What kind of scientific explanation is that?  Attributing events to chance is no better than appealing to the Stuff Happens Law (see 09/15/2008 commentary).  A cartoon on EvidentCreation (2nd cartoon) illustrates the principle.  Ignorance is not science, even if you use the methods of science to explore the extent of your ignorance.  What does the word science mean?  Knowledge.  The know-nothings (02/22/2008) have no claim on science, white lab coats notwithstanding (cf. 05/06/2008).  The Darwin diviners (07/26/2008 commentary) only surpass the Babylonians in the sophistication of their ignorance.
    The BBC News tried to rescue a bad situation in their report with a quote from Chris Stringer [Natural History Museum, London]: “So there still is an element of superiority,” [Where!?]  “but it is a much more finely balanced one now” [What!?]  “This is yet another difference that had been proposed between Neanderthals and moderns which now disappears.”  That’s falsification, folks!  Where is that finely-balanced superiority they just talked about?  It just disappeared, along with their credibility.  Again, no remorse, and no repentance for their entrenched fossil racism.
    Live Science quoted Clive Finlayson of the Gibraltar Museum as a spoiler: “Deep down there is this idea that modern humans are cognitively superior and therefore able to outcompete Neanderthals.  I suppose we’ve thrown a bit of a spanner in the works by showing that Neanderthals were doing exactly the same thing.”  Of course, he wasn’t surprised, he said.  He’s been arguing for many years that Neanderthals “were as intelligent as modern humans with similar behaviors.”  OK, so how exactly are the Darwinians supposed to run that flag up the pole?  Big help he is.  This is the same guy who told NG the modern humans won out by chance – not by natural selection.  This abandons any grounds for making human evolution a theory based on laws of nature; it reduces to the Stuff Happens Law.
    The rest of National Geographic’s too-little-too-late article resorts to the usual evolutionist misdirection tactic of handing out promissory notes for evolutionary futureware:

To resolve the issue, Marean recommends a systematic comparison of Neanderthal and human seafood collection at sites with similar availability.
    “Were Neanderthals [exploiting seafood] like we expect they would if they were modern?  And if they weren’t, then the question is: Why?” he said.
    “We could be getting into something interesting there, for sure.”

Veddyyy inteddesting, yah, foor shoor.  Do you get angry at admissions like this?  You should.  Think how much damage has been done by the Neanderthal myth.  For over a century, school children have been indoctrinated into a vision that Neanderthals were some kind of pre-modern, human-but-not-quite product of evolution that the superior moderns (like us and the Europeans) knocked out of the race.  Countless posters, artist reconstructions, museum dummies and TV specials have told and re-told this myth for decades.  National Geographic Magazine has been one of the worst repeat offenders.  Where is their shame?  Any sign of remorse?  None whatsoever.  They still portray their organization as a beacon of scientific knowledge, leading us into a glorious future of understanding our origins.
    Neanderthal Man was one of the last in the famous parade of hominids leading to the ultimate product, us.  The iconic evolutionary march of progress to Thoroughly Modern Man (and Millie) has been the subject of countless cartoons.  But it’s not funny.  This has been bad science.  It has been perpetrated with an agenda to make evolutionary philosophy appear scientific.  Now, after all that propaganda, they ask, if behavior did not separate “us” from “them,” what did?  The answer is obvious.  Nothing!
    Imagine the myths that could have been spun with the bones of living humans from differing parts of the world.  Put a Watusi skeleton next to an Eskimo in the Museum of Man, and just imagine the yarns you could spin.  That is basically what has happened here.  Extreme members of the same species have been put side by side, and a fictional fable has been foisted on the unsuspecting for over a century.  Long ago it was noted that you could give a shave and a suit to a Neanderthal Man, have him walk down a New York sidewalk, and nobody would notice, even without the shave.
    It’s not science that led culture down this primrose path.  It was the Darwinians – those usurping materialists who have a psychological need to force every bit of evidence into a moyboy (09/16/2005) scheme of progress from particles to people via mindless, undirected, purposeless natural processes of evolution.  They are a blight on science.  Real scientists, who find cures for disease and peer into the workings of the cell, and explore space and seek to understand the laws of physics and chemistry that bring us technological advances – God bless them all – owe nothing to these pretenders.  Like parasites, the Darwinians sap the resources of their host and use it for their own advantage.  And did you notice?  These are the same people who most vehemently breathe fire against the scientists who actually have the resources to explain the origin of life and human history (the creationists).
    Let this fact melt into the folds of your cerebrum: the Darwinians were wrong again for 150 years! – just like they have been wrong about the origin of life, the fossil record, and the genetic code.  What major discovery did not hit them like a complete surprise? (the DNA code, the complexity of the cell, Mendel’s laws, the Cambrian explosion, living fossils, “convergent evolution” everywhere, to name a few examples).  What prediction did they make that has not been falsified? (e.g., molecular phylogeny, ease of self-assembly of molecules into a cell, unlimited genetic variation, evolution of the horse, life on Mars, and much more – read the back issues).  Their scientific theory is all vaporware and futureware.  Their scientific method is just-so storytelling (02/22/2008).  Their list of scientific accomplishments is a list of failures and deflated hype – a growing midden of discarded ideas, piling up and stinking to high heaven.  Their scientific legacy is a ghastly record of intolerance, arrogance, destructive doctrines and crimes against humanity.  How can real scientists stand being associated with these incorrigible miscreants?  (miscreant, n., adj.: depraved, behaving badly, scoundrel, reprobate.)  What have they done for you lately, you true scientists out there?  They are destroying your good reputation.
    Take Darwin and evolution and the Victorian myth of progress out of the 19th century, and what might have happened?  Creationists would have looked at the robust skeletons dug up from the field of Christian hymnwriter Joachim Neander (see 10/26/2001), and interpreted them as fully human without a blink.  Creationist historians would have fit them into Biblical history after Babel, looking into the Table of Nations for clues.  Creationist geneticists would have recognized the propensity for exaggeration of features with inbreeding of family groups.  Creationist anatomists (like Jack Cuozzo) would theorize that the skeletons represented long-lived humans, just like the Bible said existed around the time of the Flood.  Creationist geologists would have not been misled by myths about humans evolving from apes over millions of years, and so would have felt no pressure to fit these humans into a long, stretched-out timeline.  Creationist anthropologists would not have called it “startling” to find them using the same hunting and subsistence strategies as other tribes at Gibraltar.  Who would have been more correct?  Who would have felt more comfortable with the evidence?  The fate of the evolutionist is to be constantly startled by facts that don’t fit their plot line.
    Stop calling our ancient dead forebears Neanderthals – they were people.  Stop the “us” vs “them” racist rhetoric; they were our brothers.  This final collapse of the evolutionary Neanderthal Myth should arouse a call for accountability.  Americans are all up in arms right now about high-profile managers of money funds who mismanaged affairs terribly, causing major economic catastrophes, yet profited by their misdeeds to the tune of tens of millions of dollars in salaries and pensions.  The evolutionists should pay for what they have done.  It’s time to defrock them of their white lab coats, charge them with impersonating a scientist (09/30/2007) and send them packing.  Don’t let them say that science is marching on and correcting itself.  This was a painful, totally unnecessary, 150-year detour.  Don’t let them say more research will figure it out.  They cannot be trusted any more.  Don’t let them say this is just how science works.  Science is supposed to be a search for the truth.  Don’t let them say this was just an academic correction.  It seduced the minds of millions of school children.  It destroyed people’s faith.  It was all lies, lies, lies!  Citizens who love science should get really angry right about now.
    Channel that righteous anger into constructive action – like cleaning house at the Science Academy.  One effective method is to cut off the flow of money for evolutionary research and other oxymorons.
Next headline on:  Early Man • Fossils • Dating Methods • Evolutionary Theory

Abscission is a physiological process that involves the programmed separation of entire organs, such as leaves, petals, flowers, and fruit.  Abscission allows plants to discard nonfunctional or infected organs, and promotes dispersion of progeny.  At the cellular level, abscission is the hydrolysis of the middle lamella of an anatomically specialized cell layer, the abscission zone (AZ), by cell wall-modifying and hydrolyzing enzymes.  Thus, abscission requires both the formation of the AZ early in the development of a plant organ and the subsequent activation of the cell separation response.

Multiple gene products, including potential signaling ligands, membrane receptors, protein kinase cascades, regulators of hormone responses, and transcription factors have been implicated in the regulation of abscission in plants.  We have demonstrated, by several different lines of evidence, that there is a signaling cascade (Fig. 5B), from putative ligand (IDA) to receptors (HAE HSL2) to cytoplasmic effectors (MKK4, MKK5, MPK3, and MPK6), which function together to control cell separation during abscission.  Additional gene products are also likely to play important roles in abscission and the relationships between them and the signaling pathway outlined here remain to be determined.  However, based on the genetic interactions between IDA, HAE, HSL2, MKK4, and MKK5, it seems that this core signaling cascade is an important regulator of floral abscission.

The autumn leaves drift by my window,
The autumn leaves of red and gold;
I dream of genes and MAPK modules,
Of signal pathways yet scarcely told.

When evolutionists continue to proclaim glib generalities about how plants evolved this and animals evolved that, it’s essential to look in detail at some of the structures and processes they’re talking about.  Even something as common as leaf fall is not simple.  The plant has to sense the time of year.  It has to signal the nucleus to translate genes and produce the right proteins in the right quantities.  These form a cascade of signals, with feedback loops, that instigate changes in cell adhesion.  The right cells have to start separating in the right order.  Simultaneously, the photosynthetic organs have to shut down.  The changes in pigments have to be expressed to provide plant protection (10/27/2007).  The stems have to weaken so the leaves will drop only when the plant has enough resources for the coming winter.  These are just a few considerations behind the programmed, coordinated, environmentally-responsive genetic program devoted just to this one operation.
    The PhysOrg article tried to explain why leaves fall.  “Aged leaves, for example, may be shed to facilitate the recycling of nutrients, ripening fruits dropped to promote seed dispersal and infected or diseased floral organs discarded to prevent the spread of disease.”  Whoa... that’s teleology-talk.  Stop right there on that first suggestion.  How could a tree plan its own recycling program?  After the leaves have dropped, the nutrients are gone.  They’re lying on the ground.  it doesn’t make any sense to say that the plant facilitated a recycling program, nor that it was trying to promote its own seed dispersal, or trying to prevent the spread of disease.  The plant is a brainless machine programmed with these functions.  If you don’t believe computers can emerge and program themselves, then plants cannot do such things, either.  Such subtle personification fallacies are ubiquitous in evolutionary literature.  Plants do these things because they were programmed to do them.
    Many questions remain.  How does the whole plant know to change color all at once?  Since abscission also relates to fruit and seed dispersal, how does the abscission program know when the seed ripening program has completed?  How do the stems on maple seeds loosen at precisely the time when the seeds, that work like marvelous propellers in the wind, are ready to fly?  Let’s teach our kids to see beyond the surface properties of nature into its marvelous secrets.  This is good inoculation against dogmas that would have them believe complex programmed operations just happen.
    Suggested visual resources: Journey of Life and Wonders of God’s Creation from Moody Video, and Incredible Creatures that Defy Evolution from Exploration Films.  Or, take a walk in the woods for a 360-degree, surround-sound demonstration.
Next headline on:  Plants • Genetics • Amazing Facts

Questioning Earth’s Privileges   09/20/2008    
Sept 20, 2008 — Two articles this week downplayed considerations that would make the Earth seem like a special place in the universe.  Both have ties to NASA.
    Are life-friendly stars limited to a narrow band in the galaxy called the Galactic Habitable Zone (GHZ)?  NASA-supported Astrobiology Magazine cast doubt on the idea.  Citing a study by a doctoral student at the University of Washington, the article claims stars can migrate in the galactic disk and end up at radial distances very far from where they formed.  If that is true, it must not be a requirement for a star to be in the GHZ to obtain the heavy elements necessary for rocky planets and life.
    The article does not mention the work of Guillermo Gonzalez (a former U of Washington assistant professor) who proposed the GHZ, but references at the end of the article point to a 2001 entry on Astrobiology Magazine that entertained his GHZ hypothesis as a “very, very interesting idea.”  Since then, many remember, Gonzalez was “expelled” from Iowa State (05/22/2007, bullet 5), for his involvement with the intelligent design movement – in particular, his co-authorship of an ID book The Privileged Planet (06/24/2004) and appearance in a documentary of the same name.
    Gonzalez never suggested that the radial extent of the GHZ was well constrained.  In Privileged Planet, he used it as just one of many cosmic “coincidences” that suggest the universe is designed to permit scientific discovery.
    On a related subject, Edna DeVore asked on Space.com “How rare is the Earth?”  She didn’t answer the question.  Instead, as co-investigator for the upcoming Kepler mission that will search for earth-like planets, she encouraged citizens to write NASA an email that will be placed on the spacecraft.  Anyone can submit a 500-word statement about the search for planets like Earth”  DeVore (who is also Director of Education and Outreach for the SETI Institute) did not mention anything about Johannes Kepler, for whom the mission is named.  Though interested in the possibility of other inhabited worlds, Kepler was a strong Protestant Christian who would most likely have stood with Gonzalez arguing that our world was intelligently designed.

This new NASA propaganda article is a weak response to the GHZ hypothesis.  For one thing, it is a half-truth as a counter-argument.  The abundance of heavy elements only applied to the outer edge of the GHZ.  The inner edge may have plenty of heavy elements, but it has other problems – radiation, collisions and no clear view of the cosmos.  In addition, the article did nothing to constrain the locales where a star could get its heavy elements.  Presumably there is still a GHZ outside of which stars could not gather enough heavy elements for rocky planets.
    Even if one were to grant that stars can migrate radially, it does not eliminate or reduce the argument for intelligent design of the Earth.  Assume for the moment the evolutionist’s timeline and origin stories.  One has to ask why our planet’s location just “happens” to be at a prime location between the spiral arms for an unobstructed view of the distant universe just in time for the rise of modern science to take advantage of the situation.
    The GHZ argument is not a clincher by itself.  It is one of a number of independent evidences that collectively point to the reasonableness of the design explanation.  Watch the film to see how the combined evidence makes a compelling case that even materialists like Paul Davies and Robert Jastrow could not ignore.
    DeVore needs to watch it, too.  She parroted the typical Copernican myth: “It’s been about four centuries since Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo began to displace the Earth from the center of the universe,” she claimed.  “Less than one hundred years ago, we discovered that the sun was not near the center either, and that the Milky Way galaxy was just one of billions of galaxies and that the universe has no center.”  Not only is this a misrepresentation of the views of three great Christian theists, it is a distortion of the Copernican revolution.  Watch the film and you will learn why.
Next headline on:  Solar System • Stars and Galaxies • Cosmology • SETI • Intelligent Design

Makes perfect sense.  Conservatives are more likely to be alert, sober, clothed and in their right minds.  That’s why the liberal participants were cool and loose with scientists wasting their tax money on dumb projects.
Next headline on:  Politics and Ethics • Dumb Ideas

Ant What it Used to Be   09/18/2008    
Sept 18, 2008 — A new species of subterranean ant discovered in Brazil is so weird, biologists have classified it as the sole representative of a new subfamily.  The alien creature has been whimsically named Martialis heureka: “the ant from Mars.”  An article about it in Nature News said, “It adds a new branch to the ant family tree which split off from the others extremely early in the family’s evolution.”  Trouble is, it doesn’t look anything like a wasp, from which ants supposedly evolved (see picture on National Geographic).
    This has thrown ideas of ant evolution into a bit of a quandary.  Christian Rabeling, the discoverer, found that this ant did not fit into the existing taxonomy.  Scientists are calling this a relict species of a sister family they have named Martialis.  The original paper in PNAS says, “On the basis of morphological and phylogenetic evidence we suggest that these specialized subterranean predators are the sole surviving representatives of a highly divergent lineage that arose near the dawn of ant diversification and have persisted in ecologically stable environments like tropical soils over great spans of time.”  That makes it essentially a living fossil.  “Like the duck-billed platypus is to mammals,” explained Nature News, “it’s clearly a cousin to other ants, yet a weird and ancestral version that took its own evolutionary direction early on.”  This must be what the title of the paper means when it says the discovery “sheds light on early ant evolution.”
    A look inside the paper, though, reveals a few problems with the confident assertions about evolution:

A robust phylogeny is indispensable for elucidating the evolutionary origin of ants and for exploring the selective forces that have produced their extraordinary specializations.  Previously published studies, however, led to contradicting views of early ant evolution, in part because of high levels of morphological convergence, the secondary loss of characters, and a lack of informative paleontological data.  As a result, numerous taxa have been proposed as the most basal lineage.

Our phylogenetic analyses, combined with the inferred biology of M.  heureka, suggest that the most basal extant ant lineages are cryptic, hypogaeic foragers, rather than wasp-like, epigaeic foragers (Fig. 3).  This finding is congruent with recent molecular studies, which previously suggested the Leptanillinae, another subfamily of subterranean predators, to be sister lineage to all extant ants.  This result has puzzled ant systematists for two reasons.  First, Wilson et al.’s classic study of the Mesozoic amber ant Sphecomyrma postulated that the ancestral ant was a large-eyed, wasp-like, ground forager, creating a strong expectation that the most basal extant ant lineages would also be epigaeic foragers, presumably similar to Sphecomyrma.  Second, the Leptanillinae [blind foragers in Africa] share common morphological and behavioral characteristics with the Amblyoponinae, implying the monophyly of this group.  In contrast, our results and recent molecular systematic studies suggest that blind, subterranean, specialized predators, like Martialis, the Leptanillinae, and some poneroids, evolved early during ant diversification.  We hypothesize, that once these hypogaeic predators adapted to their specialized subterranean environment, their morphology and biology changed little over evolutionary time because their hypogaeic habitat has likely been ecologically stable and provided a refuge from competition with other, more recently evolved, ants.  It is important to note that no definitive statement about the morphology and life history of the ancestral, Mesozoic ant can be derived from our current knowledge about the surviving basalmost ant lineages, because the relative probabilities of evolutionary transitions between epigaeic and hypogaeic habits are uncertain.

We can suggest some other studies of other groups where evolutionists could import this lesson: how about the Monera, Protista, Fungi, Plantae and Animalia? (the five kingdoms of taxonomy).
    The discoverers put their weird little ant in a jar, but maybe the scientists need to be put in one, because Martialis “jars us out of going with our familiar conceptions,” Cover said.  While they’re safely in a jar out of harm’s way (unable to harm us, that is), let’s hunt for more rainforest species with great evolutionary importance.  Jarring evolutionists is fun.  Every new discovery jars them into realizing their neat little schemes are wrong.  They’re like blind hypogaeic foragers, digging around in their own dirt, thinking every new surprise is shedding light on evolution.
    That phrase – “Shed[ding] light on evolution” – yields thousands of hits on Google.  We’ve examined dozens of those claims right here.  Can you remember one that has turned up a single photon?  The truth is they are walking in a darkness of their own making.  The light they need to see is the flashing red stop light next to the “Wrong Way” sign they missed back in 1859.
Next headline on:  Terrestrial Zoology • Evolutionary Theory

Is Dinosaur Diversity an Artifact of Headline-Hunting?   09/17/2008    
Sept 17, 2008 — Many dinosaurs classed as different species are actually the same animal with different names, a publication of the Royal Society announced.  Read two news reports on this, however, and you will get two different opinions about how serious the problem is.
    Rex Dalton in Nature News sounded the alarm: “One hundred and thirty-five years of questionable judgments, some driven by a lust for headlines, have left dinosaur nomenclature in disarray, according to two new studies.”  His article, “In search of Thingummyjigosaurus,” claims that nearly half the names given to dinosaurs have errors.  “The high error rate is not just a problem for fossil hunters; it is a warning that scientists should take extra precautions when identifying new species as they assess modern biodiversity, too, says [Michael] Benton.”  Benton [U of Bristol], author of one of the studies, said “It is a bit scary” to think that there are so many misnamed species.  16% of dinosaur names are duplicates, the study found, and another 32% have other classification problems.
    The BBC News downplayed the seriousness of the problems.  It says most of the errors were made by self-promoting headline seekers in the early years of dinosaur hunting; “My research suggests we’re getting better at naming things; we’re being more critical; we’re using better material,” Benton told the BBC.  Another source of error has been the fragmentary nature of the evidence.  Paleontologists often have to classify a fossil based on just a hip or leg bone or vertebra.  In spite of these difficulties, “modern practice is now very good,” the BBC claimed.
    Still, the BBC acknowledged that the ramifications of bad classification can be serious.  “There’s no point somebody such as myself doing big statistical analyses of numbers of dinosaur species through time – or indeed any other fossil group – if you can’t be confident that they really are genuinely different,” Benton told the BBC.  Accuracy is important for all biodiversity studies.  “People have also been looking at our current knowledge of mammals and insects and other animal groups and asking the simple question: are the species totals and lists we use for important conclusions – including to give political advice about endangered species – are they correct?” Benton asked.  “There’s been a big debate about vast extinctions among amphibians.  We have to know what the species are first, before we can talk about that.”

This is the inverse of a long-lost cartoon.  A museum curator in Mexico shows a patron the skull of Montezuma.  Another smaller skull nearby prompts a question about whose it was.  “That,” the curator announces confidently, “is the skull of Montezuma as a little boy.”  There was a case of classifying two individuals as one man.  This is a case of classifying like objects as different species.  Think of the fun they could have with dogs and cats.
    Classification is a human game.  Classification can have impact on human psyches and politics.  Remember that when you see a Thingummyjigosaurus in the museum, it might just be a Artifactofnomenclaturasaurus by another name.  But make no mistake.  That Bullfrogus headlineus in the path of construction is an endangered species.  Quick, pass a law!
Next headline on:  Dinosaurs • Politics and Ethics