Dinosaur Blood Protein, Cells Recovered 04/30/2009
A controversial finding that protein fragments can be recovered from dinosaur fossils has been replicated for the first time. Two years ago, Mary Schweitzer, a paleontologist at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, and colleagues stunned the paleontology community when they reported discovering intact protein fragments in a fossil from a Tyrannosaurus rex that died 68 million years ago. The claim has remained contentious, because proteins in tissue normally degrade quickly after an animal dies. On page 626, however, Schweitzer and colleagues report finding an even larger number of protein fragments from an 80-million-year-old fossil from a duck-billed dinosaur, or hadrosaur, known as Brachylophosaurus canadensis.Service went on to say that Collagen, the principal protein in connective tissue, is rarely found in fossils more than a few hundred thousand years old. Taking five as a few, that means this discovery would require believing it has lasted 160 times as long.
In response to criticisms of the 2005 paper, Schweitzers team took extra care in the extraction and analysis of the specimen. They used sterilized instruments to extract the bone samples and rushed them to the lab in sealed jars. Two independent groups analyzed the samples. Both groups then independently performed biochemical and antibody-binding studies that showed evidence of collagen as well as laminin and elastin, two proteins found in blood vessels, Service reported. In addition, two independent teams used better mass spectrometry methods, and both confirmed the presence of collagen. One of the specialists, John Asara of Harvard Medical School, said, This proves the first study was not a one-hit wonder.
What will critics say now? Service ended by quoting Martin McIntosh of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, a critic of the first study. McIntosh appeared uneasy with the implications. Im not saying its true, he said, holding out hope for an alternate explanation. But I cannot right now make a plausible argument that its not true. He added, The door is closing on plausible alternatives.
The original paper primarily documented the details of the extraction and analysis. Chris Organ (Harvard) also performed a phylogenetic analysis, indicating enough primary material was available for comparison. Despite the press releases confidence that the proteins showed a link to birds, the data presented in the paper was more ambiguous and required some tweaking to produce a tree.3 That, however, is what Science seemed to emphasize, stating in the summary that Analysis of well-preserved tissues from an 80-million-year-old hadrosaur supports the dinosaur-bird relationship.
Heres how the original paper ended its announcement of replicated results that show the material is endogenous (original with the bone). With appropriate scientific caution, they listed the evidence pointing to the confirmation of the hypothesis that the protein fragments once were part of a living dinosaur:
The hypothesis that endogenous proteins can persist across geological time, as first reported for T. rex (MOR 1125), was met with appropriate skepticism. However, the inclusion of additional sequence data from extant reptiles and B. canadensis strengthens the hypothesis that the molecular signal is preserved at least to the Late Cretaceous.The paper also includes photographs of structures that resemble cells. While they were cautious not to call them cells, they sure look like the real thing. They used various lines of evidence to rule out bacterial contamination.4 This indicates the protein studied with mass spectrometry was not relegated to isolated fragments, but was retained in original cellular structures. Were these cells really 80 million years old?
1. Schweitzer, Zheng, Organ, Avci, Sui, Freimark, Lebleu, Duncan, Vander Heiden, Neveu, Lane, Cottrell, Horner, Cantley, Kalluri and Asara, Biomolecular Characterization and Protein Sequences of the Campanian Hadrosaur B. canadensis, Science, 1 May 2009: Vol. 324. no. 5927, pp. 626-631, DOI: 10.1126/science.1165069c.
2. Robert F. Service, Paleontology: Protein in 80-Million-Year-Old Fossil Bolsters Controversial T. rex Claim, Science, 1 May 2009: Vol. 324. no. 5927, p. 578, DOI: 10.1126/science.324_578.
3. Excerpt from (1): Under a majority-rule criterion to building a consensus tree, Dinosauria (the group containing the two extinct dinosaurs and the two birds) collapsed into a three-way polytomy. Removing T. rex from the phylogeny resulted in a three-way polytomy as well. The amount of missing data in B. canadensis and T. rex sequences relative to extant samples resulted in relatively low resolution within Dinosauria, but even so, the phylogenetic relationship of recovered B. canadensis sequences supports the species placement within Archosauria, closer to birds than Alligator. However, on the basis of well-established morphological analyses, we predict that T. rex is more closely related to birds than it is to the ornithischian hadrosaur B. canadensis. Despite ambiguity within Dinosauria, obvious phylogenetic signal resides within recovered collagen sequences, supporting endogeneity (fig. S11).
4. Ovoid red cells with long filipodia, similar in morphology to extant osteocytes, were embedded in or associated with white matrix (Fig. 1J and fig. S1) or vessels (Fig. 1H). In some cases, these were attached by their filipodia to adjacent cells (Fig. 1J, inset), forming an interconnecting network as in extant bone. The cells contain internal microstructures suggestive of nuclei. Red filipodia extend from cell bodies into the white fibrous matrix (Fig. 1J and fig. S1), reflecting original chemical differences at submicron levels between cells and matrix and inconsistent with recent microbial invasion (7). Under FESEM (10), B. canadensis osteocytes and filipodia (Fig. 1K) are similar in morphology, surface texture, and size to extant ostrich osteocytes isolated from bone digests (Fig. 1L) (1, 2, 13, 14).
It sounds like this will clinch the case. Theres no way this blood protein could be 80 million years old. The evolutionists are just saying it is because they cannot bear the thought of recent dinosaurs causing their millions of years scenario to come crashing down. Without the millions of years, Darwinism is dead, dead, dead.Artificial nose works better with mucus, from 04/30/2007.
Are Secular Geologists Ready to Consider a Global Flood? 04/30/2009
The prolonged nature of the Spokane Flood controversy arose in part because of the adherence of many geologists to substantive and epistemological presumptions of uniformitarianism (see sidebar) that were erroneously thought to underpin their science (Baker 1998). According to a common, mistaken application of the uniformitarian principle, cataclysmic processes, like those responsible for the origin of the Channeled Scabland, were considered to be unsuitable topics for scientific investigation. To counter this presumption of uniformitarianism, Bretz could only provide meticulously described field evidence for inspection by those willing to seriously consider it. The eventual triumph of his hypothesis, against its initially antagonistic reception, set the stage for the resurgence of a new understanding of geological catastrophism, which is perhaps most prominent today in the acknowledged role of impact cratering in Earths history.Baker has just said that the majority consensus can be wrong for decades because of worldview bias, or epistemological presumptions (i.e., presuppositions about what we know and how we know it). These presumptions do not arise from the scientific evidence, but in spite of it: Bretz had the evidence, but his colleagues refused to see it, because in their worldview, such topics were unsuitable ... for scientific investigation. This is not a discovery from science. It is a statement of philosophy about science. In the sidebar on uniformitarianism to which Baker referred, he said this:
Uniformitarianism is a regulative principle or doctrine in geology that unfortunately sometimes conflates (a) the pragmatic application of modern process studies to understanding the past (actualism) with (b) substantive presumptions that deny effectiveness to cataclysmic events. As recognized by William Whewell, who invented the term, meaning b is contrary to the logic of science (Baker 1998).2(For information about Whewell, see the June 2007 Scientist of the Month.) Most of Bakers paper reviews the evidence in the Channeled Scablands for a megaflood when Lake Missoula breached its ice dam, sending a million cubic feet of water per second towards the Pacific. The evidence includes coulees, cataracts, gravel fans and bars, streamlined residual hills and islands, giant current ripples in the shape of dunes, and large isolated boulders. He discussed the high-energy processes that left this evidence: vertical vortices (kolks), plucking and cavitation, bedrock erosion and transport. The scabland megaflooding exhibited phenomenal sediment transport capability, as evidenced by the boulders that were entrained by the flow, he said. He showed a picture of an 18m boulder that was transported 10 km by the raging waters. The car beside the rock looks small by comparison.
What is the lesson of J Harlen Bretz and the Spokane Flood controversy? Baker discussed this in the ending paragraphs, entitled, Megafloods as Global Planetary Phenomena. Have geologists been misapplying uniformitarian presumptions, ignoring evidence for megafloods all around them, on the earth and even on Mars?
Bretz thought the landforms of the Channeled Scabland to be unique (Bretz 1928a). Nowhere in the world is there known or suspected, he wrote (Bretz 1959, p. 56), a story at all comparable to what we read from the scabland forms. He reasoned that its uniqueness might make his Spokane Flood hypothesis more acceptable to those who held to the generalization that landscapes are created by the prolonged action of noncataclysmic processes. In recent years, however, cataclysmic flood landscapes with many similarities to the Channeled Scabland have increasingly been documented in many parts of the world (Baker 1997, 2002, 2007). Spectacular examples of GCRs [giant current ripples] are found in central Asia (Baker et al. 1993, Carling 1996, Rudoy 2005), along with immense gravel bars and scour marks (Rudoy & Baker 1993, Carling et al. 2002, Herget 2005). Megaflood streamlined hill morphologies occur in the glacial lake spillway channels of central North America (Kehew & Lord 1986) and on the floor of the English Channel (Gupta et al. 2007). Most surprising to Bretz, however, would be the discovery of scabland-like morphologies on Mars (Baker & Milton 1974; Baker 1982, 2001; Komatsu & Baker 2007).What should future geologists do? Baker ended by discussing future challenges to understanding the Channeled Scablands. One problem, for instance, is that the volume of water stored in hypothetical Lake Missoula seems insufficient to account for the indicated levels of maximum inundation throughout the Channeled Scabland and adjacent area. One possibility is subglacial outburst flooding from under the Cordilleran Ice Sheet, he suggested. Details aside, Baker had a concluding remark about bold hypotheses, the nature of scientific inquiry and understanding, and the need to think outside the box:
In retrospect, studies of the Channeled Scabland might be viewed as concerned with the unique origins of a single landscape. However, this remarkable landscape was not studied to test a preexisting hypothesis or theory (e.g., erosion and deposition by high-energy megaflooding). Instead, discoveries about the Channeled Scabland are leading scientific inquiry to the recognition of what can now be seen as related phenomena, such that a completely new theory is required. The resulting rich set of research opportunities traces back to a single imaginative hypothesis proposed in the 1920s by J Harlen Bretz. Though these opportunities may now be pursued with techniques that to Bretz would have seemed almost magical, the most important pathway to advancing understanding remains that which is best exemplified by Bretzs most lasting contribution: informed and insightful geological fieldwork.
1. Baker, VR. The Channeled Scabland: A Retrospective. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences. Vol. 37: 393-411 (Volume publication date May 2009; doi:10.1146/annurev.earth.061008.134726).
2. Baker VR. 1998. Catastrophism and uniformitarianism: Logical roots and current relevance. In Lyell: The Past Is the Key to the Present, ed. DJ Blundell, AC Scott, Spec. Publ. 143, pp. 171–82. London: Geol. Soc.
Hallelujah! A secular geologist finally gets it. Geological science is not always driven by evidence, but by presumptions. This is one of the most remarkable papers from a secular journal in recent memory. It contains lessons for history of science, philosophy of science, rhetoric of science, and the interplay of logic and empiricism.Evolution: A Theory in Revision 04/29/2009
April 29, 2009 Evolution is not so much a fact of nature that Darwin discovered, as it is a framework for interpreting evidence. Within that framework are many subplots that can be overturned without falsifying the framework. Here are some recent examples:
Darwin pulled a sneaky coup. By making evolution a broad, all-encompassing framework instead of a scientific theory, he instituted a school of interpretation (the Great Society for Storytellers, 12/22/2003 commentary), immune from falsification. Now, his disciples can chant evolution is a fact even when the facts militate against it. We think facts should matter.Tip link: Mr. Wilsons conversion to atheism and back again, on New Statesman. Notice how central Darwinism was to his inner debate over God. Watch for the word superstitious. Share this with some friend who thinks Christopher Hitchens is a wise man.
The Long Precambrian Fuse Gets Longer 04/28/2009
In terms of the evolution of major taxa, the most significant information to come out of the Vindhyan phosphorites is the detailed 3-dimensional morphologic evidence for late Paleoproterozoic multicellular eukaryotes (filamentous algae). Previously accepted multicellular eukaryotes were only known from the late Mesoproterozoic or early Neoproterozoic (i.e., some 400– 600 million years later), although some older discoveries had at least suggested the possibility that they had a longer prehistory.
1. Bengtson, Belivanova, Rasmussen, and Whitehouse, The controversial Cambrian fossils of the Vindhyan are real but more than a billion years older, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, published online before print April 24, 2009, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0812460106.
How credible is it to think that eukaryotes could not come up with anything more than tube-like colonies for a billion years, then bang! trilobites, worms, crustaceans, jellyfish, and all the major animal body plans in a geological instant? Evolution is supposed to be this inexorable force for innovation that invented mammals, birds, flying insects and all the other wonders of nature in far, far less time than that. The real mystery here is how Darwinism survives wave after wave of falsification. The propensity of evolutionists to snow the public with their implausible, fictional, ad hoc, speculative, imaginative, self-contradictory plot lines to rescue their theory from the evidence deserves condemnation. Dont let them get away with their pretensions of scholarship when defending absurdities. The integrity of science is at stake.Hominid claim is more philosophy than fossil, from 04/27/2006.
Mooning the Public: Life Sells 04/27/2009
What Emily didnt mention is that a significant quantity of ice escapes Iapetus during each 30-year orbit. There should not be any left after billions of years: in fact, even with generous estimates of the original ice, scientists can only make it last for 1/3 of the solar systems assumed age (05/05/2008). The article also mentioned the possibility of rings around Rhea (which shouldnt exist, 03/10/2008), and the possible detection of plasma around Dione and Tethys, which also should not exist (04/18/2007, 06/16/2007). These are much more significant actual findings and should have been more newsworthy than tantalizing speculations about life under Enceladus. For a catalog of age problems throughout the solar system, see the Resource of the Week described below.Is the solar system billions of years old? Did it form naturally from a spinning gas cloud? You may have been told that, but Spike Psarris has accumulated an eye-opening catalog of problems with secular theories of the solar system in his new DVD documentary, What You Arent Being Told About Astronomy: Volume 1, Our Created Solar System. Psarris, an engineer with graduate work in physics, says he went into the military space program as an atheist and evolutionist, but came out a Christian and young-earth creationist (see Creation Wiki). His new DVD, available on a new website CreationAstronomy, tours the entire solar system and uncovers dozens of problems with the standard billions-of-years, emergence-of-design-out-of-debris picture. Of particular interest are his references to secular astronomers rescuing devices for saving their evolutionary theories from the data especially the ever-ready solution to everything, asteroid impacts. Mr. Psarris speaks with clarity and accuracy as he narrates your tour of the planets. The video is amply adorned with stunning images from the space program. You can watch two chapters (20 minutes) of this attractive video on CreationAstronomy and order the entire 105-minute DVD for $19.
Missing Links Found: Walking Seal, Teen Tyrannosaur 04/23/2009
1. Natalia Rybczynski, Mary R. Dawson, and Richard H. Tedford, Nature 458, 1021-1024 (23 April 2009) | doi:10.1038/nature07985.
2. Makovichy et al, A giant ornithomimosaur from the Early Cretaceous of China, Proceedings of the Royal Society B, Published online before print April 22, 2009, doi: 10.1098/rspb.2009.0236.
We need to coin a new law of nature: evolutionary hype is inversely proportional to the empirical data available. Write in your suggestion for the person whose name should grace this law. The Darwiniacs went into a frenzy inventing ways to take a few millimeters of bone here, or a slight proportion there, into trinkets to offer their idol, Charles Darwin.Hot rod enthusiasts will enjoy the 04/30/2005 entry about the V6 engines inside you. If thinking about this gives your brain mental exhaust, take a break for Miller Time (04/22/2005).
Publish Your Kooky Idea 04/22/2009
You can count on Seth to deliver up a good mix of sound logic, colorful phraseology, glittering generalities and Darwin-hugging baloney. Thats why he so often wins our coveted SEQOTW prize. Lets think about his claim for a minute. Publishing the answer? This will separate science from pseudoscience? Apparently he has not looked at the stacks of wacko stuff printed by crackpots. Publishing presumably includes the internet. Again, the wackos are doing quite well there.Evolving Complexity 04/21/2009
April 21, 2009 Anyone analyzing a scientific explanation should evaluate whether it explains the phenomenon or explains it away. For instance, to say that bats have sonar because they evolved it provides little in the way of understanding of how or why that happened. Recently, some scientific papers have directly addressed the topic of complex systems in biology. How good a job are they doing at explaining complexity in an evolutionary context?
1. John Ross and Adam P. Arkin, Complex systems: From chemistry to systems biology, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, published online before print April 20, 2009, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0903406106.
2. Antonio Monteiro and Ondrej Podlaha, Wings, Horns, and Butterfly Eyespots: How Do Complex Traits Evolve? Public Library of Science: Biology, Vol. 7, No. 2, e37 doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000037.
3. Michael Rosbash, The Implications of Multiple Circadian Clock Origins, Public Library of Science: Biology, Vol. 7, No. 3, e62 doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000062.
The tricks the Darwinians play should be obvious. Over and over, evolution is the assumption, not the explanation: it evolved because it evolved. Some PhD biochemist with a good grasp of philosophy of science and good baloney detecting skills should grab that second paper by Monterio and Podlaha and make it a poster child of the emptiness of evolutionary explanations. Here, on the 200th birthday of the guy who made evolution famous, who supposedly explained everything, so that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution, they had nothing to offer but unsolved mysteries, just-so stories, miracles and futureware. Its disgusting. And remember just last month there was a huge uproar in Texas about whether students should be able to learn the strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory. Now you understand why the NCSE was so up in arms. Teaching those things in their actual proportions would require a whole semester on the weaknesses, and a nanosecond on the strengths.Teeth Resist Cracking 04/20/2009
April 20, 2009 Heres a story to share with your dentist. You can crack a tooth, but it takes a lot of force. This should be surprising, since tooth enamel is as brittle as glass. The way the enamel develops, researchers found, absorbs excess energy and gives your teeth an extraordinary crack resistance.
Human enamel is brittle, begins an article on Science Daily. Like glass, it cracks easily; but unlike glass, enamel is able to contain cracks and remain intact for most individuals lifetimes.
Researchers at George Washington University found, surprisingly, a function for mistakes (or what might be mistakenly thought of as mistakes). During tooth development, tiny imperfections called tufts form. The tufts allow cracks to develop from the inside, not the surface, where they might otherwise form sites for decay. Acting together like a forest of small flaws, tufts suppress the growth of these cracks by distributing the stress amongst themselves. They found even more functions for these slight imperfections:
This is the first time that enigmatic developmental features, such as enamel tufts, have been shown to have any significance in tooth function said GW researcher Paul Constantino. Crack growth is also hampered by the basket weave microstructure of enamel, and by a self-healing process whereby organic material fills cracks extended from the tufts, which themselves also become closed by organic matter. This type of infilling bonds the opposing crack walls, which increases the amount of force required to extend the crack later on.So it appears that the tooth is engineered to grow even stronger against cracking over time. The team found strong resemblances between the teeth of sea otters and humans in these self-healing characteristics.
Did this article mention evolution? Yes! but not in the way you might be expecting. No just-so story here. Get this: This research evolved as part of an interdisciplinary collaboration between anthropologists from The George Washington University and physical scientists from the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Gaithersburg, Md. The team studied tooth enamel in humans and also sea otters, mammals with teeth showing remarkable resemblances to those of humans. Thats intelligent design, folks! It was guided by human curiosity and following the evidence where it leads. This is bound to cause some tooth grinding in the halls of the NCSE.Why do moose have those long, funny-looking noses? Find out in this 04/28/2004 entry. Evolutionists get upset when Darwin doesnt get credit for animal engineering (04/28/2004).
An essential prerequisite for evaluating scientific claims is to know what science is.
Surprisingly, few working scientists or lay people give it much thought. They tend
to equate findings made by the scientific method (whatever that is) as truth.
There is nothing better than a course in philosophy of science to unmask the pretensions of some scientists.
One of the best secular introductions to this topic is a series of 36 half-hour lectures on Philosophy of Science
by Dr. Jeffrey L. Kasser of Colorado State University, produced by
The Teaching Company.
Dr. Kassers lecture style is relaxed and yet precise, punctuated with pithy illustrations.
You will learn to question assumptions big time! What do we mean by evidence? What constitutes
a scientific explanation? How do we separate science from pseudoscience? What is a law of science? Dr. Kasser is not a
creationist, and does not criticize Darwinism, but he uncovers so many questions about even common sense assumptions, you will wonder how science
can prove anything like all copper conducts electricity let alone the belief that all life descended
from a common ancestor. As a bonus, you also get a mini-course in 20th century history of science. You learn about Popper, Kuhn, the logical positivists, scientific
realism, Bayesian analysis, probability and other schools of thought that have tried to justify sciences presumptive authority over other modes of inquiry.
This course will make you think hard. It should be a prerequisite for anyone who wishes to analyze the creation-evolution debate.
Without an understanding of the rules of the game, the arguments on both sides are likely to be unfocused and uninformed. Prediction: you will rewind often and listen to it more than once.
If the prediction comes true, was that a good scientific theory?
How Valid Is Computerized Dinosaur Reconstruction? 04/18/2009
Eventually, they evolve a pattern of muscle activation with a stable gait and the dinosaur can walk, run, chase or graze, Falkingham said. Assuming natural selection evolves the best possible solution as well, the modeled animal should move similar to its now extinct counterpart. Indeed, they have achieved similar top speeds and gaits with computer versions of humans, emus and ostriches as in reality.Combining the computer model with data from dinosaur tracks can help present a unified picture of dinosaur life as long as one takes into account the difficulties in interpreting tracks:
The problem with tracks is that they can be very hard to interpret, as the number of variables involved with how tracks form is staggering, Falkingham explained. Is the sediment made of tiny clay particles that stick together, or larger sand particles that roll over? What is the water content, which can help particles stick together, but if you put in too much, it pushes particles apart? What is the strength, elasticity and compressibility of the soil? And what happens when you have layers of sediment? The impressions left behind at lower layers can be very different from the ones left on the surface.Running hundreds of simulations with supercomputers produces workable solutions and surprises. Falkingham discovered another dubious assumption about tracks made by webbed feet:
Sometimes the experiments can throw up unexpected results. Falkingham added. For instance, when he was once simulating wet, sloppy mud to see how an extinct bird walked findings that could shed light on how birds evolved from dinosaurs once the result was a webbed footprint, even though the foot itself was not webbed. The virtual soil had been pushed up between the toes, before collapsing into a platform-like structure that, in a fossil track, could be interpreted as the impression left by a webbed foot.Falkingham is working next on modeling four-footed dinosaurs. Readers can make their own assessments of the scientific validity of virtual dinosaurs walking on virtual soil in a virtual world.
Computer simulations confer degrees of probability not certainty on their conclusions. Presumably, the model gains credibility points if it can accurately simulate the stride and tracks of a living bird or animal. Even so, the problem of underdetermination of theories by data always leaves room for possibilities that a working model contains flaws that cancel each other out, or were rigged to guarantee the result a theory needed. These and other problems mean that models cannot be extrapolated carelessly into unknown cases.
Detector cartoon Subject: SELF-REFUTING FALLACY
by Brett Miller!
Click the icon and enjoy!
Geophysical King Dethroned? 04/17/2009
1. Richard A. Kerr, Great Oxidation Event Dethroned?, Science, 17 April 2009: Vol. 324. no. 5925, p. 321, DOI: 10.1126/science.324.5925.321a.
Evolutionary literature and geological history is filled with mythical Events. Evolutionists speak of these Events with glib certainty: the Great Oxygenation Event, the Late Heavy Bombardment, the Snowball Earth, the Laramide Orogeny, and dozens of other such phrases that create their own reality simply by capitalizing them and speaking them (09/08/2008). Its a name-it-and-claim-it religion. The evolutionary framework was decided first, and then the Events were invented to fit stages of evolution into a prefabricated timeline that has little to do with verifiable reality. Every once in awhile one of these Mythical Events, like monarchs allied to King Charles, gets dethroned. How about a little democracy for a change? Like Jefferson said (cited by Stan Freberg), were tired of this royal jazz.Plant Evolution: Wheres the Root? 04/16/2009
April 16, 2009 To Darwin, the origin of flowering plants was an abominable mystery. Recently, some entries on Science magazines blog Origins have claimed the mystery has been solved, at least partially, and a full solution is near at hand. Here is a great test case for evolution. Angiosperms comprise a huge, diverse population of organisms. There should be an ample fossil record, and many genes to decipher. Lets see if the optimistic claims are rooted in evidence.
1. Elisabeth Pennisi, On the Origin of Flowering Plants, Science, 3 April 2009: Vol. 324. no. 5923, pp. 28-31, DOI: 10.1126/science.324.5923.28.
2. Steemans et al, Origin and Radiation of the Earliest Vascular Land Plants, Science, 17 April 2009: Vol. 324. no. 5925, p. 353, DOI: 10.1126/science.1169659.
Not every reader will want all this tedious detail, but its important for showing how the Darwinist tricksters ply their propaganda. Lack of data has been shielded behind hope: hope in hopeful monsters, like gymnosperm seeds that sprout flowers, and bryophyte spores that sprout vascular systems. The story is full of miracles (innovation piled on top of another innovation) ad infinitum, as if by magic. They rub their Darwin genie and wish for ancestors and transitional forms that never appear. They curse the abominable mysteries under their breath, smiling to the media they are really close to solving them. The only abominable mystery is evolutionary faith. The only hope-full monsters are the Darwinians.How scientific journals keep the media safe for Darwin: see 11 examples in the 04/17/2007 entry.
Is Darwinism Useful Explaining Cognition? 04/15/2009
Darwins theory of evolution by natural selection is broadly accepted among biologists, but its implications for the study of cognition are far from clear. Few within the scientific pale would argue against the proposition that life on Earth has evolved and that this general principle can be extended to the process of thought. But in taking an evolutionary approach, biologists have tended to assume that species with shared ancestry will have similar cognitive abilities, and that the evolutionary history of traits can be used to reveal how we and other animals perform certain mental tasks. A closer analysis suggests things arent so simple.Johan Bolhuis, a biologist at Utrecht University in the Netherlands, and Clive Wynne, a psychologist at the University of Florida, asked, Can evolution explain how minds work? Its not that they were denying Darwinism and Darwins insights its just that there are no simple evolutionary explanations for the observations, and the explanations provided are not all that helpful in guiding research. Some birds, for instance, are better at cognitive tasks than chimpanzees. It appears that convergence is more important than common ancestry and natural selection.
Dont we want to understand functions and causes more than some tale of an animals evolutionary history, anyway? These questions are intertwined, they claimed; It is unclear, however, what an analysis of the evolutionary history of cognitive behaviours could add to our understanding of how they work, even if such an analysis were possible. So its not only incredibly difficult to come up with an evolutionary analysis, its not clear it would help. Their conclusion warns against Darwinist naïveté:
We are not suggesting an abandonment of Darwins insights. Rather, we call for care in their application. When reconstructing the evolutionary history of cognitive traits, there is no a priori reason to assume that convergence will be more important than common descent or vice versa. In addition, evolutionary theory may suggest hypotheses about the mechanisms of cognition, but it cannot be used to actually study these mechanisms.
1. Johan J. Bolhuis and Clive D. L. Wynne, Can evolution explain how minds work?, Nature 458, 832-833 (16 April 2009) | doi:10.1038/458832a.
Can anyone find a reason in this article to waste precious scientific resources on evolutionary explanations? Rescuing Eugenie Scott and Ken Miller from embarrassment doesnt count. A little red flush would look becoming (11/03/2006 commentary). They could use a change of face (03/03/2009 commentary). About face.Better Solar Cells with Diatoms 04/14/2009
April 14, 2009 Lets start with the operative quote before the subject matter: Nature is the engineer, not high tech tools. This is providing a more efficient, less costly way to produce some of the most advanced materials in the world. OK, now the subject: how to build better solar cells, by imitating diatoms. See the story on Science Daily.
The tiny pores in the silica tests (cases) of diatoms are very efficient at scattering light. These tiny, single-celled marine life forms have existed for at least 100 million years and are the basis for much of the life in the oceans, the article said, assuming the evolutionary timeline, but they also have rigid shells that can be used to create order in a natural way at the extraordinarily small level of nanotechnology.
Researchers at Oregon State (OSU) have found a way to not just imitate the diatoms, but actually incorporate them. The new system is based on living diatoms, which are extremely small, single-celled algae, which already have shells with the nanostructure that is needed, the press release says. They are allowed to settle on a transparent conductive glass surface, and then the living organic material is removed, leaving behind the tiny skeletons of the diatoms to form a template. Presto: a solar cell with better efficiency than those hard-to-manufacture ones. Its cheaper, easier, and better: Steps that had been difficult to accomplish with conventional methods have been made easy through the use of these natural biological systems, using simple and inexpensive materials that are already available in abundance.
The researchers dont even understand the physics. They just know it works: the tiny holes in diatom shells appear to increase the interaction between photons and the dye to promote the conversion of light to electricity, and improve energy production in the process.
Thats good news to a world looking for green ways to extract energy from renewable resources.
The evolutionary timeline and historical fluff was really unnecessary. It just added a little humor here and there to a serious and wonderful application of biomimetic research. Nothing in biomimetics makes sense except in the light of design.Is Horizontal Gene Transfer a Force for Evolution? 04/13/2009
April 13, 2009 Two more genomes were published last week: the information libraries of two tiny microbes. They are members of Micromonas, green algae less than two microns across. The original paper and summary both bragged about how the genetic information is helping shed light on evolution, but did the data really contain any light? If so, the light was pointing downward.
Worden et al published the genomes of RCC299 and CCMP1545, two isolates of the picophytoplankton clade Micromonas.1 John M. Archibald commented on the paper in Perspectives article in the same issue.2 Three observations cast doubt on whether evolution generated any new functional information:
1. Worden et al, Green Evolution and Dynamic Adaptations Revealed by Genomes of the Marine Picoeukaryotes Micromonas, Science, 10 April 2009: Vol. 324. no. 5924, pp. 268-272, DOI: 10.1126/science.1167222.
2. John M. Archibald, Green Evolution, Green Revolution, Science, 10 April 2009: Vol. 324. no. 5924, pp. 191-192, DOI: 10.1126/science.1172972.
Anyone see any light here? Pre-existing toolkits, shared information, stripped-down genomes, supposedly ancient organisms doing just fine in real time: where is the evolution? Claiming that evolution explains these phenomena is piracy, just like in the next entry.A bakers dozen animal stories to inspire you, from 04/05/2006.
Animal Flight Control: Wheres the Evolution? 04/12/2009
Imagine a common housefly flying in tight, erratic circles as it attempts to escape from a room or a hummingbird diving and turning to chase a competitor away from a backyard feeder. One might expect these extreme maneuvers to be accompanied by pronounced asymmetries in the way animals move their wings. Yet, evidence from insects, birds, and bats suggests that aerial maneuvers are routinely accomplished through relatively subtle changes in wing motion. On page 252 of this issue, Hedrick et al. provide further insight into this phenomenon. The results will inform all future research into maneuvering flight in animals and biomimetic flying robots.In other words, the original paper and the Perspectives summary both focused on engineering and biomimetics not evolution.
1. Brian Tobalske, Evolution: Symmetry in Turns, Science, 10 April 2009: Vol. 324. no. 5924, pp. 190-191, DOI: 10.1126/science.1172839.
2. Hedrick, Cheng and Deng, Wingbeat Time and the Scaling of Passive Rotational Damping in Flapping Flight, Science, 10 April 2009: Vol. 324. no. 5924, pp. 252-255, DOI: 10.1126/science.1168431.
Here once again we find Darwinists in Science taking credit away from intelligent design and stealing it for themselves (see 08/24/2007). If we could purge scientific journals of their piracy, it would go a long way toward protecting intellectual commerce.A Darwinist Religious Experience Described 04/11/2009
April 11, 2009 As millions of Jews celebrate Passover, and as millions of Christians gather to celebrate Easter, a Darwinist reporter was experiencing existential vertigo a sweeping sense of dizziness as her imagination zoomed in and out of the implications of her faith. It may be the closest thing that a secular materialist can call a religious experience. And religious experience is an accurate description: it was the outworking of an all-encompassing world view, with ultimate causes, ultimate destinies, moral imperatives, and heavy doses of faith.
Amanda Gefter (see her previous attack on creationism in the 02/26/2009 entry), attended a four-day Origins Symposium at the University of Arizona and wrote up her impressions for New Scientist. The event offered four days of lectures and debates from the worlds leading scientists Brian Greene, AC Grayling, Steven Pinker, Steven Weinberg, Craig Venter, and (in absentia) Stephen Hawking. Its funny how pondering our origins the origin of the universe, of life, of mind leads us to question everything we thought we knew about ourselves in the here and now. Apparently, she did not question anything that was said at the conference, because they took her for a ride from ultimate origins and ultimate destinies, as a religion might, and she was transfixed: throughout the four days, I felt as if I could see myself a small, strange Earth-bound creature through the lens of a camera zooming in and out through space and time.
The wild ride took her from a fictional multiverse, to alternate dimensions, to an evolutionary history no human being has observed, to questioning her own existence. Somehow, as a religion might, it included a moral dimension. Quoting Paul Davies, Gefter agreed, If we are the only life in the universe, we have an enormous responsibility, a cosmic duty, to keep the flame of intelligence burning in the universe.
Along the way, though, the sermons brought enough starfire and damnation to send her soul into outer darkness and despair. Consider these lines:
People need the Lord. You should be weeping for Amanda Gefter and her friends who floundered in the darkness of their own imagination there in Arizona. Their religion offers them nothing but loneliness, emptiness, chance, insignificance, questions and despair. They think they are wise, but they are fools. Is it uncharitable to say that? Not if it helps them wake up and face reality. We know that what they are saying is folly, because nothing in their religion makes logical sense. They have cut the foundation of reason out from under their feet; they are in sinking sand. Their cosmology provides no basis for confidence in anything their own existence, their science, their logic, their self-perception. Krauss fools himself into thinking he understands things when the whole conference questioned their own existence and relegated themselves to creatures that live largely in our own imagined worlds. On what basis, then, can they say the whole conference was nothing but living in an imagined world? They need to escape to reality.Need a quote about evolution? Here are some good resources. One of the last books Dr. Henry Morris wrote was a topically-organized compendium of quotes from evolutionists useful for creationists, entitled That Their Words May Be Used Against Them (ICR, 1997). Like the title says, this collection Dr. Morris gathered over 50 years of study is devastating to evolutionists. In their own words, prominent evolutionary scientists debunk every aspect of their own belief system the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of species, the origin of man, fossils, geology, the nature of science, and much more. The book contains a CD-ROM useful for searching. Get the book from ICR.
In this internet age, many prefer the convenience of searching through material online. Access Research Network has provided two searchable quote sites: the quotes page at SlaughterOfTheDissidents.com (motivated by Dr. Jerry Bergmans book by that name), and MyEvolutionQuotes, a growing database of verified quotations by and about evolutionists (requires login account).
Art as Propaganda for Evolution 04/10/2009
1. Carl Zimmer, Drawing from Darwin, Nature 458, 705 (9 April 2009) | doi:10.1038/458705a; Published online 8 April 2009.
2. Nick Hopwood, A clash of visual cultures, Nature 458, 704-705 (9 April 2009) | doi:10.1038/458704a; Published online 8 April 2009.
3. This seems to be a direct reference to Icons of Evolution by Dr. Jonathan Wells (Regnery, 2000).
Visualization is one of several pedagogical aids that can enlighten or propagandize, depending on how it is used. Theres nothing intrinsically wrong with cartoons, simplified illustrations, and diagrams if they illuminate the truth. However, wrong inferences can be made such as Darwins photos of people expressing emotion being used to infer they inherited these capabilities from apes. Art and visualization can distract, mislead, mischaracterize, or create emotional responses in lieu of scientific evidence. Darwinists have been very skilled at this propaganda since their master wrote his materialist manifesto. They should be scorned, not praised, for pretending that peppered moths prove humans had bacteria ancestors, or for piecing together unrelated fossils into a story of evolutionary progression. Awareness of the danger of visualization is the best defense, and the best offense is to unmask it as propaganda. Truth needs illumination, not varnish.Darwinists try to explain the origin of forgiveness (04/06/2005) and joy (04/03/2005) without religion, but can they really get a grip on the soul? (04/03/2005).
Did Nature Dictate Biological Codes? 04/09/2009
Pudritz and Higgs speculate that these 10 common amino acids met the needs of the earliest replicating molecules, with other, rarer acids used by the nascent genetic code as they formed or arrived a process called stepwise evolution, culminating in the genes that gathered 3.6 billion years ago in a common ancestor of all complex life.This is what Harvard biologist Irene Chen found a bit Candidian. She thought the idea is interesting, but then said, in the absence of some experimental backup, its generally difficult to know if this kind of analysis is a Panglossian argument.
Inspired by Drs. Pudritz and Higgs, we have a speculative theory for the origin of English. Certain letters are easier to write than others. The letters l, c, i, n, o, u, v, x and z are more likely to be found in nature. These organized themselves into the common ancestor of all English novels and scientific papers. In a process of stepwise evolution, the rarer letters used by the nascent language were incorporated as they formed or arrived, culminating in the memes that gathered 500,000 years ago in the evolving brain of Homo erectus (04/08/2009). Since these met the needs of the earliest replicating memes of the time, natural selection led to a scientific paper that explained its emergence without the need for designers like Pudritz and Higgs. This is the best of all possible worldly explanations to shield evolutionary theory from falsification, says Dr. Pangloss.
Detector cartoon Subject: PERSONIFICATION
by Brett Miller!
Click the icon and enjoy!
Did Early Man Have a Soul? 04/08/2009
Not long ago, researchers thought that blades were so hard to make that they had to be the handiwork of modern humans, who had evolved the mental wherewithal to systematically strike a cobble in the right way to produce blades and not just crude stone flakes. First, they were thought to be a hallmark of the late Stone Age, which began 40,000 years ago. Later, blades were thought to have emerged in the Middle Stone Age, which began about 200,000 years ago when modern humans arose in Africa and invented a new industry of more sophisticated stone tools. But this view has been challenged in recent years as researchers discovered blades that dated to 380,000 years in the Middle East and to almost 300,000 years ago in Europe, where Neandertals may have made them (ScienceNOW, 1 December 2008).It should be remembered that all of recorded human history, in which man went from stone tablets to interplanetary space flight, covers just 6,000 years. Scientists must be shocked at this announcement; the discovery of blades this early suggests that these toolmakers were capable of more sophisticated behavior than previously thought, Gibbons wrote. She ended by hinting that maybe even older blades are waiting to be found.
The evolutionary picture of early man has stretched credibility way, way beyond the breaking point. Every year it seems to get worse for them. Who could possibly believe that beings as anatomically close to us, with brains our size, just sat around in caves caring for retarded children and making tools without learning how to ride a horse, farm, write and build cities for 450,000 years 45 times longer than recorded history? How much longer before the scholarly community rises up and tells these storytellers they have no idea what they are talking about?Evolutionary Explanations: Substance, Seasoning, or Storytelling? 04/07/2009
April 7, 2009 A scientific theory should explain why certain phenomena in nature are the way they are. This laymans view, though simplistic, expects that a theory should also predict new phenomena before they are observed. In many science reports on evolution, however, one finds evolutionary theory tacked on as an explanation after the fact, when the theory had virtually nothing to do with the research or the conclusions (for examples a year ago, see 04/04/2008). Also, because of the underdetermination of theories by data, presenting only an evolutionary explanation neglects the proper consideration of other possible explanations adequate to explain the phenomena under observation. Finally, the few research projects that are motivated by evolutionary theory, and claim success of the theory, often leave sizable loopholes for critics.
What would you rather have: scientists concerned about curing cancer and building green technology, or lazy guys dropping bugs out of treetops so that they can tell stories about how technology invented itself? Re-read the principles in the 04/04/2008 commentary. The Darwinian storytellers have still not repented.Another evolutionary principle debunked: see the 04/02/2004 entry. The entries above and below this were interesting, too.
Your Eye Works a Precision Jigsaw Puzzle 04/07/2009
All visual information reaching the brain is transmitted by retinal ganglion cells, each of which is sensitive to a small region of space known as its receptive field. Each of the 20 or so distinct ganglion cell types is thought to transmit a complete visual image to the brain, because the receptive fields of each type form a regular lattice covering visual space. However, within each regular lattice, individual receptive fields have jagged, asymmetric shapes, which could produce blind spots and excessive overlap, degrading the visual image. To understand how the visual system overcomes this problem, we used a multielectrode array to record from hundreds of ganglion cells in isolated patches of peripheral primate retina. Surprisingly, we found that irregularly shaped receptive fields fit together like puzzle pieces, with high spatial precision, producing a more homogeneous coverage of visual space than would be possible otherwise. This finding reveals that the representation of visual space by neural ensembles in the retina is functionally coordinated and tuned, presumably by developmental interactions or ongoing visual activity, producing a more precise sensory signal.In the discussion, they added, The present results demonstrate that the visual representation in the primate retina is finely coordinated to achieve a homogeneous sampling of visual space. They pondered how this coordination is achieved. Is there a one-to-one correspondence between the dendritic field (DF) and the receptive field (RF)? Or are there overlapping layers of circuitry between that control the precision of the RF? Bipolar cells may do this, they said. Alternatively, inhibitory amacrine cells may tune the edges of RF shapes to prevent excessive overlap. They also wondered how this precision is achieved during development. Perhaps light produces cues that guide the RFs into position. Either way, the implications are surprising. It means that neurons dont operate in isolation. They follow a precision code:
The present results have surprising implications for how populations of neurons produce an efficient and complete representation. Recorded in isolation, single neurons frequently exhibit irregular response properties, suggesting that large populations must rely on averaging or interpolation to produce accurate sensory performance or behavior (e.g., see [37–39]). The present results, however, show that in a complete population, irregular features can be integral to a finely coordinated population code. This suggests that the nervous system operates with a higher degree of precision than previously thought, and that irregularities in individual cells may actually reflect an unappreciated aspect of neural population codes (e.g., ).This article was summarized on Science Daily, which stated, scientists say their findings suggest that the nervous system operates with higher precision than previously appreciated and that apparent irregularities in individual cells may actually be coordinated and finely tuned to make the most of the world around us.
1. Gauthier, Field, Sher, Greschner, Shlens, Litke, and Chichilnisky, Receptive Fields in Primate Retina Are Coordinated to Sample Visual Space More Uniformly, Public Library of Science Biology, Vol. 7, No. 4, e63 doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000063.
There was not one mention of evolution in this paper. It was all coordination, information, and encoding. As Theophilus Designsky said, Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of design.Stem Cells Polarize Ethics 04/07/2009
April 7, 2009 Adult stem cells are continuing to promise revolutionary therapies, while embryonic stem cells remain a political football even after Obamas loosening of restrictions. Some stories seem to suppress the word embryonic and just talk about stem cells, but there is a big difference in the ethics of one over the other. Embryonic stem cells require harvesting a human embryo.
Adult Stem Cell News
Likewise, Science interviewed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, giving her high marks for her support of science. Reporter Jeffrey Mervis called her a big hit and said she lights up a crowd with her support of scientific institutions. Donning her mantle as party leader, she used the events to take a swipe at the Bush Administration, he said, quoting her: For a long time, science had not been in the forefront. It was faith or science, take your pick. Now were saying that science is the answer to our prayers. She also told a group of assembled biomedical bigwigs that we need your help again to make President Obamas executive order on stem cell research the law of the land.
The scientific societies, wedded to liberal politics as they are, dont know ethics from a black hole. We dont see anyone cloning humans... yet they say, softening the public, like a frog in the pot, to accept what is coming.Can Evolution Be Programmed? 04/06/2009
April 6, 2009 Some researchers are employing evolutionary computing as an algorithm to solve problems. But is it really evolution?
Amazing as some of the research results are, this entry gets the Dumb category for assuming this is like evolution. Anything that involves intelligent selection of outcomes is as far from Darwin as an earthquake from city planning. Material particles do not understand and interpret natural laws, nor do they build systems. The equivocation of the word evolution in these intelligently-designed research programs with what Darwinists are talking about is perverse. It amounts to a snow job, stealing glory for Charlie from ID projects. Darwin gets no more credit for these interesting results than Kim Jong Il for inventing democracy. Progress in the creation-evolution debate can only be made by everyone agreeing to definitions and terms and rules of argument. Researchers, get your purposeful hands off the apparatus. Care nothing about what happens. Dont select outcomes or interfere in any way. Then, as everything collapses in a heap of entropy, you will begin to understand the resources available to the kind of evolution Darwin preached. For a taste of common sense to melt the snow job, read this article by The Country Shrink. Notice especially the quote by D. L. Abel.Is Daniel Dennett a closet Calvinist? Read about this Darwin-idolaters views on free will in the 04/02/2003 entry.
Quick, Make Like an Ant 04/05/2009
Evolution offered no real help to any of these stories. It was just an afterthought, like some obligatory tie-in to the state religion. The observational, empirical facts are that ant behavior is optimized. Optimization is the work of intelligence, not chaos. If we can apply our intelligence to use these findings toward the betterment of human society, then like Francis Bacon said, you will know good science by its fruit.Darwinism, Design and Public Education (2003) is a compendium of scholarly articles on both sides of the intelligent design controversy. You can read (if you must) Michael Ruse, Massimo Pigliucci, William Provine and other Darwinists doing their best to discredit ID, but the book is worth the price just to get the articles by John Angus Campbell, Phillip Johnson, Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, David Berlinski, Stephen Meyer and other supporters. Campbell, a scholar on the rhetoric of science, and historian of Darwin, takes you on a tour of The Origin. David DeWolf and Stephen Meyer explain why ID deserves a hearing in education. And in one of the best chapters, Meyer, Marcus Ross, Paul Nelson and Paul Chien provide an outstanding presentation of the Cambrian Explosion argument against evolution. The book was edited by Campbell and Meyer and published by Michigan State University Press. You can buy it at Access Research Network.
Evolutionists Tell Us What Nature Intended 04/03/2009
The idea that we need each other goes against what has become the accepted theory about the evolution of behavior. For decades, evolutionary biologists have claimed that all organisms are basically selfish. The game of reproductive success, they have explained over and over, is won by those who are successful at passing their genes on to the next generation. As such, every animal, including humans, should be self-centered. At the most basic, the biologists say, our selfish genes compel us to stay alive, find the best mates, and have the most babies, and to always think of ourselves before others.Ms Small visualized ancient ancestors needing one another to share in the caring for needy babies and small children. Everyone in the tribe participated in caretaking as well as getting food. This helped the tribe survive. It did more than that: it instilled her with a sense of purpose in life:
Given this history, my life as a single mother is at odds with how I, and my child, are designed to operate. I am supposed to have a band of others to help out, and my child is supposed to be caught by that net of friends and kin.Can Ms Small act with free will on an evolutionary instinct? She did not explore that question. She also left it unstated whether evolution had endowed Sarah Hrdy with the ability to divine an unseen history and to give advice. Maybe it was really another trick of the selfish genes to fool them both.
Another book on the subject of life history on human evolution was reviewed on Forbes.com by Harvey Mansfield, but with less alacrity. Mansfield, a professor of government at Harvard and a distinguished research fellow at the Hoover Institution, took evolutionary anthropologist Richard G. Bribiescas to task for contradictions in his book Men: Evolutionary and Life History. Bribiescas, like Hrdy, explains human nature with reference to our evolutionary life history. The first contradiction was one Bribiescas ignored: the opinion of cultural anthropologists that culture, not biology, makes men different from women. The charm of his book, Mansfield smirked, is that he utterly ignores the opinion, or prejudice, against it [i.e., biological determinism] and proceeds as if all he has to do is explain, and you will agree.
In describing another contradiction, Mansfield became downright sarcastic against the presumptuousness of evolutionists like Bribiescas who glibly adjust their explanations to dodge falsification:
The science in question here is the current version of Darwins evolutionary theory. That theory says that human beings (for the book title speaks of men, not males) are dominated in their lives by the need to get their genes into the next generation. If you can do this, you have survived, even if or despite the fact that you die.After showing evolutionary theory to be a late-comer to already known facts about men and women, Mansfield criticized the authors philosophy of science. Like many scientists, he said, Bribiescas lives under the yoke of a crude positivism which denies that scientific fact has any ethical implications. Saying something doesnt make it so. Bribiescas may claim that evolutionary theory supports no moral stance, But of course it does. The trouble is not that Darwinian theory has no implications, but that it contradicts itself with two opposing implications. If passing on ones genes is the purpose of a mans life, he would not devote himself to science. Mansfield has caught Bribiescas in a contradiction: hes fighting his own evolutionary history:
Yet as a scientist, a human male would have quite an opposite duty. A man of science does not take the view of his own sex but rises above it to consider the views of both sexes. He would be devoted to science, not to his own private genes. He would not favor his own child at any cost but would support other children if they showed better promise of becoming future scientists--future Darwinians....Mansfield made a key disclaimer in his last sentence. In closing, I note that I have made no reference to religion but only brought out the inner contradiction of Darwinism.
Mansfield has shown the way to confront the dogmatic Darwinists. No appeals to religion are necessary to confront Charles the Dictator who ruined science. All that is necessary to unravel his false clothing is to pull on the thread of logical consistency. Once exposed as self-contradictory, Darwinism is finished: nothing that is self-contradictory can possibly be true. You can see both Hrdy and Bribiescas guilty. Both said that our human nature is determined by our evolutionary life history, but then both appealed to higher, nobler motives, namely, science the desire to pursue understanding. One can only watch self-proclaimed sharpshooters shooting their own feet for so long before deciding to find people who know how to shoot straight.Tip Link: Biologic Institute announces creation of a self-replicating motor vehicle. (Notice the date.)
Early Large Galaxies Stun Cosmologists 04/02/2009
That was the reason astronomers had for years used mergers to explain the growth of galaxies. If large galaxies already existed in the early universe, though, mergers become implausible. What is the alternative? One group suggests veins of cold gas, clinging to filaments of dark matter that can pierce the hot gas shell of a growing galaxy and fuel its continued growth and lead to early galaxies growing rapaciously. It sounds like an ad hoc solution. It was proposed to get around the age problem. Is there any evidence? No one has seen dark matter, or knows what it is. The story ended with a hunt to explain glowing blobs of hydrogen gas in distant, ancient corners of the Universe that might correspond with the proposed filaments. All parties agree that more work needs to be done.
We can see here the kind of mental gymnastics Darwinists would perform if someone found a Precambrian rabbit. The surprise level seems almost comparable. It never changes their core beliefs; it just changes the implausibility of the natural miracles they are willing to invoke to maintain their world view. For background, read an article in this months ICR magazine.Your cells are so well-prepared for all eventualities, they even give dying cells an orderly shutdown. Read how it works in the 04/09/2002 entry.
Darwinists Upset When Their Hegemony Slips 04/01/2009
1. Alison Abbott, Turkish scientists claim Darwin censorship, Nature Published online 10 March 2009, updated 18 March, doi:10.1038/news.2009.150.
2. Editorial, Turkey censors evolution, Nature 458, 259 (19 March 2009) | doi:10.1038/458259a.
3. Hannah Hoag, Canadian science minister under fire, NatureNews, Published online 25 March 2009, Nature 458, 393 (2009),doi:10.1038/458393a.
This is not an April Fool entry. Maybe it should be. Its hard to believe the Darwiniacs can be such spoiled brats, but they are, and they have clout. If democracy, public hearings and testimony by experts on both sides is a hell of a way to make education policy, what would heaven be for them? Dictatorship. The Science Mandarins would be able to tell everybody what to believe, and punish anyone who dares question their authority. Almost sounds like the world of 2009.