Thus, for the naturalist, the world is intelligible only if it starts off without intelligence and then evolves intelligence.  If it starts out with intelligence and evolves intelligence because of a priori intelligence, then somehow the world becomes unintelligible.  The absurdity here is palpable.
— William A. Dembski, The Design Revolution (IVP 2004, p. 23)

Although Williams has convinced many people of the value of his ideas, the notion that human behavior can be broken down into such finely tuned reproduction-boosting adaptations is, to say the least, controversial.  The late Stephen Jay Gould liked to call this approach “Darwinian fundamentalism,” and he credited Williams’s Adaptation and Natural Selection as “the founding document for this ultimate version of Darwinian reductionism.”

Stephen Pinker claimed that “George Williams was instrumental in making natural selection an intellectually rigorous theory.”  There’s nothing scientifically rigorous about any of this.  The only thing Williams did was try to leash in today’s storytelling methods back to the original storytelling method.  One must not twist the plot with group selection, but only invoke individual selection, as Charlie proposed in the evolutionary Torah.  Thus, Darwinian fundamentalism must abide by the just-so storytelling method of the Mosstuh prescribed in the founding document of the Darwin Party.  We’ve said before that if you removed the personification fallacy from evolutionary theory, little would be left.  Raise your hand if you think fish plan their schooling for survival, or babies in the womb are plotting to steal from Mom.
    Medicine gets along just fine without Darwinian fundamentalism.  Pregnant mothers facing surgery are not likely to be comforted by the thought that their babies are competing with them for survival of the fittest.  (If anything, such teaching would only seem to promote abortion.)  Doctors and hospital chaplains prosper when they see the value in each individual life as a marvelous creation of a loving God.  If you care for your loved one in the hospital, better help keep the Darwin Party advocates out.  They don’t value compassion.  They value selfishness.
Next headline on:  Darwinism and Evolutionary Theory.

It also means our solar system doesn’t have to be as old as claimed even under naturalistic presuppositions.  Funny that you can have young-earth theories for other stars, but not our own.
    “Raw ingredients for life” again; sure.  Iron ore and gypsum are raw ingredients for buildings.  Once upon a time, these ingredients organized themselves into cities and factories and concert halls.
Next headline on:  Astronomy • Dating Methods • Origin of Life.

They measured one reaction in the present.  They did not measure 14 billion years.  Notice how one small measurement can have dramatic effects.  Physics is supposed to be a “hard” science, and now the textbooks have to be rewritten about something that was thought to be pretty well understood.  What about the soft sciences, and the mushy or gaseous ones like evolutionary theory?  What discovery tomorrow might invalidate some measurement the Darwinists are trusting?
Next headline on:  Cosmology • Physics • Dating Methods.

Non-exonic ultraconserved elements are often found in “gene deserts” that extend more than a megabase.  In particular, of the non-exonic elements, there are 140 that are more than 10 kilobases (kb) away from any known gene, and 88 that are more than 100 kb away.  (See also 10/16/2003 headline.)

A more extensive analysis of paralogs, based on a recent global clustering of highly conserved noncoding human DNA, reveals several further highly conserved intronic and intergenic elements in functionally equivalent positions relative to paralogous genes.  These were not classified as ultraconserved by our stringent criteria.  Indeed, if we merge alignment blocks of 200 bases, each with at least 99% identical columns, we obtain 1974 “highly conserved” elements up to 1087 bp long in the human.... If instead we demand at least a 100-bp exact match between humans and rodents, we get more than 5000 highly conserved elements.  Tens of thousands more are found at lower cutoffs; for example, there is a 57-bp exactly conserved sequence overlapping an alternatively spliced exon of the WT1 gene which is invariant in mammals and in chickens and is largely conserved in fishes (fig. S1).  The percentage of the conserved elements that overlap with a known coding region steadily rises from 14 to 34.7% as the length criteria defining these elements is reduced from 200 to 50 bp (table S6).
    If experiments with less conserved elements in recent studies are any indication, many of these shorter elements are also functional.

On the other hand, if reduced mutation rates are the explanation, then the existence of regions of a few hundred bases with 20-fold reduced mutation rates would itself be quite novel.  Although neutral mutation rates may vary depending on chromosomal location on a megabase scale, there is to our knowledge no evidence or precedent for the existence of short “hypomutable” or “hyperrepaired” neutral regions.  Finally, the answer could also be a combination of negative selection and better repair in these regions, owing to some vital role that these elements play, such as self-regulating networks of RNA processing control in the case of exonic elements and self-regulatory networks of transcriptional control for non-exonic elements.  In any case, the questions remain: What kind of elements associated with these processes would have arrived relatively early in chordate evolution and then become practically frozen in birds and mammals?  And what mechanisms would underlie this, allowing them to resist virtually all further change?

It was supposed to be so easy.  Where fossils and comparative anatomy failed to confirm Charlie’s story, the genes would come to the rescue.  Now this.
    The only way the Darwinians can keep their story going now is to propose that evolution is both lightning-fast and then frozen.  Somehow, brainless early chordates invented all kinds of elaborate molecular mechanisms, then put them under the Law of the Medes and the Persians; these regions of DNA could not be altered.  Thenceforth, genomes underwent fantastic degrees of evolution by natural selection, creating flying reptiles, flying birds, flying mammals and flying fish, blue whales, giraffes, lizards, peacocks and people, while these ultraconserved regions, exposed to all the natural forces affecting the other parts of the genome, remained steadfast and immovable.  Strong positive selection played fast and loose with genes, duplicating and recombining and mutating them and adding introns with seeming reckless abandon.  Simultaneously, strong purifying selection kept the ultraconserved regions virtually untouched.  All the while, genetic drift threw in a few neutral mutations at random that somehow didn’t touch the ultraconserved regions.  Ockham would slash away like a knight at this convoluted concoction of explanations.
    These findings may shed additional light on the mystery of introns, those sections of DNA that the transcription machinery cuts out and apparently discards (see 09/03/2003, 09/12/2003, 05/10/2004 and 05/19/2004 headlines).  It would seem evolutionists would predict just the important functional genes to be conserved, if anything; why would introns be conserved, unless they too are vital?  There is clearly much we don’t know yet.  While some differences between animal genes appear to be functions of their assumed ancestral distance, many others do not.  The picture is getting very complicated for the Darwin Party.  God must have had a sense of humor.
Next headline on:  Genes and DNA • Darwinism and Evolutionary Theory.

Couch potatoing can’t be good for you.  Use it and improve it.  The discovery that neurons can be regenerated should be good news for those who have suffered injury.  Physical therapy may be painful, but it offers hope.  Grin and bear it for as long as it takes.  Hopefully you’ll be grinning more eventually.
Next headline on:  Health • Human Body.

Given the broad similarities between chimps and humans, many researchers thought that changes that alter amino-acid sequences would not be very frequent.  Surprisingly, however, the consortium found that sequence differences in the protein-coding regions of genes are not a great deal less common than in non-coding genomic regions.  But some of the affected genes might be pseudogenes — defective copies of functional genes – that have arisen recently.  And, among 231 presumably functional genes that could be compared between chimps and humans, 179 have protein-coding regions of identical length; 140 of the predicted encoded proteins would differ by one amino acid or more, but probably with little or no functional impact.  Of the other 52 genes, however, 47 show more significant structural changes.

The consortium could not resist making preliminary studies of the expression of the genes on human chromosome 21 and chimp chromosome 22 as well.  Their analyses indicate that – looking at just two tissues – about 20% of these genes show significant variations in their expression.  Extrapolation from these findings suggests that if this chromosome represents about 1% of mammalian genes, there may well be thousands of genes that either encode an altered protein or are expressed differentially in humans and chimpanzees.  This will not simplify the search for the hypothetical key genetic changes that prevented us from remaining as apes.

Did you catch that?  Weissenbach just said, “Even if the major physical, physiological and behavioural differences between the two species do not result simply from an accumulation of many small alterations...” – that indirectly but clearly says they don’t.  Now what, do you recall, did Charlie propose as a test to confirm or falsify his theory?  “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”  Thank you, Charlie!  The implosion was very entertaining.  (If you think this will make evolutionists pack up and go home, you underestimate the power of the Darwin Party to change the rules.)
    It’s time to lay to rest once for all this mythoid that humans are 98.5% similar to apes.  It’s a prime example of the misuse of statistics and the use of card stacking.  Some gullible souls swallowed this bogus statistic and reasoned that chimpanzees should have the same civil rights as human children (see 05/24/2002 headline); others took it and decided humans should be lumped into the same genus with Bonzo.  Good grief.  Now at last the truth is coming to light.
    Creationists have always expected similarities as evidence of common design, and evolutionists have desperately longed for empirical evidence of common descent.  We’re barely off square one in comparative genomics.  Clearly there are many questions and puzzles ahead for both sides.  Will comparisons with other chromosomes fit this trend?  How similar would genes of other chimps be to this individual’s genome?  What similarities and differences will gorilla and orang-utan genomes reveal?  Are “pseudogenes” really evolutionary leftovers, or do they have a function? (see 05/13/2004 headline).  What is the effect of single-nucleotide polymorphisms?  How many SNPs can a genome tolerate?  Do indels have a function?  How, and how often, do they occur?  Why so many introns?  Why do Alu elements hop around the genome?  It’s too early to answer these and many other questions, but the initial findings are tantalizing.
    Now that Darwinism has been falsified (if we can connect Weissenbach’s comment to Darwin’s test literally), there are still good reasons to gather information from the passengers of Noah’s Ark
Early Man • Genes and DNA

It must have been a sight watching the Japanese timidly wipe the face and back of a hippo to get their samples.  Wonder how many generations of hippos had to die of skin cancer to get this lucky set of mutations established in the population.
Next headline on:  Mammals • Amazing Facts

If lies and nonsense make you angry, you should be angry at this paper.  You should not be intimidated by the fact it was written by nine PhDs.  You should not be swayed by its presence in the journal of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences.  You should not be dazzled by the jargon.  If it’s baloney, it stinks as bad in a castle as in a shack.
    These scientists, drunk on Darwinism, are trying to make us believe that lowering your standards makes you stronger.  By analogy, firing the proofreader makes the newspaper better.  Firing the coach makes the athlete stronger.  Firing the sergeant makes the army squad better prepared for the contingencies of battle.  Baloney, baloney, baloney.
    When in a restaurant, will you maintain better health by restraining your baser appetites and restricting yourself to a well-balanced meal?  Of course.  But if you were trapped in a candy store, could you survive a little while on chocolate?  Delicious in small quantities, and better than going hungry, that doesn’t mean you should make it your daily diet.  These scientists forced normal cells to be starved for isoleucine, an essential nutrient for healthy proteins.  The normal cells did not want to eat the unhealthy ingredients that were available; they had a coach ordering them to keep off the chocolate.  But other cells, free of such discipline, engorged themselves and at least didn’t starve.  So the fatsos outqualify the hunks for the Olympics.  If you can believe that, you can believe the phony baloney premise of this paper.
    Darwinian articles often dodge personal responsibility by (1) flat-out bluffing, or (2) using passive voice verbs that cover up their own shame.  Look at this example: “The modern genetic code appeared ~3 billion years ago [Sez who?  Were you there?] .... The code itself is thought to have started in a primitive form [Who thought so?  Own up, you Darwin Party dogmatists], perhaps with codons composed of two rather than three nucleotides [where is the evidence for that?] and with different amino acids not precisely assigned to specific codons” [who made up this howler?]  It sounds pompously aloof to say “It is thought” rather than “I think this elaborate, complex system of codes and translators began from random letters in a primitive soup.”  By saying It is thought and leaving the subject undefined, the propagandist gives the reader a subliminal impression that somebody important thinks so, somebody authoritative thinks so, or that everybody who knows anything thinks so.  Don’t be fooled.
    Did these scientists find any evidence that their lowering of editing standards actually made their variants fitter?  No.  Did they demonstrate that the incorporation of noncanonical amino acids into the protein conferred any new functional advantage?  No.  Did they provide any empirical evidence that the genetic code began in a primitive state, without proofreading?  No.  Did they provide any historical evidence, or any analogies from present systems, that a complex, proofreading system can improve by lowering standards?  No.  Did they use certified lab techniques?  Yes.  Did they use their brains?  No.
    One thing they did do: they won Stupid Evolution Quote of the Week:  “Because they could opportunistically use whatever amino acids were available to complete a protein sequence, organisms harboring statistical proteins could have had a selective advantage in a primitive environment.  Also, by having many closely related versions of the same basic sequence, variants with a particular catalytic activity could be produced.  These microvariants might have special adaptive advantages, much in the way that one or more mutations in an enzyme can enhance its activity or broaden its specificity.  The selective advantages of more complex organisms that were able to produce their own amino acids and are dependent on higher specificity eventually forced replacement of the ancient statistical systems.  Remains of ambiguous codes are still observed in nature as in the Leu/Ser ambiguity in Candida sp. [prove it].”  Coulda, woulda, shoulda.  Gimme a break.  I thought I was in science class, not Fantasyland.
    As explained earlier (see 07/21/2003 and 06/29/2003 headlines), the aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase family of enzymes comprise an exquisite, complex system that relies on accuracy, and they know it.  They admit, “The genetic code is established in reactions catalyzed by aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases, in which each amino acid is covalently joined to its cognate tRNA.  The tRNA bears the complementary nucleotide triplet of the code corresponding to the attached amino acid.”  In cases where similar amino acids might incorrectly attach, “Certain synthetases, including isoleucyl-tRNA synthetase (IleRS), have a second active site that clears mischarged amino acids and thereby removes errors of aminoacylation.”  The existence of code-translation and quality-control systems are hallmarks of intelligent design.
    Furthermore, they admit that incorrectly attached amino acids can be toxic: “Valine is the obvious starting point because of its structural similarity to isoleucine.  However, the effects of valine are difficult to measure because of its general toxicity in minimal media, caused by feedback inhibition of the isoleucine biosynthetic pathway.”  In other words, not only are there systems to edit out the wrong amino acid, but there are feedback pathways to ensure the toxic substance does not proliferate in the cell.  They admitted that the noncanonical amino acids were toxic: “As expected, high concentrations of valine or norvaline ultimately became toxic in the editing-deficient strain but not in its WT counterpart.”
    Only in a very specific environment, where the normal cell was starved and their carefully-engineered mutant was given preferential treatment, did they see it outcompete the champ.  And on this, they want us to believe that life, the genetic code, its translation machinery, molecular factories of tens of thousands of protein motors and enzymes “emerged” by chance into streamlined tunas, fast-focus cormorant eyes, human composers, and all the rich and varied life forms today.  Thereon hangs a tale: not a tale of science, but a fairy tale about a fictional place where one needs to believe six impossible things before breakfast – Fallacy in Blunderland.
Next headline on:  Genes and DNA • Darwinism and Evolutionary Theory • Dumb Ideas.

These articles contain some interesting facts and useful information, but are imbued with the typical Darwinian fluff and storytelling about how our primitive ancestors arose in Africa millions of years ago, invented fire and language and took over the world (now read this).  Every element of the plot has its detractors willing to point out contrary evidence.  The first article wrongly repeats the mythoid that humans are 98% to 99% identical to chimpanzees in terms of genetic sequences, a phony figure (see 10/25/2002 headline).  But it does rightly point out that gene expression may be much more significant than the contents of the DNA library, as seen from comparisons with the genomes of other organisms: “In other words, it’s not so much what you have, but what you do with what you have, that matters.”  That’s true for me and thee and the chimpanzee.
    It is a legitimate biological investigation to analyze human mammalian characteristics and to draw comparisons and contrasts with our fellow creatures.  We are, as Wernher von Braun once described it, “souls cast into animal bodies.”  Animals are fun to watch and have as companions.  We have a lot in common with them, especially other primates.  But there is no evidence, and there are numerous problems, trying to relate us all to a common ancestor or reducing humans to mere genes in motion.  Language, for instance, truly is a “profound” difference, with no parallel in the animal world.  But what is language without cognition, and what is cognition without the ability to think in abstract thoughts?  Even dogs and crows have intelligence, but no animal uses logic or writes books on philosophy.  How did the laws of logic evolve?  Why would natural selection produce a physicist able to compute 23 decimal places of a cube root in his head?  Why do we care about justice?  What is the survival value of writing a symphony?  Humanness is all about soul.
    The articles also fail to recognize many other human distinctives, such as conscience, bipedalism, naked skin and enhanced touch, blushing, laughter, the moral sense, art, music and religion.  None of these can be demonstrated by a sequence of transitional forms, and none can be explained by genetic mutations and natural selection; they go far beyond the necessities of biological survival.  Understood instead as the handwork of a Designer who wants to be known by creatures made in His image, they make possible a unique realm of communication with one another and with our Maker that no animal can share.  Chimps have nostrils, but what makes us distinctively human is that our Creator breathed into our common (human) ancestor’s biological nostrils the breath of life, and man became a Psychozoa, a living soul (Gen. 2:7).  Yes, we deserve a kingdom of our own, but what’s a kingdom without a King?  Read the following passages with this view of man in mind: Isaiah 57, and I John 1-2.  They express issues and ideas no chimp will ever comprehend.
Next headline on:  Mammals • Early Man • Darwinism and Evolutionary Theory • Bible and Theology

These are great days of planetary exploration.  We can feel somewhat like the townspeople of 1804 felt as Lewis and Clark left St. Louis to explore terra incognita and started sending back samples from upriver.  It will take years to sort out all the data and figure out what it means.  For now, it’s time to enjoy the ride of a lifetime.
Next headline on:  Mars • Solar System

Nature seems to miss the point.  It is more concerned about whether the women were coerced than whether creating human embryos just to destroy them is morally reprehensible or not.  While some techniques may really help those with debilitating genetic diseases, we cannot assume scientists all operate from pure motives.  Fame and fortune seduce many a mortal.  Just because some things can be done, that doesn’t mean they should be done; and in a Darwinian world, who decides?
Next headline on:  Politics and Ethics • Health

Indeed, when viewed with a biophysical or engineering perspective, none of the basic biological tasks plants perform can be maximized without decreasing or imperiling the performance of another necessary task.  In this sense, the relationships among organic form-function generally involve optimization rather than maximization.  But differently, single-tasked devices can perform their ascribed functions perfectly, at least in theory.  In contrast, multitasked devices, whether organic or inorganic, invariably involve compromises and tradeoffs—they perform all of their ascribed tasks reasonably well, but no task perfectly.
(Emphasis added in all quotes; for more on evolutionary tradeoffs, see 05/11/2004 headline.)

The telome theory has been criticized, and rightly so, for a variety of reasons (Niklas 2000, Kaplan 2001).  One obvious problem with the theory is its vagueness regarding the developmental mechanisms responsible for overtopping, planation, etc.  Indeed, these terms are descriptive rather than explicative in nature.  Another criticism is that the telome theory never explains why certain morphological transformations occur as opposed to others, nor does it stipulate the sequence of processes foreshadowing the appearance of a particular morphology.  Why should planated and webbed lateral branch systems evolve?  Are the leaves of ferns or seed plants functionally adaptive in terms of light interception or some other biological requirement?  Did these megaphylls [broad leaves] evolve as the result of the simultaneous operation of reduction, overtopping, planation, and webbing, or did planation and webbing occur after reduction and overtopping?  Questions such as these can be answered retrospectively (and only in small part) by examining the fossil record, but the telome theory sheds little light on them.

Computer models such as the ones presented here are heuristic tools.  They provide an opportunity to test assumptions about how a particular biological or physical system operates or behaves.  Their validity can be evaluated by comparing predicted with observed behavior.  When observation and prediction disagree, the assumptions upon which a model rests are either incorrect or incomplete.  However, the obverse is not true.  When predicted and observed behavior agrees, the assumptions upon which a model rests cannot be said to be sufficient and necessary.  The reason is simple — model can describe the behavior of a system for the wrong reasons.  This caveat is important, because the only rigorous test of a computer model is to experimentally manipulate the system it purports to describe and to see if the model predicts the outcome for each manipulation.

Unfortunately, we cannot experiment with history.  We can only observe it.  For this reason, the most conservative interpretation of the simulations presented here is that six general properties emerge logically (mathematically) from the assumptions made about early vascular plant evolution.  These properties are as follows: (a) the number of equally fit morphological variants is predicted to increase as the number of functional tasks subject to selection increases; (b) the relative fitness of these phenotypes decreases as the number of tasks increases; (c) therefore, morphological diversification is easier on complex as opposed to simple fitness landscapes; (d) constraints on how morphology can be developmentally altered do not a priori limit the number of equally fit variants that can be reached by adaptive walks; (e) however, the relative fitness of these variants is significantly lower than the phenotypic optima that can be reached by unfettered adaptive walks; and (f) adaptive walks on shifting fitness landscapes (used to mimic changes in the focus of selection) identify morphological optima that often differ significantly from those on stable fitness landscapes (used to mimic constant selection).

Computer simulations of morphological evolution are still very much in their infancy, especially in terms of constructing morphospaces and understanding the developmental mechanisms that permit or confine phenotypic transformations in them (see Thomas & Reif 1993, McGhee 1999, Niklas 2003).  However, as conceptual tools, they provide opportunities to explore the logical consequences of popular metaphors for evolution, such as Sewall Wright’s adaptive walks on fitness landscapes, and by so doing, quantify the possible biological structure and dynamics of opportunistic historical events that distinguish some evolutionary episodes as more adaptive than others.

You can prove anything on a computer.  This is so oversimplified, so narrow-minded, so dumb, it’s a wonder any journal would publish such tripe.  It’s only because biologists have offered their brains in sacrifice to Darwin’s image that they cannot see the illogic of their own positions.  Niklas came close, and had a gem of insight here or there,² but failed to see the worthlessness of his simulation.  His fake plants evolved because he made them evolve.  We’ve seen this so many times before with other computer models.  It is not evolution, it is intelligent design.  These modelers set the fitness goals, define the criteria for success, and reward the ones that get there.  Natural selection has no such guiding intelligence.

---

²(One perceptive insight he shared was that agreement with predictions does not necessarily make the assumptions of one’s model sufficient and necessary.  But then, contrary to his requirement for rigorous experimental testing, he failed to deliver any.)

    To get a sense of the futility of this model, imagine my writing a simulation about the evolution of computers.  I define fitness scores for screen visibility, mouse responsiveness, keyboard ergonomics and other factors I deem worthy, then start some high-tech devices evolving and reward those that succeed in terms of outward conformance to my specifications.  Maybe I wind up with a variety of objects that look like palmtops, laptops and desktops.  But I describe nothing about programmers or users, nor the thinking required to make a computer.  Is such a result worth anything more than a cheap science-fiction game for kids?
    Let’s understand something important here.  Plants have DNA.  They are adapted because they have complex, specified information in their genes.  Watching little digital organisms evolve branches and leaves and other structures might be cute, but says absolutely nothing about how the genetic information and developmental pathways achieved the structures, and more importantly, says nothing about the intricate cellular processes, like photosynthesis and cell division and sexual reproduction and regulation of stomates originated and employed the morphologies.  Niklas halfheartedly admitted as much.  He should know that plants at the cellular level are fantastically complicated factories of molecular machines.  Which is more intricate: the cover of your computer or the chips and software inside?  If I only pay attention to the morphology of the external parts, I have missed the whole point of what is required to make a computer, or a plant.
    The “fitness landscape” metaphor is only a metaphor, but it is actually a more accurate metaphor than a ramp.  Early evolutionists mistakenly pictured Darwinism like a ramp, on which organisms marched onward and upward.  “Progressivists” viewed natural selection as a “fitness ratchet” leading inevitably to bigger and better things.  Knowledgeable evolutionists today realize this view was simplistic.  There are peaks and valleys of fitness (whatever that is; see Fitness for Dummies, 10/29/2002).  Picture marbles rolling around on a surface constantly in motion, with peaks and pits forming and reforming at random locations.  Real marbles might roll uphill for short periods, but gravity will ensure they tend to inhabit the valleys and pits most of the time.  The gravity in the fitness landscape is the second law of thermodynamics – the inviolable trend toward entropy.  Evolutionists want us to believe that natural selection will overcome this entropic gravity and force the marbles to the tops of the peaks.  Trouble is, even if they got there and stayed there, they would be stuck, unable to evolve further without dropping down into the valley again and losing what fitness they had.  Now realize that the adaptive peaks are like Devils Towers and Space Needles: the exquisite engineering seen in whale flippers and cormorant eyes and spider silk and the other things the biomimetic engineers marvel at are so improbable as to be unthinkable for undirected processes to achieve (despite Richard Dawkins’ claims that chance and natural selection can “climb Mt. Improbable” another fallacy “proved” by worthless computer simulations).  No matter, it’s just a metaphor, and metaphors bewitch you.  Engineering doesn’t emerge without design except in the imagination of evolutionists.
    Niklas said, “Unfortunately, we cannot experiment with history.  We can only observe it.”  When was the last time you observed history?  If you watched a historical event like 9/11, you observed it in the present.  Did you observe the fall of the Roman empire, or the building of Stonehenge?  Did Niklas observe the origin of land plants?  We don’t observe history.  We believe eyewitness accounts and examine artifacts.  Even recordings (artifacts viewed in the present) can have biases, and there were no videotapes of the origin of plants, anyway.  We can observe fossils as they are in the present, but can only infer how they got there; piecing scattered fossils into a sequence is even more fraught with difficulties (see 05/21/2004 headline).  There is no observable history of evolution.  There is a story imposed on the artifacts seen in the present.  An eyewitness account from a credible witness that can be corroborated by observation is superior to a story weaved out of personal bias and propped up by circumstantial evidence.
    By the way, there is a credible eyewitness account that fits the evidence.  It will tell a biologist all he needs to know about the emergence of plants and how they achieved their high levels of adaptive fitness.  It explains not only the outward morphology, but the programming and developmental constraints that maintain fitness.  It’s in that best seller in your hotel room drawer.  Let’s start at the very beginning, a very good place to start.  (Nothing comes from nothing; nothing ever could.)
Next headline on:  Plants • Darwinism and Evolutionary Theory • Next dumb story.

Strod and Arad work at the Hula Valley Nature Preserve in northern Israel; perhaps that is where they made some of the observations.  TV nature programs sometimes show these birds in action.  Next time you see one, you’ll have reason to appreciate even more the elegance of their fishing expertise.
    Once again, this excellent intelligent-design paper was marred by a worthless insertion of the E word, probably because Current Darwin-Worship wouldn’t print it otherwise: they conclude, “Low turbidity levels are commonly encountered in natural water bodies and thus are of crucial importance in our understanding of the evolution, sensory ecology, and micro-habitat selection in aquatic organisms.”  This, as usual, means that nobody understands how these optical marvels evolved, but the Darwin Party hopes to some day.  I wonder if the authors really buy that promissory note.  So how many billion cormorants died of starvation till they got their optics right?  Sorry, 990 dioptres per second isn’t good enough; let’s bump it up to 1000 and make sure all the less fit go extinct.  For sure.  We don’t need such evolutionary whistling in the dark.  Cormorants knew the tune from the top, and in the right key, too; see sharp or be flat.
Next headline on:  Birds • Amazing Facts

Is it possible to be racist with long-dead humans?  There is a great deal of variation among people groups living today (Watusi and pygmy, etc.), yet they are all 100% human and it is very unPC to discriminate between them.  Variation within a species can be quite pronounced.  Anthropologists seem to be too quick to sort bones into evolutionary lineages without considering the environmental influences on anatomy, such as diet: chewing tough meat might accentuate brow ridges and teeth, for instance.
    This long-fumbling practice of classifying human bones into separate species so as to weave a tale of evolution should be scorned for its phony discrimination.  It’s not science; it is dogma looking for support.  Primitive, my tooth.  These deceased brethren could probably outrun and outsmart any modern paleoanthropologist on the trail of a cave bear.  That takes brains, physical fitness, and complex DNA that is anything but primitive.  Maybe the new paradigm is that humans have been devolving from highly intelligent, skilled, artistic hunters into lazy, obese, foolish storytellers.
Next headline on:  Early Man