“We see that the Darwinian world view must look upon the present sentimental conception of the value of life of the human individual as an overestimate completely hindering the progress of humanity.... The state only has an interest in preserving the more excellent life at the expense of the less excellent.”
—Robby Kossmann, German zoologist (1880), cited by Dr. Richard Weikart in From Darwin to Hitler (Palgrave MacMillan, 2004), p. 78.

To send a link to one of our stories, use our permalink feature; paste the push pin URL into your email or website.

Got a response to something you saw here?  Write our Feedback line.

Darwinists Refute ID “Irreducible Complexity” Argument   10/31/2005    
“New book explains how evolution really works, rebuts intelligent design.”  That’s the triumphant title of a new book announcement from Harvard Medical School, reported on EurekAlert.  According to the release, Marc W. Kirschner (Harvard Medical School) and John C. Gerhart (UC Berkeley) have addressed a “key problem in evolutionary theory that has puzzled scientists from Darwin on and which is now under intense scrutiny by proponents of intelligent design: where do the big jumps come from in evolution?” (emphasis added in all quotes.)  The product of their investigation is their new book The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin’s Dilemma (Yale Univ. Press, 2005).  The answer, they claim, lies in newly-discovered molecular properties of organisms:

The origin of novelty, the development of new arrangements of interlocking parts that some call “irreducibly complex,” can only be understood in the light of the last 20 years of research in cell biology and development.
    We now know that the ‘parts’ that make up a living organism are very unlike the rigid parts designed for machines.  Instead, they can flexibly connect and re-connect, using the same pieces over and over to make new functions.
    For example, one might think that a mutation that makes the neck of a giraffe longer would have to be accompanied by several other mutations, one that expands the length of the muscles of the neck, another that makes the blood vessels longer, and so on.  But instead, the muscles grow to fit the length of the bone and the blood vessels grow until all the muscles have a sufficient supply of oxygen.  Apparently very complex adaptations can therefore be achieved with few, simple mutations.
    Today, it is understood for the first time that all animals use the same set of core processes to develop into adult forms.  Applying this knowledge to evolution, the authors show that novel traits emerge from the ways the organism is constructed: its complex mechanisms for adapting to the environment, its modular construction, and its internal circuitry that can be re-specified and reconnected.

The diversity and complexity of life on Earth—from bacteria and fungi to plants and animals—suggest the generation of remarkable variation upon which natural selection can act.  But how do new traits—new morphological architectures (bodyplans), developmental processes, and behaviors—arise?  Did the vertebrate brain and neural crest arise through processes that are different from those that generated new hairs on the legs of the fruit fly?  Can major evolutionary transitions in the history of life be explained by random variation—variation that is random with respect to the future needs of the organism—filtered through the process of natural selection?  These questions are not new, but the promise of a more mechanistic basis for answering them through comparative developmental biology imbues them with a fresh urgency.

In Kirschner and Gerhart’s view, there are four aspects of gene regulation and development in animals that constrain the direction of heritable variation.  These are the extensive conservation across metazoa of certain regulatory patterns; a modular pattern of organismal design; what the authors term “weak linkages” in gene regulation, caused by, in their view, regulatory interactions that do not specify outcomes; and nondeterministic outcomes of development.

This is the first place where the authors get into trouble; for through much of the book they seem to fundamentally misunderstand how evolutionary biologists use the term “random.”  By random mutation, evolutionary biologists mean random with respect to the adaptive needs of the organism, not, as the authors would have it in the early part of the book, completely random in the sense that many nonevolutionary biologists may think of the word “random.”  One of Charles Darwin’s key insights was that the combination of undirected mutation and natural selection is a powerful positive force for evolutionary creativity (and not, as so many later biologists have suggested, merely a negative force).  Evolutionary biologists have long understood that the nature of variation depends critically on what has already evolved.  Indeed, there is a rich literature discussing how phylogeny, function, structure, and other features constrain evolutionary variation.  Kirschner and Gerhart ignore this uncomfortable fact, dismissing constraint as “a minor effect, or trivial, for example, in explaining why mollusks (sic) and echinoderms were less able to evolve wings than vertebrates.”  They refer to variation as random alterations that can have little positive impact or that “lead to catastrophic failure.”  This results in the appearance of some odd comments as, for example, when the authors claim that evolutionary biologists “do not commonly appreciate...”  that “present-day organisms come from previous organisms.”  Indeed.

Presenting no evidence, they claim that these waves of innovation are not linked to changes in the physical environment.  In fact, one of the most exciting areas of current research addresses how the origin and spread of these innovations are linked to a variety of geochemical, climatic, and other changes.  These core processes—DNA, RNA, and protein synthesis, formation of the cytoskeleton, and limb patterning—have descended relatively unchanged since they first arose.

Kirschner and Gerhart invoke exploratory behavior as a means of avoiding what they view as an otherwise insurmountable difficulty: that novelty appears to require multiple, correlated changes from phenotype to function.

The most important part of this book is, in my view, the authors’ description of the evolutionary significance of the interactions between compartments and the conserved regulatory networks that underlie them via weak linkages [i.e., signals that trigger a response without specifying information about what the response should be].  Although the authors do not emphasize this sufficiently (at least for a paleontologist), this network of relationships imposes a developmental reality to the architectural forms described as body plans and generally characterized within Linnean systematics as phyla and classes.  As Kirschner and Gerhart note, this modularity of design often allows relatively independent evolution of different body parts without greatly increasing the coordination among them.  The gills, paddles, mouthparts, claws, and walking legs of various arthropods are all modifications of a single ancestral structure.  The modularity of arthropod body plans has enabled the rapid adaptation of limbs without inhibiting the workings of the whole animal.

The generation of morphological variants is a critical issue, and several of these book authors have raised important questions and proposed new viewpoints.  But the generation of variation is only the beginning of the problem of evolutionary novelty.  Novel phenotypes succeed or fail based on their ecological relationships with other organisms and with the physical environment.  This ecological dimension is conspicuously lacking in these books, yet we cannot really understand novelty without it.  In particular, evolutionary biologists need to address such issues as how phenotypic “space” expands, how new niches are constructed, and related ecological events.

Is the neo-Darwinian view of evolution in need of reformation?  Certainly the diversity of rumblings indicates some degree of unhappiness, but evolutionary biologists have regularly published new models of evolution since the late 19th century (see Bowler, The Eclipse of Darwinism, Johns Hopkins, 1993).  Is there reason to think that our view of evolution needs to change?  The answer is almost certainly yes, although not, as the purveyors of creationism/intelligent design would have it, because the reality of evolution is under question.  Rather, we need to revise our view of evolution to reflect a more detailed understanding of how genetics and development both allow and facilitate phenotypic variation, to take into account the temporal dynamics of changes in the environment, and to incorporate the likelihood that there is selection and feedback at multiple levels (cell, tissue, organism, clade).  The central issues that need to be incorporated into evolutionary theory are the origin of phenotypic novelty and the discontinuous patterns of appearance of new phenotypes.

If you get a kick out of watching villains shoot themselves in the foot, you will rollick with this entry.  We provided extended quotes to let you savor the moment.  Here is the biggest problem in the history of evolutionary thought: the abrupt appearance of new body plans and complex structures with interrelated parts each necessary for function.  The Darwinists realize that the creationists and intelligent design proponents have been hammering them on the fact that they have no answers.  And finally, here was the new book that EurekAlert said was going to put those criticisms to rest once for all.  And what is it?  Blind search!  “Exploratory behavior” is putting feelers out in the dark and seeing if anything sticks.  But then what is leading the blind: the blind random variations in the molecules, or the blind random variations in the environment?  Can anyone really believe that a succession of blind actions will produce irreducibly complex systems like wings, gills, paddles, mouthparts, claws, legs, and rotating motors of exquisite design and efficiency?  If this book had the answer, Erwin would not have left it (“the origin of phenotypic novelty”) and “the discontinuous patterns of appearance” (e.g., the Cambrian Explosion), as unsolved problems.  Then Erwin did us the favor of pointing out that all the other books don’t solve them, either – though they have been trying since the 19th century.  [Quiz question: in what century did Charles Darwin write his famous book?]
    If you found anything other than smoke and mirrors in all the mumbo-jumbo they came up with, go ahead and put your money in Darwin Circus stock.  That’s where the magicians have mastered the art of mass hypnosis, pointing their fingers into the air and and saying “watch this space” (e.g., 08/19/2004) till everyone is staring, mind-numbed, at nothing.  That’s where the clowns, wearing pink-tassled slippers and conical hats (see 04/01/2005) end their long comedy of errors act by shooting each other’s feet simultaneously.  One of their lines is starting to go over like a lead balloon, though.  That’s when they say the real clowns are the ones across the street at Philharmonic Hall, listening with soaring hearts and minds as the Maestro conducts hundreds of skilled players and singers in his masterpiece, The Creation.
Next headline on:  Darwinism and Evolutionary Theory • Intelligent Design

Baloney Detecting Exercise:  Alan Elsner of Reuters tries to make the case that the U.S. is becoming “hostile to science” largely because of its opposition to evolution (see MSNBC News).

Replace the word “scientists” by “elitists” and the article makes a lot more sense.  Conservatives love good science, but they have this thing about leftist liberals in academia (see 12/02/2004) who always seem to take the far-left position on everything and try to cloak it in scientific robes.  Will education really suffer if the leftists lose power?  Will students be deprived if Darwinist lies are expunged from science textbooks?  Will hearing that alternatives to evolutionary theory exist make students bored with science?  See non-sequitur in the Baloney Detector.

Is Darwin or ID the New Halloween Spook?   10/30/2005    
Scary, isn’t it?  A textbook committee in Montgomery, Alabama approved dozens of new textbooks, but found objectionable material in three of them: they contained material on evolution that was deemed controversial for children.  They decided that pictures of reptiles evolving from amphibians and humans evolving from apes was not appropriate for elementary children who were not developmentally ready for such controversial material.  The AP story reprinted on the Columbus Ledger-Inquirer website on October 27 quoted a sociologist at Troy University who objected to one textbook that he claimed was “nothing other than a full endorsement of Darwinian evolution.”  He also called it “at best a waste of taxpayers’ money and at worst a numbing of student minds.”
    “Scary” was a seasonally-correct word included in another AP story posted by the Arkansas news service ArkCity.Net.  John Hanna reported on a speech by Phillip Johnson to a student group at Washburn University in Topeka, Kansas.  Johnson described the reaction of the scientific establishment to people who question evolution.  “This is very scary to the Mandarins of science,” he told the audience at the off-campus meeting sponsored by Christian Challenge.  “There’s been a panicky and hysterical response to this, some of which you’ve seen in your state recently.”  Johnson also spoke Saturday night at the university student union.
    In Kansas, meanwhile, two professional associations are barring the doors to the ID spooks.  MSNBC News said that the National Academy of Sciences and the National Teachers Association wrote the Department of Education, refusing to let the school board use their copyrighted material in the proposed science standards, because they feel the standards promote creationism.

If the Darwin costume is scaring the children, acting panicky or hysterical only makes it worse.  Which side wants to keep high school students in the dark, and and which side wants to turn on the lights?  Which side wants to shield impressionable elementary students from pedagogical tricks, and treat them to the truth?  Which side is shrieking and threatening, and which side is calmly asking for an enlightened discussion of the facts?  The thing apparently scaring the Darwinists the most is that the morning twilight reveals their long night on Bald Mountain is coming to an end, and that can only mean one thing: Thanksgiving is near.
Next headline on:  Evolution • Intelligent Design • Education

An interdisciplinary group of scientists and engineers at the Georgia Institute of Technology recently formed the Center for Biologically Inspired Design (CBID) with the goal of capitalizing on the rich source of design solutions present in biological processes.  The researchers believe nature can inspire design and engineering solutions that are efficient, practical and sustainable and thus have the potential to greatly enhance new technologies, materials and processes.
    “Biology can be a powerful guide to understanding problems in design and engineering,” said Associate Professor of Biology Marc Weissburg, CBID co-director.  “In comparative physiology, we teach that every animal has to solve a particular problem to survive, so every animal is a design solution for a particular problem.
    “They can provide solutions for more efficient manufacturing and design of materials with new capabilities, for example.  These are things the biological world has solved, and if you study them, you have the opportunity to apply that knowledge in the human sector.  You can also extend that reasoning to ecological processes.  These are guiding principles behind the Georgia Tech Center for Biologically Inspired Design.”   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

OK, Intelligent Design community, charge again!  (See 06/25/2005 commentary.)  This is exactly the kind of new infusion of creative energy and practical benefit that a design perspective can bring to science and technology.  Despite the humorous reference to Mother Nature, this approach does not need to focus on the identity of the Designer to parlay design detection (a fundamental principle of intelligent design) into fruitful scientific research.  This is not to say that knowing the Designer personally would be a hindrance, obviously – but it demonstrates that design science can produce a cooperative enterprise among diverse people regardless of their religion.  Maybe someday the plagiarism will be rectified by appropriate attribution.  For now, though, the ACLU and other religion-hating groups would not be able to get their bony fingers on the CBID, because members only need good observational and engineering skills.  Simultaneously, the ability to tell spooky Darwinian stories would drop off the list of qualifications.  Are Georgia Tech and Caltech’s new multidisciplinary centers for biological design indicating that a major shift in scientific research is underway?  Is there a promised land beyond the crumbling, haunted remains of Down House?  Bioneers!  O Bioneers!  The fruitful land, the frontier of discovery and happiness, belongs to you.
    There was no mention of evolution in the press release, demonstrating again that Darwinism has no necessary or pragmatic connection to the new wave of institutions like the CBID.  Unlike the founders of science who, like Francis Bacon, put a high priority on applying science to improve the human condition, the Darwinists, like the later scholastics, waste their time looking for confirming evidence for the outworn philosophy of their Victorian Aristotle.  It’s time to question the presumptive authority of the past 146 years, and look to the future, where the Bioneers of design science are taking their inspiration from the exquisite contrivances of observable nature.  A Darwinist Bioneer is almost a contradiction in terms.  Any Darwinists on the CBID faculty must certainly be Darwinists in Name Only (DINOs), because whether or not they bow at the shrine of Charlie, pitch the obligatory incense and repeat the mantra “Evolution is a fact, like gravity,” such exercises contribute nothing to their actual research.  DINOs should be distinguished from DODOs (those who squawk “Darwin Only!  Darwin Only!), but it doesn’t matter, since both clades are rapidly going extinct.
Next headline on:  Darwinism • Intelligent Design • Biomimetics • Amazing Stories

It may shed light on humans, all right, but not in the way evolution-obsessed National Geographic wants.  It underscores the difference between humans and animals.  Even though the study was investigating the “evolution of primate behavior,” they had to admit that altruistic behavior appears to be a uniquely human trait.
    We must not assume that the chimpanzees were acting selfishly, because that would require a moral sense.  They were just acting like the beasts they are.  Could we perform a mind-meld with a chimp during the experiment, we would probably be cognizant only of the instantaneous present.  The body would react to whatever senses call most for attention at the moment.  The memory would bring forth stored responses that brought pleasure, but there would be no planning for the future, no awareness of the mental state of the neighboring chimp squealing for a treat, and no sense of moral obligation – only a memory of what previous actions elicited pleasure, whether or not they benefited the other.  That is the chimp’s mental state.  It is not wrong for the chimp, just chimpy.  We don’t expect more of the beasts.  They cannot ascend to our nature, but humans can descend to theirs (look what Peter said).
    We have many physical similarities to animals, especially to the apes.  The image of God does not relate to our physical nature, but to our spiritual, moral and intellectual nature: the ability to think, love, create, communicate in abstract language, care for one another, contemplate our origin and destiny, and to have a personal relationship with God.  Most animals care for their young and many form cooperative groups, but these are instinctive behaviors.  You won’t see a chimpanzee sending a donation to disaster relief (see next story) or praying.  Exercise your human nature – all of it – not just sharing a banana.  (See David’s counsel.)
Next headline on:  Mammals • Politics and Ethics

Famous last words: “Look at this mess of trees blocking our view of the sea.  How are we supposed to get our boats on the water through all that tangled up wood in the way?  Those mangroves are such a pain.  Cut ’em all down.  I’ll start a fishery, and Sam, think of all the money you could make with a beach resort hotel over there.”
Next headline on:  Botany • Amazing Stories

The shape of red blood cells is also the optimum for maximizing surface area (for diffusion) without sacrificing volume (for payload).  If they were rigid disks, they would get stuck, starving tissues of oxygen and causing death.  As you work today, think about those little erythrocyte spelunkers making their rounds, delivering the goods from that last breath of air to every cubic micrometer of your body.  The Creator thought of everything.
Next headline on:  Human Body • Cell Biology • Amazing Stories

• Diving Champs:  Emperor penguins can dive as deep as 500m for up to 20 minutes, without getting the bends or excess free radicals in their blood.  This is enabled by several adaptations: the ability to lower their heart rate during dives from 200 to 60 beats per minute, storage of extra myoglobin in their tissues, and storing more blood per body weight than humans.  Their stiff bodies and flexible flippers also reduce drag, making them better designed hydrodynamically than most mammals, the article claims.  “They can keep swimming even when their bodies’ oxygen stores have been depleted beyond levels that would knock out a human diver,” a photo caption states; specifically, 20mm of mercury, compared to a human’s lower limit is 25mm.  Scientists still do not understand how the birds can avoid damage from the rush of blood as they surface rapidly and catapult onto the ice.
• Marching Champs:  The birds make their long marches in complete silence.  Some colonies have a few hundred breeding pairs; others can have 10,000.  There are about 40 colonies known.  In midwinter, there is only three hours of dim light per day sandwiched between 21 hours of darkness under aurora-spectacled skies.
• Huddle Champs:  The conditions during storms look miserable to us, but the male birds huddle to conserve body heat, and actually get “toasty” at 20° C in groups.  A male could only survive alone only down to -10° C; in groups, they can lower their metabolic rate by 40%.  They seem to actually have to go outside once in awhile to cool off; at all times, however, the safety of the precious eggs must be the highest priority.  Inside the huddle, their heads on flexible necks can be seen sticking up like periscopes once in awhile, with little puffs of warm air indicating things are OK.  In springtime, the young learn to huddle early.  Both parents go off to forage as soon as they can, leaving the young in playgroups to learn on their own.
• Diet Champs:  The males incubating the eggs all winter actually starve themselves with their bellies full, the article says.  They are able to block their digestion and maintain enough store to feed the growing chick with reserves till the female returns.
• Travel Champs:  Radio-collared penguins have been found to forage as far as 1,900 km at sea.
• Fashion Champs:  Those tuxedos have to come off once a year.  In the summertime, the birds fast again for a month, standing on ice floes to molt.  All the old feathers come out and the new fluffy ones come in underneath.  The undercoat of down provides an insulating layer of air, and the oiled outer feathers provide a “waterproof dive suit” that compresses underwater, keeping the downy feathers dry and preventing the chilly water from reaching the skin.

Fortunately, Susan Milius did not try to speculate on how the emperor penguin evolved.  If you tried to count how many lucky mutations would be needed to evolve from a dinosaur to an early bird to an emperor penguin, what number would you come up with?  Hundreds?  Thousands?  Tens of thousands?  It’s a total remake.  The biochemistry of the cell, the oxygen handling capabilities, the pressure protection and scuba gear, the dive suit, the lungs, the bones, the dietary adaptations, core body heat, timing of the molt, ability to waddle upright, the stiff body and flippers, the incubating patch and tough feet, eyes adapted to deep underwater vision, navigating ability over vast distances on ice and in the sea – and these are just some of the physical changes that the ambitious dinosaur would need.
    Then there are the behavioral adaptations.  How did the penguins learn to transfer the egg from the female to the male without breaking it, and when did the male decide to forego eating for months, holding the egg on its feet?  How did the males overcome their usual territoriality instinct and decide to pack in tightly together, 10 birds per square meter?  How did the females figure out when the eggs would hatch, and learn to forage only long enough to get back in time to feed them and give hubby a well-deserved break?  How did they find their way back to the correct nesting site?  What made them regurgitate their own food for the sake of a chick they had never seen before?  How do they find their mates when everyone looks alike?  How do the feathers know when to molt all at once (unlike on air birds, who molt continuously), so that the reupholstering job minimizes time out of the water?  Where did they learn those rocket jumps out onto the ice?  How do the young catch on to all this so fast?
    Evolutionists provide only empty speculations for these things, arguing from ignorance that “if these mutations had not occurred, the penguins would not be there.”  That only assumes their materialistic view without explaining the observations.  Creationists may not be able to explain everything about why God would create emperor penguins to live like this, but they surely need far less faith than an evolutionist.  If this were the only example of a creature possessing dozens of tight-knit adaptations needing to function together simultaneously or not at all, it would be challenging enough for evolutionary theory.  Now let’s talk about giraffes, bats, water striders, cheetahs, geckos, kangaroos, hummingbirds, humans....
Next headline on:  Birds • Marine Life • Amazing Stories

1. tRNA: Guided Trackways:  A paper in PNAS¹ took five pages describing one tiny segment of the DNA translation process: the moment when transfer RNA (tRNA) enters the inner sanctum of the protein-building machine, the ribosome (see also summary on Science Now).  If you have seen the animations in the film Unlocking the Mystery of Life, you probably remember the climactic scene of tRNAs lining up in assembly-line fashion as their attached amino acids are fastened together.  Stunning as that animation was, it was vastly oversimplified.  The ribosome actually contains a precisely-molded entrance tunnel where each tRNA is inspected and guided into place before allowed into the active site.  Each tiny movement along the track is authenticated by contacts with specific atoms at checkpoints along the way.  A Los Alamos team achieved the highest-resolution images yet of this process and found that parts of the tRNA and the tunnel turnstiles actually flex as much as 20° as part of the guided entrance, called accommodation.  Their diagrams show multiple precision contacts all along the four specific stages of accommodation they investigated.  Whether able to follow their dense jargon-laden description or not, the reader is sure to get the sense that something incredibly precise is going on.  And then to learn that it all takes place in two nanoseconds is almost too much to handle.
2. DNA Copying: Tight Fit:  Another paper in PNAS² explored the fit of DNA bases in the copying machinery at the sub-angstrom level (an angstrom is 10^-10 meter, about the width of a hydrogen atom).  Stanford and MIT scientists investigated how thymine fits into DNA Polymerase I as the genetic code is transcribed.  As in the tRNA case above, the fit is precise and guided.  They were surprised to find a little bit of margin inside the active site, which they speculated might “allow for an evolutionarily advantageous mutation rate.”  Nevertheless, their “results provide direct evidence for the importance of a tight steric fit on DNA replication fidelity.”  The tight fit ensures that illegal interlopers cannot make it into the active site.  They also found that simple Watson-Crick base-pairing was not sufficient: the machines actually force the bases together in a coordinated way with error-checking.  They remarked that this authentication and guidance system is speedy: “This choice, which occurs dozens of times per second, involves the selection of one nucleotide among four for insertion into the growing primer strand, opposite each DNA template base as it is addressed in turn.” (Emphasis added.)
3. Unzipping Acrobatics:  A paper in Nature³ investigated helicases, the molecular machines that unwind and unzip DNA strands.  “Helicase enzymes can move along DNA or RNA, unraveling the helices as they go,” said Eckhard Jankowsky in an analysis of this paper in the same issue.⁴  “But simply traveling along a nucleic acid in one direction seems not to be enough for some of these molecular motors.”  They discussed how helicase repeatedly bends over, forms loops, and snaps back into position during the operation.  These acrobatic machines don’t just plod along in one direction but undergo a complex choreography with moving parts as they consume ATP for energy.  The “repetitive shuttling” the authors described has a purpose, possibly for “keeping the DNA clear of toxic recombination intermediates.”
4. Cellular Oarsmen:  Three German researchers imaged eukaryotic flagella with twice the resolution of previous attempts.  The whiplike propellers, which beat with back-and-forth motion (unlike the rotary flagellar motors of bacteria), contain a 9+2 arrangement of microtubules that are tied together with motors and spokes.  “Both the material associated with the central pair of microtubules and the radial spokes display a plane of symmetry that helps to explain the planar beat pattern of these flagella,” they wrote.  Their paper in PNAS⁶ includes a stereo pair image that provides a 3D look down the flagellum shaft.

These are just a few of the reasons students should be allowed to hear about intelligent design.  Darwin?  He was just an old Victorian who didn’t know anything about this.  If he had, he might have decided to stick with his training to become a country parson after all.  This is the 21st century, folks: the age of nanomachinery and biophysics.  Enjoy!
Next headline on:  The Cell • Physics • Amazing Stories

Males sometimes harm their mates as they seek to maximise the number of offspring they sire.  But are females really suffering or do the benefits of having sons that inherit their father’s manipulative traits make up for the costs?  Three recent studies provide the first hard data addressing this issue, but they differ in their conclusions.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

The population was established over 300 generations ago and has been maintained continuously at high population size to retain genetic diversity.  The authors claim that this approach means that the flies have had time to become adapted to the laboratory.  Although this may be true in the sense that alleles present at low frequencies in the wild population that are beneficial in the lab can be expected to have raced to fixation, it cannot be true in the broader sense of gradual evolution through new mutations.  A small glass tube in which males and females are forced into close proximity and walk around on a sea of food bears little resemblance to the varied natural environments where D. melanogaster are found, and it is safe to assume that there will be a continual stream of new mutations that prove beneficial on this laboratory island.  Indeed, recent work documents on-going evolution in fly populations maintained in the lab for over a 1000 generations.  This constant adaptation to the lab may mean that naturally selected differences between individuals are much more important than sexually selected differences, but whether this is the case in the wild is a point of contention.  A second issue is that the lab is particularly unusual in relation to conflicts over mating because of the high-density housing conditions and females cannot escape from males since they are robbed of their major natural defence, which is to simply fly away....

But we still have no clear idea what the relative magnitude of direct and indirect effects are generally.²  If we are really going to move this debate forward and out of the lab, incorporating the full gamut of costs and benefits of sexual selection, then systems are needed where trans-generational fitness can be measured in nature.  Tellingly, in one of the few long-term studies of organisms in the wild, sexual selection is reported to have no fitness consequences, which suggests either the equilibrium situation Fisher envisaged (where the benefits of choice are balanced by natural selection costs), or perhaps that the costs and benefits of sexual selection alone are balanced.  If this is the case, and costs generated through sexual conflict are balanced by benefits through traditional sexual selection mechanisms, then we may not expect sexual selection to drive rapid evolutionary change.  Determining how commonly males impose serious costs on females without compensatory benefits in nature is the next major challenge in the study of sexual conflict.

It is said that those who respect the law and love sausage should never watch either being made.  The same could be said of Darwinian theory.  It’s packaged in the textbooks nice and neat, but inside it is full of baloney, fat, and filler, the composition of which you would not want to know.
    Let the reader understand.  These two knowledgeable scientists, both evolutionists at the Centre for Ecology and Conservation in Cornwall, UK, have just spilled the beans.  They confessed in print that there is no real-world, long-term, multi-generational study of any animal that proves sexual selection accomplishes anything!  They effectively pulled the rug out from the lab studies by emphasizing how artificial they are.  But what Darwinist has ever taken the time to watch critters in their natural habitats, without interference, and actually get a grip on the slippery parameter called “fitness” so as to prove Charlie right?  Peter and Mary Grant?  Ha!  All they showed after 30 years was that evolution is unpredictable, and oscillates back and forth (08/24/2005).  Their results, after probably the longest and most detailed experiment in the history of evolutionary research, showed no net evolution – and even they complained that 30 years is probably way too short (considering how slowly evolution must act) to draw any firm conclusions (04/26/2002).  As far as anyone could know, the finches were essentially unchanged since Darwin’s visit in 1832.  Where is the evolution?  Yet their study is often cited (10/24/2004 commentary), as it was here, as one of the few long-term, real-world examples of evolution at work.
    Notice that whatever undercuts the value of sexual selection, the silver coin in Darwin’s currency, also undermines the golden coin: natural selection – because both depend on the concept of “fitness.”  Fitness is just as slippery a metric in either case (see the 10/29/2002 entry, “Fitness for dummies: Is it running in circles?”).
    To be considered scientific, a theory needs mathematical and observational rigor.  Mere hand-waving with charts and graphs and lab activity won’t cut it.  Also, for a theory to gain credibility, experiments should reinforce one another, not lead to opposite conclusions.  Hosken and Tregenza’s article ended like most Darwinian papers, with appeals to the future: “We need more data” or “We need more fossils” or “We need more real-world experiments.”  When Darwinists cannot even define their parameters or measure them, let alone study them in realistic settings, one begins to get the distinct feeling that this has been a 146-year long con game.
    Admissions like this should make one angry.  Dr. Richard Weikart, in his recent book From Darwin to Hitler (Palgrave Macmillan, 2004), quoted page after page after page of influential German thinkers after Darwin – scientists, doctors, eugenicists, militarists, ethicists, philosophers and political scientists – who built their entire worldview on this slippery notion of Darwinian “fitness” (for instance, see the quote at the top right of this page).  The fit overpower the unfit.  This is the law of nature: Darwin proved it.  The strong overcomes the weak.  The superior race exterminates the inferior race.  The healthy deserve to live; the weak should get out of the way or be sterilized lest they contaminate society.  Whole groups of innocent people were deprived of basic human rights when categorized as “unfit”: first criminals, mentally ill, “idiots” and “imbeciles” and other “defectives”, then handicapped, elderly, sickly, deformed, “primitives,” and finally entire races, countries and continents.  We all know what happened next.  And now they tell us they can’t even measure fitness, which means they don’t even know what it is.  Yet today the same Darwinian worldview reigns nearly unchallenged in academia and the centers of intellectual power, built on the very same slippery concept of “fitness.”
    As we weep over the mass graves of the victims of this false and destructive doctrine, let us rush to Dover and demand accountability, as we vow, with informed passion: Never again.
Next headline on:  Darwinism and Evolutionary Theory

H. floresiensis’ diminutive stature, long arms, and nearly chimp-size brain resemble body proportions of australopithecines, Morwood says.  That group of human ancestors lived more than 2 million years ago.  The Flores population may have directly evolved into a Homo species from an unknown Asian australopithecine, Morwood speculates.   (Emphasis added.)

When Homo florensiensis gets renamed as Homo sapiens that lived in modern times, remember the fanfare and chutzpah displayed by the evolutionary paleoanthropologists over this discovery.  Nature and other Darwin foghorns were cocky they had another missing link with which to hammer the creationists.  Remember also the incredible leap of imagination that Morwood et al. asked us to believe, that a population of Lucy’s children moved to Indonesia and evolved into tool-making modern humans independently.  The date of 12,000 years for some of the bones must have been a staggering disappointment to the Darwinists.  The true date is most likely much less than that.  Maybe a living Hobbit will sneak up behind them on Oct. 31 and scare the living daylights out of them – or rather, into them.
Next headline on:  Fossils • Early Man

This article has all the usual airy SETI fluff.  It is pathetic to see these aimless wanderings in speculation space get associated with science.  Life in the Universe was inspired by Star Trek, not chemistry, physics, biology or mathematics.  No other religion than secular materialism could get away with scientific carelessness at this level.  It could be termed “rigor mortis.”
Next headline on:  Origin of Life • SETI

• Surprise, Surprise:  AP reports that the Dover school board did not expect the uproar when it drafted its policy allowing alternatives to Darwinism to be heard; see LiveScience.com.  MSNBC News also carried the story.
• Alas, Poor York:  the York Dispatch printed another article about Michael Behe’s testimony at the trial, and the debate that ensued.  It followed with another story Oct 21 about the defense witness lineup.
• Czech Cache:  The first European Intelligent Design Conference was announced by PR Newswire, based on information from the Discovery Institute.  It began Oct. 21 in Prague and is called Darwin and Design; the Discovery Institute wrote about it, and the Prague Post interviewed one of the speakers, Dr. Charles Thaxton.
• Official Condemnation:  The American Association for the Advancement of Science printed remarks by fellow John Staver denouncing ID with “strong concern” about the Kansas school board decision to allow criticisms of Darwinism.
• Battle of the Books:  Alan Boyle on MSNBC News talked about the book wars for and against evolution, and suggested that Michael Behe has probably made a million in royalties for his popular book, Darwin’s Black Box.  He thought that lay books that fit public opposition to evolutionism are likely to sell better than serious works on science, and quoted an author who tells science writers to emphasize the scientific process and the practical applications of evolutionary theory.
• His Two Pence:  Current Biology 10/25/2005 interviewed Russell Foster (Imperial College, UK) who said, “I think the science community should be very proactive over this issue and take every opportunity to explain why Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory and that it has no place in the teaching of biology.”
• His Two Pounds:  Nigel Williams, also writing in the 10/25 Current Biology, weighed in hard against I.D. in the lead editorial.  He thought it odd that so many creationists and political conservatives are using the movie March of the Penguins as evidence of design, but ended with a reference to the “major new exhibition on Charles Darwin at the American Museum of Natural History in New York next month are expecting controversy and tackle the issue of intelligent design head-on.”  The museum directors are baffled by ID’s prominence, but don’t see any debate worth their time, because, to them, “Darwin is so fundamental to modern science.”
• Outmatched Armies?  Over 7000 scientists signed an online petition stating intelligent design is not science, reported PRNewsWire.  Organizer R. Joe Brandon, an archaeologist, wanted to show up the Discovery Institute’s list of 400 scientists who question evolution and support intelligent design.  (Don’t make any inferences from Brandon’s website name, ShovelBums.org.)  Casey Luskin of EvolutionNews was not particularly impressed by the appeal to authority, arguing they were attacking a straw man version of ID.
• Doctors’ Orders:  The 17,000-member Christian Medical Association issued a statement decrying the “scientific inquisition” against intelligent design, according to Christian Communication Network.  CMA Director Dr. Gene Rudd pointed to a survey of over a thousand doctors that found 76% believe in God, 59% believe in some kind of afterlife, and 55% said their faith influences how they practice medicine.  The statement also referred to historical scientists whose breakthroughs were “consistent with their religious faith and belief in the God who ordered the universe.”
• Scare Tactics:  Brad Harrub of Apologetics Press wrote an editorial criticizing how the Darwinists are trying to “plot, dictate, threaten and scare” to keep their control over science education.
• Down Under and Below the Belt:  Aussie blogger Stephen Jones discussed the underhanded tactics of the anti-ID crowd in his country.
• Hypocrites:  George Neumayr on American Spectator called the ACLU lawsuit a Kangaroo Court, writing, “No sooner had the Darwinists ended their 80th anniversary celebrations of the Scopes trial than they turned their attention to conducting censorship trials of their own.”
• Morning Gory:  Donald Hoffman on Morning Call Online defended ID and claimed the plaintiffs in the Dover trial are over-reacting and making much ado about nothing.
• Big Target:  Patriot News reporter Bill Sulon wrote about how the Dover policy would be difficult to defend, according to district solicitor Stephen Russell, because it would be perceived as initiated for religious reasons.
• Tech Stress:  TopTechNews said “Tension mounts on intelligent design.”
• Students Demand Free Speech:  the Berkeley of the 21st century?  The Cornell IDEA Club responded to university president Hunter Rawlings’ tirade against ID Oct. 21.  He spent two thirds of his State of the University Address attacking intelligent design, with what they felt was a “blatant disregard for the facts” and speaking in an “unscrupulous, unknowledgeable manner.”  They called for free and open exchange of ideas.
• And more...  Access Research Network writer Denyse O’Leary keeps abreast of additional columns and articles of note about the ID controversy.

Something is strangely missing in all these reports.  No Darwinists seem to be defending any evidence that humans have bacteria ancestors.  It seems to be all about power.  (Social Constructivists, don’t get any ideas.)  The ACLU may silence a Behe, but if intelligent design is built into the fabric of the universe, 7,000 Darwinists cannot fight it any more than they can stop a glacier.  Same advice still applies: watch for flying baloney, keep away from the heat, know history, re-read If by Kipling, have a deep and abiding respect for brute facts, and fear not the wroth of the people of froth.
Next headline on:  Darwinism and Evolution • Intelligent Design • Education

We don’t think that Wilbur and Orville would be flattered by the suggestion that their invention was the product of blind, unguided processes of evolution.  Whatever Microraptor gui was, or how it lived, it was not an experiment.  Chance does not do experiments.  Humans sometimes do, but they more often stumble around in their own imaginations.
    Darwinists need to be more embarrassed.  To call the gap before Archaeopteryx “slightly embarrassing” does not do justice to the degree of blushing we should be observing.  Did this new maniraptoran fossil explain how the early bird, a strong flyer with completely modern feathers, arose from a grandpa its own age?  Did the aboreans convince the cursorians by finding a fossil dinosaur leaping off a fossilized limb of a fossilized tree? (see Kevin Padian’s sarcasm, 05/19/2003).  We may not be witnessing the evolution of flight, but we are amassing plenty of observations on the flightiness of evolution, both from the top down and the bottom up.  We’ve even identified the species: cuckoo.
Next headline on:  Dinosaurs • Birds • Fossils • Evolution

By listening to the songs, scientists and students alike can hear the structure of a protein.  And when the songs of the same protein from different species are played together, their similarities and differences are apparent to the ear.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

Need we remind Clark that Theme and Variations is a musical form created by intelligent composers?
Next headline on:  Darwinism • Genetics • Dumb Ideas

This commercial is really funny to watch, and very clever, but it demonstrates the pervasive influence of Darwinism on our culture.  We like the intelligent design commercial by Honda better (see 03/01/2005).
Next headline on:  Media • Darwinism • Dumb Ideas

This result cuts across previous results based on adult structure, and to see the wider implications we need some historical background.  The composition of the arthropod head is one of the bitterest and longest-running problems in animal evolution.  Unresolved after more than a century of debate, this sorry tale is (in)famously known as the “endless dispute”.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

a, If pycnogonids branched off before the appearance of insects, crustaceans, myriapods and arachnids, we can interpret their protocerebral chelifores (red) as equivalent to the supposedly anterior great appendage of fossil groups such as Anomalocaris.  The labrum (green) would have evolved in the common ancestor indicated with a star.  b, But if pycnogonids are related to arachnids, then either their protocerebral chelifores could be an atavistic re-evolution of the great appendage, or the labrum must have evolved independently in arachnids and the other three taxa.  Both of these latter hypotheses are contentious, and could raise doubts about the conclusions of Maxmen and colleagues.

The conclusions of Maxmen et al. overturn entrenched ideas about the body plan of the sea spiders and, furthermore, lend support to some controversial theories of arthropod evolution.  Unlike their terrestrial analogues, sea spiders lack a poisonous bite, but this paper is bound to inject venom into what is already one of the most controversial of all zoological topics.

You probably didn’t even know that the Darwinists had this problem.  Behind the scenes, they have been injecting each other with venom and battling each other for over a century about where arthropods fit in the evolutionary tree, all the while telling the rest of us evolution is a fact.  Should we feel sorry for them?  Do you feel sorry for someone who builds a sand castle on a fault line?
Next headline on:  Marine Biology • Terrestrial Zoology • Darwinism and Evolutionary Theory

Surface ages can be derived from the spatial density of craters, but this association presumes that the craters are made by interplanetary impactors, arriving randomly in time and location across the surface.  Secondary craters cause confusion because they contaminate the primary cratering record by emplacing large numbers of craters, episodically, in random and non-random locations on the surface.  The number and spatial extent of secondary craters generated by a primary impact has been a significant research issue.  If many or most small craters on a surface are secondaries, but are mistakenly identified as primaries, derived surface ages or characteristics of the impacting population size-frequency distribution (SFD) will be in error.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

Our work raises doubts regarding methods that use the lunar small-crater distribution to calibrate other inner Solar System surface ages (for example, Mars).  If, as on Europa, lunar and martian secondaries are 95% of the small crater (less than a few kilometres) population, the error bars (and thus derived surface ages) on any residual primary crater population become large (uncertainties are 20 times the measured density value).  This uncertainty applies to both the measured population on a martian surface unit and the lunar SFD that supposedly represents absolute age.  We emphasize that traditional age-dating analyses still derive robust ages when using large craters (greater than a few kilometres diameter), which are less likely to be secondaries.  However, the technique becomes increasingly unreliable when applied to dating tiny geographical units using small craters, which may be mostly secondaries.

Things are not always what they seem.  This announcement must hurt like a rock to Darwinists, who really need those long periods of uniformitarian processes.  Imagine ten million craters forming in one day!  If crater counts say nothing about age, why could not all the observed cratering have occurred quickly, in relatively recent times?
Next headline on:  Dating Methods • Mars • Solar System

Genes Are Not Telling the Whole Story    10/20/2005  
A growing realization is dawning on geneticists: there is more going on in DNA than previously imagined.  Now that whole genomes are becoming available, scientists are eagerly trying to understand how the genetic code (genotype) produces a full-grown organism (phenotype), like a fruit fly or human.  The interesting stuff in DNA used to be the genes, but two recent stories are showing that other players in the nucleus may have much more to do with the outcome than just the genes that code for proteins (09/08/2005, 09/23/2005).
(1)  A study from UC San Diego has, once again, showed the functional value of “junk DNA”.  Peter Andolfatto found large differences in non-coding DNA between closely-related species of fruit flies (Drosophila).  These differences appear to be important to the flies, perhaps in maintaining their genetic integrity.  He speculated that these non-coding regions may, therefore, have evolutionary importance.  Andolfatto, who published his findings in Nature,¹ explained the change in focus:

“Protein evolution has traditionally been emphasized as a key facet of genome evolution and the evolution of new species,” says Andolfatto.  “The degree of protein sequence similarity between humans and chimpanzees, and other closely-related but morphologically distinct taxa, has prompted several researchers to speculate that most adaptive differences between taxa are due to changes in gene regulation and not protein evolution.  My results lend support to this view by demonstrating that regulatory changes have been of great importance in the evolution of new Drosophila species.”   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

Once upon a time, the world seemed simple when viewed through the eyes of evolutionary biologists.  All genomes were tightly controlled by various forms of natural selection.  DNA encoded functional genes, and most mutations that occurred were rejected through negative selection.  Those exceptional mutations that were beneficial substituted for the original gene variant (allele) and spread through the evolving populations by positive selection.  And polymorphisms – where several alleles coexist within a population – were maintained by yet another, balancing, form of selection.

Exactly one year ago this week, scientists announced that they had finished the ‘Book of Life’.  The complete sequence of the human genome had been painstakingly reduced to an ordered list of letters representing the four bases of DNA.  This text was believed to be virtually identical for every person on Earth – and the major differences between individuals, such as hair colour, were said to be the equivalent of typographical errors, no longer than a single letter.  The next major task for scientists was to find out which of these tiny differences can cause disease.
    But even as the ink was drying on the complete sequence, some researchers were questioning whether there was really such a thing as the definitive edition of the Book of Life.  By skim-reading individual genomes, these scientists were finding bizarre and unexpected irregularities.  In some people, whole paragraphs of the text were duplicated, whereas in others, large passages were missing, or even printed backwards.  These major revisions turned up in all kinds of people, including many who seemed healthy and normal.  Suddenly, it seemed possible that there was actually no standard version of the Book of Life, and researchers wondered whether we are all much more different from each other than they had thought.

Neo-Darwinism was built on a pre-genomic, simplistic view of inheritance.  It, and its successors, can no longer pretend to account for the new complexities of genetics that are coming to light.
    More recently, evolutionists have attempted to arrange organisms into phylogenetic trees based on sequence similarities of this or that gene.  This is like focusing on individual trees and missing the forest.  There is much more than just genes and their protein products accounting for our individual differences.  If the genes are just pawns of regulatory processes, who is regulating the regulators?  How does a mature individual arise from the complex sequence of developmental processes that know which genes to switch on at the right times?
    In times of intellectual ferment such as this, it is unfair to grant sole authority for explanations to one team, the Darwin Bulldogs, that has repeatedly struck out.  Manager Charlie would never have predicted the curve balls that the nature would pitch at them.  Bluffing confidence and armchair strategies have proven inadequate.  Let design science come to bat.
Next headline on:  Genetics • Evolutionary Theory • Human Body • Zoology

It remains to be seen if either method can do anything to resolve the political impasse over human embryonic stem-cell research....
The ethical appeal of the [ANT] approach has yet to be tested.  If proponents such as Hurlbut are sufficiently numerous and influential, it could help to tip the balance towards a more benign regulatory and funding environment for human embryonic stem-cell research.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

These articles illustrate once again that mad scientists would go berserk with what they could do, if it were not for people with an ethical conscience, often derived from religion, putting the brakes on their reckless (and funding-motivated) enthusiasm.  It would be good to read again some of the moral issues and potential horrors of unregulated genetic engineering we listed in our 08/24/2003 commentary (see bullet item “Right to Life lobby”).  Keep the pressure on.  We would have no qualms over stem cell research that passes the most rigorous tests of informed ethicists, particularly those who understand Christian principles of compassion, like not grinding up some lives to help others.  But be careful.  Darwinism has bequeathed to us an unprincipled lot of opportunists and glory-seekers.  Their appeals couched in terms of compassion leave ample room for skepticism, when the mouth vocalizing altruistic rhetoric is accompanied with dollar signs in the eyes.
Next headline on:  Cell Biology • Health • Politics and Ethics

More school boards are considering mandating mention of intelligent design.  Randy Tomasacci, a school board member from Shickshinny, north of Harrisburg, said his board is debating whether to require teachers to spend a few days on intelligent design.  We’re thinking about it,” he said.  “But we don’t want to get sued out of existence.”

Can’t the reporters get fixated on the evidence instead?  Maybe they would learn something about science instead of the secret motivations of their caricatured foes.  At least anti-ID reporter Alan Boyle is working his way through Lee Strobel’s book The Case for a Creator among his stack of pro-evolution books and websites (see MSNBC), perhaps after being sufficiently hammered by emails from readers about his bias.  MSNBC also printed a story about a parent worried that his daughter might not be accepted by other students if she doesn’t agree with ID.  No worries.  Christians don’t believe in doing unto others as they did unto us.
Next headline on:  Education • Intelligent Design

Natural history museums around the country are mounting new exhibits they hope will succeed where high school biology classes have faltered: convincing Americans that Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution is a rigorously tested cornerstone of modern science.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

The majority of scientists deny there is any credible challenge to evolution.  They emphasize that scientific theory is not a wild guess, but a hypothesis subjected to careful testing and observation over time.  They point to a thoroughly documented geological and radiometric dating of the Earth’s age and to almost daily developments in genetics and molecular and cell biology that affirm aspects of Darwin’s 1859 “The Origin of Species.”
    But the strength of long-standing religious belief about the divine origins of man, in a country where more than a quarter of the citizens self-identify as evangelical Christians, is considerable.
    “One of the big misunderstandings, I think, is that a lot of people have stopped realizing that science is a secular activity,” said Lance Grande, vice president and head of collections and research at the Field Museum.  Field’s $17 million, 20,000-square foot, “Evolving Planet” exhibit is slated to open on March 10, 2006.¹

When riding a dead horse, the Sioux strategy is to dismount.  The Darwinists have tried this strategy – continuing to ride the hobby horse of one-sided propaganda – for over a century.  They have tried Disney movies.  They have tried PBS documentaries.  They have flooded the media with specials from National Geographic, the Discovery Channel, and the Science Channel.  They have published children’s books, cartoon books, textbooks, magazines, pamphlets and newspapers.  They have dominated the national parks and museums with their material.  They have taken over the public schools and controlled the science curriculum.  Why hasn’t it worked?  Why do so many Americans still fail to “get it”?  Here’s the problem: people sense they are being propagandized.  Every one of these attempts to teach evolution is one-sided.  Each portrayal assumes evolution is a fact, and uses evidence merely as a prop for a play whose script is already written in stone.  Worse, many of them ridicule anyone who disagrees, and fail to give any criticism an honest portrayal.
    If the Darwinists really believe their story is well supported and deserves dominance, they need to get it out into the open marketplace of ideas and defend it against the best counter arguments.  They need to stop shouting “evolution is a fact” and “evolution is science, and anything else is religion” and talk about real evidence for the common ancestry of all things.  People know evolution is a controversial subject.  They are not convinced by the extrapolation of finch beak variations into the idea humans have bacteria ancestors.  No amount of media pizzazz can compensate for what many perceive is a weak case.
    To most people throughout history, even as far back as the Greeks and Romans, the evidence for intelligent design has been not only intuitive, but self-evident.  Darwinian materialism is really the new kid on the block.  In a real sense, the burden of proof is on the Darwinists, not the creationists and believers in intelligent design.  Darwin, Huxley, and the subsequent bulldogs (see 09/02/2004) never really made a convincing case; they won over the intellectuals more with chutzpah and intimidation than by rigorous proof.  Even today’s most ardent Darwinists, like Richard Dawkins, admit that life looks designed.  Now, Darwinism is under increasing strain from the findings of molecular biology and the discovery of elaborate molecular machines and networks at the most fundamental levels of life.
    Spending millions on exhibits is not the answer.  Engaging the public with honest consideration of the objections to evolution could be a good start, but unless it is sensed as a sincere and humble search for the truth, it will continue to be dismissed by large numbers of people from all walks of life.  The Darwinist spokesperson needs to get off his elitist pedestal and remove the chip on his shoulder.  All of them need to be willing to admit their theory could be wrong, and that scientific naturalism might really be inadequate.  They need to stop defining their critics out of scientific debate by definition.  Science is supposed to be a search for the truth, not a declaration of victory.  As in any dispute, the honest engagement of ideas in the open square, with humility and mutual respect, can bring light.  More one-sided propaganda will only turn up the heat.
    It was depressing to see some creationists react to the evolution displays with hate speech.  These incidents may have been exaggerated or misreported, but if someone indeed wrote to the Field Museum, “you will burn in hell,” nothing could be uglier or more harmful.  Such an epithet conveys pride, hate, ignorance and unreason – characteristics the Darwinists are sure to hold up as examples of religious intolerance, as they did here.  Worse, it is the opposite of the countenance that Christians should present to non-Christians (see Ephesians 4).  If you know a person prone to this kind of outburst, stop him.  Nothing is more sure to entrench unbelievers in their dislike of creationism or intelligent design.  Get REAL: Reason, Evidence, Attractiveness, Logic.  Sweetness of speech increases persuasiveness, said the wisest man in history (Solomon).  See also the 09/22/2005 commentary.
Check out the Reader Responses to this story.
Next headline on:  Darwinism and Evolution • Intelligent Design • Education

So how does a scientist or teacher defend evolution against trained attackers?  “Don’t,” suggests geoscientist Donald Wise from the University of Massachusetts.  Instead, go after the deep flaws in ID.  Take the human body, for instance, he says in his GSA presentation.  It’s a great argument against ID.  Anyone who has ever had back pain or clogged sinuses can testify to this.  Our evolutionarily recent upright posture explains our terrible back problems better than ID, and our squished, very poorly “designed” sinuses don’t function at all well and are easily explained by the evolutionarily rapid enlargement of our brains.
    Wise’s advice to scientists and educators is to: 1) get off the defensive; 2) focus on the ample weak points of Intelligent Design; 3) keep it simple; 4) accentuate it with humor; and 5) stick to irrefutable facts close to evolution and relevant to voters.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

Irrefutable facts – careful testing – observation – great.  When do they begin?  It would be harder to find a better illustration of Darwin Party hypocrisy.  These rockhounds have the gall to accuse their critics of propaganda tactics and logical fallacies when those are the Darwin Party’s stock in trade.  For plenty of examples, just look in the chain links here in five years of reporting on evolutionary theory: start here with entry #652 and work back.
    No need for lengthy commentary here; our readers did it justice (see reader responses).  Just to point out that Lee Allison’s tirade about bad design in the human body shows again the utter thanklessness in the Darwinian heart.  Isn’t that what Paul warned about those who turn their back on the obvious?  Watch gymnasts or weightlifters and anyone who puts their back into their work and tell them the human body was poorly designed.  There are limits to our specifications, yes – we cannot hoist 10 tons overhead – but no matter how much a body were designed to do, a Darwinist could always complain about why it is not better.  What do you want to bet these Darwinian ingrates brought on some of their own back pain by becoming obese or never learning good posture?  They also need a lesson on sinuses and the sense of smell (see 06/07/2005) – or any other aspect of human engineering (08/05/2005) – and learn a little gratitude.
Next headline on:  Darwinism and Evolution • Intelligent Design • Education

Imagine peering into a nursery and seeing, among the cooing babies, a few that look like grown men.  That’s the startling situation that astronomers have stumbled upon as they’ve looked deep into space and thus back to a time when newborn galaxies filled the cosmos.  Some of these babies have turned out to be nearly as massive as the Milky Way and other galactic geezers that have taken billions of years to form.  Despite being only about 800 million years old, some of the infants are chock-full of old stars.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

These chunky babies may be pointing to a cosmic crisis.  They don’t seem to fit the leading theory of galaxy formation, which cosmologists have relied on for more than 2 decades to explain an assortment of puzzling features of the universe.  The theory posits that a pervasive, slow-moving, invisible type of matter vastly outweighs the observable matter in the universe.  Under the gravitational influence of this unseen material, known as cold dark matter (SN: 4/23/05, p. 264), galaxies start out as small, starry fragments that merge to become much bigger objects.  That’s usually a gradual process, according to the theory.

Even if the theory of cold dark matter survives this onslaught, the new observations of big galaxies in the most ancient of times have important implications.  The findings suggest that the earliest galaxies formed stars in a great hurry, much more rapidly than galaxies that were born even a billion years later did.  What’s more, that first generation of stars might have been rife with heavyweights much more massive, on average, than stars from any later epoch.

Instant galaxies and stars with appearance of age – that sounds like creation, not evolution.  If God stretched out the heavens in the beginning, as it says multiple places in the Bible, it could have done weird things to space and time, such as making things look older than they really are.  But abrupt appearance would be the rule, just like it is in the fossil record of life on earth.
Next headline on:  Stellar Astronomy • Cosmology • Dating Methods

• Separate Ain’t Equal:  Dave Dentel in the York Daily Record argued that making science and religion separate domains is about as effective as Plessy vs. Ferguson.
• Old Time Evolution:  When The New Republic would not print a rebuttal to a pro-evolution article, Jonathan Wells wrote one anyway for Discovery Institute.  He ends with a Darwinian version of an old gospel song.
• The Enemy of My Enemy Is My Friend:  Bruce Chapman for EvolutionNews noted the websites by non-Darwinian evolutionists or “structuralists” upset at the “intimidation tactics of the Darwinistas.”
• Critical Thinking:  Doug Cowan (06/03/2005) wrote another guest editorial for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer about how he successfully uses the creation-evolution controversy to teach critical thinking skills to his high school biology students.  Cowan was featured briefly in the film Icons of Evolution as an example of how to teach evolution critically without incurring charges of bias.
• Daily Beserkely:  Cristini Bautista wrote a fairly balanced presentation of the controversy in the Daily Californian, a Berkeley newspaper.
• Bow Out:  Live Science wrote about a Pennsylvania teacher at the Dover trial testifying why she refused to read the statement that questioned Darwinism’s scientific validity.
• Sneaking Suspicions:  New Scientist and MSNBC made a big deal out of how the book Of Pandas and People, the Darwin-alternative text offered to Dover schools, changed references to creationism to “intelligent design” from the draft edition to the published edition.  This point was made by Barbara Forrest in her testimony at the Dover trial to try to link I.D. to religious aspects of creationism.
• New Mex Flex:  The Washington Post wrote about attempts to introduce alternatives to Darwinism in New Mexico schools.  The ACLU said it stands ready to defend Rio Rancho teachers who refuse to teach ID, said the NewMexican, and will go to court if the new policy leads to teaching intelligent design.
• Florida Brew:  The Tampa Tribune wrote about attempts to introduce ID alternatives by state’ department of education.
• Opening Minds:  Brian Fahling with the American Family Association wrote an editorial for McCalls defending ID as a competing explanation for the origin of life.
• Freedom Fighter:  EvolutionNews wrote about the tireless efforts of Larry Caldwell to fight for “quality science education for all.”
• Called Well:  Jeanne Caldwell has joined forces with the Pacific Justice Institute to challenge federal funding of a pro-evolution, anti-religious website, according to Access Research Network and World Net Daily.
• Friends of the Court:  The Discovery Institute published an amicus brief for the Dover trial from 85 scientists “urging the court to protect academic freedom and not limit research into intelligent design theory.”
• The Evolution of God:  Robert Winston tried to explain why people evolved religious beliefs, in The Guardian (UK).  Apparently he did not try to explain the evolution of Darwinian beliefs.

In spite of the occasional lies and rhetorical fluff, it’s good to see these ideas being debated.  Darwinists can no longer assume their position is unassailable.  A well-tuned Baloney Detector is your best defense against the People of Froth (see 09/26/2005 commentary).
Next headline on:  Intelligent Design • Darwinism and Evolutionary Theory • Education

Results of an analysis of evolutionary relationships of advanced theropods undertaken as part of this research indicate that the Gondwanan dromaeosaurs and Rahonavis, an animal previously considered to be a very primitive bird, actually constitute a separate branch of the dromaeosaurid family tree.  This branch is distinct from Velociraptor and other Laurasian dromaeosaurids, including some of the famous feathered dinosaurs from China. [See 10/10/2005 entry].
    Because Rahonavis has long and wing-like forelimbs, this finding could imply that flight may have evolved twice, once in birds and once among this group of Gondwanan dromaeosaurs.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

No sooner had we recounted how Nature had bluffed around the problems with bird evolution by printing cover art of feathered dinosaurs (10/10/2005), when they did it again!  At least last time there was some indication on the fossils of fuzz or flayed skin, but this time, the artist took liberties with complete absence of evidence.
    Can the Darwinists really believe for a moment that flight and feathers evolved twice?  Once would be impossibly difficult to imagine, even for a committed Darwinist who is used to that sort of thing.  That evolutionists would still cling to their story in the face of falsifying evidence illustrates the degree of commitment to a belief, not to science.
Next headline on:  Dinosaurs • Birds • Darwinism and Evolutionary Theory

• ATP Synthase:  “Making ATP” was the short title of a paper in PNAS this week.¹  Xing, Liao and Oster came up with a model that linked the rotation of the gamma subunit (the camshaft) to the beta subunits in the F₁ hexamer, where ATP synthesis occurs.  They identified two “bumps” in the potential curve that prevent back-slippage of the rotor.  The shaft is tightly coupled to the lobes, to produce a kind of “zipping” effect of hydrogen bonds as the beta subunits bend along a hinge during the catalytic function.
      The eta part of the stator is apparently also essential in preventing slippage, in order to couple the energy to the synthesis function.  Mutations were shown to flatten the “energy bumps” on the potential curve, making slippage more likely.
      They also noted that in ATP hydrolysis mode (the reverse cycle) ADP tends to get stuck in the mechanism; “this is hardly surprising,” they said, “because F₁ evolved to synthesize, and only under laboratory conditions does the eukaryotic F₁ operate in hydrolysis mode.”  The bacterial ATPase and vacuolar ion pump do operate in hydrolysis mode in vivo and presumably do not have this inhibition problem.  Their lingo on this point mixes design and evolution: “The V₁ motor of the vacuolar ATPase, being designed for ion pumping, may have avoided ADP inhibition by the evolution of additional subunits” (emphasis added in both quotes).
• Bacterial Flagellum:  A Japanese and UK team publishing in Nature² found stepping behavior in the flagellar rotor by direct observation.  The torque generation by the ion flux may be responsible for the rotation taking place in measurable steps.  Their observations “indicate a small change in free energy per step, similar to that of a single ion transit.”  They mentioned that this had been seen in ATP synthase, but never before in the bacterial flagellum.  They measured about 26 discrete steps per revolution.  There was no mention of evolution in the paper.
• Type III Secretion System (TTSS):  The TTSS, a kind of molecular syringe embedded in the membrane of some bacteria that allows them to inject toxins in nearby hosts, was also described more fully in the same issue of Nature by two Yale scientists.³  They found that the protein ordnance is too large, so there are special chaperones on hand to unfold them before loading them into the barrel.

Some evolutionists have identified similarities between the TTSS and the bacterial flagellum, and suggested that the flagellum evolved from the TTSS by co-option.  There are many problems with this suggestion, not the least of which is that most of the protein structural parts of the flagellum are unique.  The authors of the TTSS paper did not mention this suggestion or anything about evolution.  In fact, evolutionary theory was useless for all three papers.  Describing the machines in terms of their design was perfectly appropriate, illustrating again the utility of scientific research from a design perspective.  The two brief mentions of evolution in the ATP synthase paper were useless appendages, like vestigial organs of a less-evolved philosophy (sarcasm intended).
Next headline on:  Cell Biology

“The theory that birds are the equivalent of living dinosaurs and that dinosaurs were feathered is so full of holes that the creationists have jumped all over it, using the evolutionary nonsense of ‘dinosaurian science’ as evidence against the theory of evolution,” he said. “To paraphrase one such individual, ‘This isn’t science . . . This is comic relief.’”   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

1. Resemblance only:  “They found that fossilized patterns that resemble feathers somewhat also occur in fossils known not to be closely related to birds and hence are far more likely to be skin-related tissues....”
2. Taxonomy confusion:  “Much of the confusion arose from the fact that in China in the same area, two sets of fossils were found.  Some of these had true feathers and were indeed birds known as ‘microraptors,’ while others did not and should not be considered birds at all.”
3. Preservation bias:  Because collagen has low solubility in water and is tough, “we would expect it to be preserved occasionally from flayed skin during the fossilization process,” Feduccia said.
4. Wanting to believe:  The strongest case for feathered dinosaurs was Sinosauropteryx, found in 1996, which sported a coat of “dino-fuzz.”  Some concluded this fuzz provided insulation and pointed to the possibility dinosaurs were warm-blooded.  Major journals presented Sinosauropteryx as definitive evidence for feathered dinosaurs, complete with artist renditions of colorful feathery coats on the creatures.  “Yet no one ever bothered to provide evidence -- either structural or biological -- that these structures had anything to do with feathers,” said Feduccia.  “In our new work, we show that these and other filamentous structures were not protofeathers, but rather the remains of collagenous fiber meshworks that reinforced the skin.”
5. Fumble fingers:  The most critical link between dinosaurs and birds, according to Feduccia, has been the three-fingered hand pattern.  Dinosaurs used digits 1, 2, and 3, but the team found that developing bird wings in the embryo derive from digits 2, 3 and 4.  “To change so radically during evolution would be highly unlikely,” the article states.
6. Back to the future:  The earliest known birds predate the feathered dinosaurs.

   Also, the current feathered dinosaurs theory makes little sense time-wise either because it holds that all stages of feather evolution and bird ancestry occurred some 125 million years ago in the early Cretaceous fossils unearthed in China.
       “That’s some 25 million years after the time of Archaeopteryx, which already was a bird in the modern sense,” he said.  Superficially bird-like dinosaurs occurred some 25 million to 80 million years after the earliest known bird, which is 150 million years old.”

   Feduccia himself had studied Archaeopteryx in detail.  “He determined its flying ability by observing that the fossil’s feathers had leading edges significantly shorter than their trailing edges, which is characteristic of all modern flying birds.”

Feduccia said the publication and promotion of feathered dinosaurs by the popular press and by prestigious journals and magazines, including National Geographic, Nature and Science, have made it difficult for opposing views to get a proper hearing.
    “With the advent of ‘feathered dinosaurs,’ we are truly witnessing the beginnings of the meltdown of the field of paleontology,” he said.  “Just as the discovery a four-chambered heart in a dinosaur described in 2000 in an article in Science turned out to be an artifact, feathered dinosaurs too have become part of the fantasia of this field.  Much of this is part of the delusional fantasy of the world of dinosaurs, the wishful hope that one can finally study dinosaurs at the backyard bird feeder.”

Is it possible that the leading scientific journals in the world, including Nature and Science – both of which highlighted artwork of feathered dinosaurs on their covers – were capable of falling for and promoting a “delusional fantasy”?  Does this mean that major museums, like the Natural History Museum of Washington DC and many others, with their “Birds are Dinosaurs” displays, are promoting falsehoods based on flawed evidence?  Does this mean the traveling museum exhibit of feathered dinosaurs is a fraud?  Is it possible that evolutionary paleontology is imploding from the credibility gap caused by this lapse of rigor?  Does this raise the possibility that Darwinists are wrong about other claims?  You heard it right here – from an evolutionist – chagrined at the fact that these “wishful hopes” touted as fact have given ammunition to the creationists.  We hope you enjoyed the comic relief.  Relief from comedy posing as science would be better.
Project:  Print out copies of this press release and take them to your nearby natural history museum docent staff (see 09/22/2005 story).
Next headline on:  Dinosaurs • Birds • Darwinism and Evolutionary Theory

One interesting thing about the new pterosaurs is that their habits and physical characteristics overlapped those of birds in many striking ways; some of them almost looked like pelicans.  The scientists had to presume that the pterosaurs occupied the shore niche and the birds occupied the land niche.  These flying reptiles are being seen more and more as skilled pilots (09/09/2005), not just dumb gliders manipulating the webbing between their fingers.  To imagine one kind of creature mastering flight by an evolutionary process is tough enough for a Darwinist, but four independent groups (pterosaurs, insects, birds, bats)?   Throwing around phrases like “convergent evolution” is not going to solve the problems.
    In the sea, the parallels between fish and reptiles (especially ichthyosaurs – see 04/20/2005) in swimming ability is remarkable.  Some ichthyosaurs were shaped almost identically to fast-swimming tuna.  When flying or swimming reptiles appear in the fossil record, they already had these abilities, fully fleshed out and operational.  The same is true for insects, birds and mammals.  Would it not make sense to think that a designer able to invent a flying machine or a swimming machine would grant that technology to very different groups of animals, each for its own niche and role in the world?  Maybe he just wanted to confound those who would presume to speculate they evolved on their own.
Next headline on:  Dinosaurs and Extinct Reptiles • Marine Life • Fossils

Pro-evolution scientists have little to lose and everything to gain from a nationwide debate.  Let’s put the leading proponents of intelligent design and our sharpest evolutionary biologists on a national television panel and let them take their best shots.  If biblical literalists want to join in, let them.  Let’s encourage teachers to stage debates in their classrooms or in assemblies.  Students can be assigned to one or the other side, and guest speakers can be invited.  Among other things, students would learn that science, when properly done, reaches conclusions via experimentation, evidence and argument, not through majority view.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

Anyone watching the controversy over evolution should see this as a major shift in strategy by someone pretty high up in the Science establishment.  It’s good that Balter wants this to be a debate in the open marketplace of ideas rather than the courts, and if the Darwinists are really willing to put their best arguments toe-to-toe with those of intelligent design, that would be a refreshing change.
    Watch out for stealth tactics, though.  Incumbent presidents, for instance, have been known to rig debate rules to give themselves the media advantage.  We don’t want to see twelve Nobel Laureates go against Kent Hovind on national TV with a Darwinist moderator, and subject the results to biased editing the way the last episode of PBS Evolution rigged the contest, and have the Darwin Party announce afterwards, “So there.  There was your debate, and you guys lost.”  But the fact that Balter encourages this kind of debate in school classrooms and assemblies should preclude that, if his advice takes hold.
    His history is flawed; Darwinism did not take hold because it was rigorously tested.  It won a huge propaganda blitz intentionally conducted by Charlie’s Four Musketeers (01/06/2004), Asa Gray, Thomas Huxley, Charles Lyell and Joseph Hooker, with help from Darwinist radical Ernst Haeckel on the continent.  It won also because leading Darwinists obtained power over publishing and gained leadership of prestigious universities and museums, where they controlled the curriculum and content.  Darwin’s own theory of natural selection went through a long period of eclipse after his book, until it was resurrected as neo-Darwinism more by consensus than by rigorous testing.  Creationism and design science has always been a strong influence bucking this current of usurpation by the philosophical materialists.
    Balter is confident that “students would learn that science, when properly done, reaches conclusions via experimentation, evidence and argument, not through majority view.”  That would be a great lesson.  Currently, students are learning that “evolution is a fact because all scientists agree it is a fact.”  Balter believes that engagement will remove the claim that Darwinian theory is shielded from “challenges that, when properly refuted, might win over adherents to evolutionary views.”  When the views are compared, however, each Darwin convert is likely to be outnumbered by converts to the other side, based on the history of creation-evolution debates.  And if the Darwinists are finally forced to “reach conclusions via experimentation, evidence and argument,” it will be their downfall.  Balter may have unintentionally heralded the end of the Darwin Party Storytelling Welfare State.  Bring it on.
Next headline on:  Darwinism • Intelligent Design • Education

This is a cute feature that, with caveats, could be useful for parents and teachers.  The main problem is that it is too simplistic.  The planet-construction dialog asks what kind of star you want to put your planet around, how close to the star, how big it is, whether it has water and a few other things.  These are fine and good, but not enough.  It doesn’t discuss many other factors that could be show-stoppers: crustal composition, type of atmosphere, place in the galaxy, eccentricity of the orbit, size and distance of moon, and much more.  Still, kids may be surprised to find how few of their choices actually work.
    Of course, the Astrobiology folks behind AstroVenture want kids to learn early how to speculate about life in outer space.  They want to help kids exercise the power of imagination and speculation, since these are prerequisites for Darwin Party membership later.  All that aside, learning that only a small subset of possible planets are even in the ballpark for life is a worthwhile lesson.  For junior high and older, use this in conjunction with the film The Privileged Planet.
Next headline on:  Solar System • Geology • Media

Considering the disdain with which creationists are usually treated, Jodi Wilgoren gave a pretty fair and balanced presentation.  The only flaws are the assumptions that evolutionists have the better science.  Some of her words assume that evolutionary geologists have science on their side.  We will suggest changes to the underlined words.

• “Geologists date this sandstone to 550 million years ago and explain the folding as a result of pressure from shifting faults underneath.”  Change that to “evolutionary storytellers” and “speculate.”
• “That same week, a few miles upriver, a decidedly different group of 24 rafters surveyed the same rock formations – but through the lens of science rather than what Mr. Vail calls ‘biblical glasses.’”  Change that to “evolutionary glasses”.  Vail is up-front about his Biblical presuppositions.  Evolutionists need to be up-front about theirs.
• “this trip was a floating geology seminar, charting the canyon’s evolution through eons of erosion.” Substitute evolutionary geology, speculating about the canyon’s formation through an unobserved period of erosion.
• Eugenie Scott said, “To a standard geologist, to somebody who actually studies geology, this just shouts out at you: This is really old; this is really gradual.”
  Should be, To an indoctrinated evolutionary geologist, to somebody who views the world through evolutionary glasses, this just confirms one’s presuppositions.
• “Science unequivocally dates the earth’s age at 4.5 billion years, and the canyon’s layers at some two billion years.  Change to Evolutionary geology needs the earth to be 4.5 billion years old, and speculates within their evolutionary model that the canyon’s layers must be some two billion years old.
• “Even the intelligent design movement, which argues that evolution alone cannot explain life’s complexity, does not challenge the long history of the earth.”  Should be, does not attempt to debate the age of the earth, because that is not the question they are addressing.
• “‘I won’t defend evolution,’ Dr. Scott said in exasperation one evening.  ‘We don’t defend the spherical Earth.  We need to stop defending, as they put it, Darwinism, and just make them show they have a scientific view.’”
  Belief in evolution has nothing to do with belief in a spherical earth.  The sphericity of the earth is observable, and is even taught in the Bible (Isaiah 40:22, Job 26:10).  Evolution in the Darwinian sense of universal common ancestry is not observable and contradicts the fossil record.  Dr. Scott needs to get over her exasperation and defend her position with evidence.  The antecedent in “they” have a scientific view” is unclear.  Both views need to be plausible inferences about the past based on currently observable evidence.  Both have religious implications.
• “Mr. Gishlick said scientists had not documented the billions of nautiloids creationists cite and had found no stunning pattern in their orientation.”
  Not scientists, but evolution-biased critics.  Evolutionary geologists may not have found this evidence, because they don’t ask the right questions.  The evidence is out there for anyone to see.
• “‘I don’t really care how they reconcile Noah’s flood with scientific things – it’s about religion,ֻ protested Mary Murray, 54, an artist from Laguna Beach, Calif., who came with her biology-professor husband.  ‘We shouldn’t be talking about religion at all in the public schools.’”  What she means is, “I am closing my mind to their evidence.  It’s about maintaining special treatment and favored status for my secular religion.  We shouldn’t be letting their religion compete with mine in the public schools.”

You get the idea.  Words can bias an article and embed hidden assumptions.  Discerning readers need to be watchful for how reporters attempt to sway opinions with word games.  At least here on CEH, you get to hear both sides.
    Want to go on the river with Tom?  Check his 2006 Schedule.  Creation Safaris, our parent organization, is co-sponsoring the August 25 three-day excursion.  View postcards from the 2005 trip, which was a great success with 26 people aboard: #1 and #2.  We guarantee you will have a lot more fun with creationists than with a bunch of sourpuss scoffers and mean human cusses.  We guarantee you will enjoy “Praise God from whom all blessings flow” more than “Goodbye fins and gill slits.” (compare this essay with the evolution songbook).  It may be a long way from amphioxus, but it’s a short way to the cross.
Next headline on:  Geology • Dating Methods • Darwinism and Evolution • Bible and Theology •

Do common “driving forces” underlie the organization of biological networks?  It seems fantastic to suggest that such forces could exist, considering that the biological entities involved are as diverse as genes, enzymes, and whole cells.  Nevertheless, even functionally unrelated systems may have evolved under fundamental constraints.  The analysis presented here suggests that the dynamic properties of small network motifs contribute to the structural organization of biological networks.  In particular, robustness of small regulatory motifs to small perturbations is highly correlated with the non-random organization of these networks.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

An evolutionary argument may help explain the overrepresentation of structurally stable motifs in real networks compared to random graphs.  Evolutionary pressure may select for network innovations that are structurally stable because these configurations are robust to variations in the strength of the connections.  A high SSS indicates that it is likely that randomly assigned connection strengths and signs will result in a stable equilibrium, while a low SSS indicates that stability is possible although it requires precisely weighted connection strengths.  Easily parameterized network designs that are predisposed to dynamical stability can be advantageous considering the evolutionary mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection.  Of course, stability to small perturbations is by no means the only functional constraint on network performance and structure.  For instance, in the developmental transcriptional regulation network in Drosophila [fruit fly] considered here, irreversible switching of transcriptional circuits involving feedback regulation is an important determinant of irreversibility of the developmental progress, which might lead to selection of relatively unstable network motifs with feedbacks.  The C. elegans [roundworm] neuron network, which strays the furthest from structural stability in our analysis, may also have functional constraints leading to overrepresentation of oscillators and memory switches.  Nevertheless, the correlation between network motif overrepresentation and the SSS suggests that stability of small functional circuits may be a basic constraint common to all networks, which along with other functional requirements can significantly bias the likelihood that a given motif is selected for.

While intelligent-design proponents enjoy their 15 minutes of fame denying the role of evolutionary forces in generating complex networks in nature, scientists are probing the organizing principles that govern these networks.  Traditional models of complex networks assumed that connections between units—such as genes, proteins, neurons, or species—occur randomly.  These notions changed as studies of protein interaction networks and other biological systems revealed “small world” features—characterized by short paths between nodes and highly clustered connections—and varying levels of organization, with certain patterns of local connections occurring more frequently in complex networks than in random networks.  What determines the abundance of these so-called network motifs in specific networks is not known....
....Discerning the global dynamics of these network structures has proved a major challenge.....
[She summarizes the paper by Prill, Iglesias and Levchenko.]
These results suggest that both global constraints on the network and properties of network motifs themselves influence the abundance of motifs and the overall structure of a given network.  While the authors caution that their networks are stripped-down versions of those found in biological systems, they point out that their approach can incorporate more complicated interactions as understanding of living networks increases.  And with this new understanding, scientists can test the hypothesis that selective pressures favor motifs with particular dynamic properties.

Cells have the remarkable ability to sense, respond to, and adapt to their internal and external environments in order to maximize survival or accurately execute a developmental program.  Such behavior requires the ability to process information, and cells have evolved complex regulatory and signaling systems capable of sophisticated information-processing tasks.

Prill et al. subscribe to the same goofy theory as the 10/04/2005 attempt, and the same comments apply.  Friends, Romans, and First Corinthians, and all reasonable, thinking people, let us understand two principles that undermine the whole premise of this claim and others like it:

1. Requirements do not build a system.  They only specify what a system must have to work.  NASA publishes many requirements.  The requirements for a small robotic spacecraft can fill hundreds of pages.  Do these requirements create “evolutionary forces” and “selective pressures” that produce functional, interacting parts?  If requirements were sufficient, NASA could just produce lots of requirements and let the spacecraft assemble itself out of the dust of the ground.

2. Properties of existing structures do not explain their origin.  A spacecraft, once assembled, has hundreds of pages of specifications.  These specs, if they met the design requirements, ensure that the spacecraft will reach the target and accomplish the mission objectives.  The spacecraft is observable; the specs are measurable and verifiable, but the hands that did the work can only be inferred.  Does Liza Graz expect us to believe that the requirements produced the specifications of a finished spacecraft, without any help from intelligent physicists, machinists, fabricators, assemblers, quality control engineers, software designers, testers and managers?

Mutation and natural selection cannot be called in as designer proxies.  Neither is a “force,” and neither connects requirements to specifications.  Neither has any direction, energy, or concern about the outcome.  Nature would be just as content with a black hole – a very stable structural motif – as with a biological clock.  Misfolded proteins are just as beautiful to Mother Nature as properly-folded ones.  Mechanistic processes have no stake in generating complex networks of molecular machines; they couldn’t care less.
    When a highly-ordered, functional, interrelated, robust, information-rich system is observed, the design inference is compelling to the point of being uncontestable.  Yet Liza Gross had the gall to scorn the intelligent design proponents in her victory speech praising the myths of the Darwinists.  ID proponents may only get 15 minutes of fame, but better that with sound science and logic than 146 years of totalitarian rule by fatuous charlatans wearing lab coats.
    When the usurpers are eventually toppled, they can still have a future.  They can compete in the National Storytelling Festival (see National Geographic report).  The best can graduate to the West Virginia Liar’s Contest and win a golden shovel.  They’ll have plenty of stuff to use it on.
Next headline on:  Darwinism and Evolutionary Theory • Intelligent Design • Cell Biology • Dumb Ideas

The president’s next sentence says, “we affirm scientific principles that are testable and anchored in evidence.”  Darwinism will have a hard time with that policy (see next entry).
    We wish Dr. White a speedy and complete recovery from his heart attack (see WorldNetDaily story).
Next headline on:  Darwinism and Evolution • Education

Biological networks have an inherent simplicity: they are modular with a design that can be separated into units that perform almost independently.  Furthermore, they show reuse of recurring patterns termed network motifs.  Little is known about the evolutionary origin of these properties.  Current models of biological evolution typically produce networks that are highly nonmodular and lack understandable motifs.  Here, we suggest a possible explanation for the origin of modularity and network motifs in biology.  We use standard evolutionary algorithms to evolve networks.  A key feature in this study is evolution under an environment (evolutionary goal) that changes in a modular fashion.  That is, we repeatedly switch between several goals, each made of a different combination of subgoals. We find that such “modularly varying goals” lead to the spontaneous evolution of modular network structure and network motifs.  The resulting networks rapidly evolve to satisfy each of the different goals. Such switching between related goals may represent biological evolution in a changing environment that requires different combinations of a set of basic biological functions.  The present study may shed light on the evolutionary forces that promote structural simplicity in biological networks and offers ways to improve the evolutionary design of engineered systems.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

The networks evolved under modularly varying goals were able to adapt to nearly perfect solutions for each new goal, within about three generations after the goal was switched.  This evolvability was caused by the fact that the evolved networks for the different goals differed only slightly.  For example, in many cases they differed in the threshold value of a single neuron, allowing switching between the networks with a single mutation....
Networks that evolve under modularly varying goals seem to discover the basic subproblems common to the different goals and to evolve a distinct structural module to implement each of these subproblems.  Evolution under modularly varying goals produces networks that can rapidly adapt to each of the different goals by only a few rewiring changes.

In such cases [evolution with fixed goals], when the goal changes, the networks take a relatively long time to adapt to the new goal, as if it starts evolution from scratch.  Under modularly varying goals, in contrast, adaptation to the new goal is greatly speeded up by the presence of the existing modules that were useful for the previous goal.

One possible explanation for the origin of the motifs in the evolved networks is that modular networks are locally denser than nonmodular networks of the same size and connectivity.  This local density tends to increase the number of subgraphs (42).  To test this possibility, we evolved networks to reach the same modularity measure Q as the networks evolved under modularly varying goals, but with no information-processing goal (see Supporting Text).  We find that these modular networks have no significant network motifs (Fig. 9).  They show relatively abundant feedback loops that are antimotifs in the networks evolved under modularly varying goals.  It therefore seems that the specific network motifs found in the evolved networks are not merely caused by local density, but may be useful building blocks for information processing.

How is evolution under modularly varying goals related to actual biological evolution?  One may suggest that organisms evolve in environments that require a certain set of basic biological functions....
    [They discuss chemotaxis evolving as the chemical attractant changes.]  When environments changed, these modules adapted over evolution to sense and chemotax toward other nutrients.  Had evolution been in a fixed environment, perhaps a more optimal solution would have mixed the genes for these different tasks (e.g., a motor that can also sense and transport the nutrient into the cell), resulting in a nonmodular design....
    An additional biological example occurs in development.  Different cells in the developing embryo take on different fates.  Each cell type needs to solve a similar set of problems: expressing a set of genes in response to a given time-dependent profile of a set of extracellular signals.  However, in each cell type, the identity of the input signals and the output genes is different.  Thus, in development, cells need to perform essentially the same computations on varying inputs and output: a modularly varying goal.  The solution found by evolution is a modular design where signal transduction pathways (such as mitogen-activated protein kinase cascades), which are common to many cell types, hook up to specific receptors and transcription factors that are cell type specific.  This design allows simple rewiring of the same pathways to work with diverse inputs and outputs in different cell types.  Over evolutionary time scales, this design allows the addition of new cell types without the need to evolve dedicated new pathways for each input and output....

Foul, time out, game over.  They just violated the No Free Lunch Principle.  You just caught them in the act.  This is the persistent sin of evolutionists, engraved with an iron stylus on their stony hearts.  They only get away with this evil because no preacher is allowed past the walls of the Darwin Party fortress to call them to repentance.  Naturalists cannot attribute will, purpose, intent and information processing to mindless entities.  This violates their core assumptions as philosophical naturalists (materialists), whose goal was to rid natural explanations of teleology (purpose, final causes).
    William Dembski in his writings, especially the book No Free Lunch, drives home the point that “no evolutionary algorithm is superior to blind search” – that is, unless information has been smuggled in behind the scenes.  Consider his famous treasure island analogy.  If you are on an island where treasure is buried, and have no clues, blind search is your only option – a very inefficient method, becoming more hopeless as the size of the island increases.  A friend tells you there is a treasure map.  Encouraged by this new hope, you go to the hostel where the map is locked in a cabinet.  You find, to your despair, that there are a million treasure maps, all different, all claiming to be the right one.  In a real sense, you now have moved your blind search to another space: the space of maps, where the the correct map is the new treasure.  This analogy can be extended indefinitely: your friend says a guru knows which map is the correct one.  You go to the mountain top, only to find again, to your despair, that a million gurus await you promising you the path to enlightenment.  The only way out of this infinite regress is to get true, useful information from someone with knowledge of the treasure’s location.  Anything else is blind search.
    Now, to a Darwinist, who is going to provide that information?  Surely not the environment.  Surely not random strings of DNA.  Surely not randomly floating bits of protein.  None of them can possibly have any goal or purpose in mind, or any embedded knowledge of the best way to build modular networks that grow, reproduce, and function robustly in changing environments, complete with error-checking, coded instructions.  We must emphasize this point: any attempt by a Darwinist to impose wish fulfillment, goal-directed behavior, or teleology on these molecules is strictly forbidden.  One must visualize these molecules as completely and utterly indifferent to success or failure.  They care nothing if a function is achieved, and nobody is there to cheer them on.  Kashtan and Alon conveniently left the origin of any primitive network as an unsolved problem.  Fine; they still must maintain the impersonality of that initial network.  By analogy, picture a bunch of unthinking robots that had an initial purpose imposed on them by some unexplained inventor – say, to sort and stack rocks.  Get real, now, and ask yourself: realistically, is changing the environment going to improve their modularity and evolvability?  If you come back after the magic factor of “evolutionary time scales,” will you expect to see the robots building airplanes, printing books and conducting orchestras?  Of course not.  Remember, the robots are not sentient beings.  They couldn’t care less whether some new “function” emerges, or whether they rust in a colossal heap of rubbish (a more thermodynamically favored outcome).
    Where evolutionists cheat incorrigibly is by personifying molecules into purposeful entities, or by invoking mindless processes as creative agents.  Notice again how subtly they do this: “One may suggest that organisms evolve in environments that require a certain set of basic biological functions....”  This “suggestion” makes no sense unless one personifies the environment as a manager setting design requirements, and the evolving entity “needing” or “wishing” to fulfill them.  Whether invoking Tinker Bell with her mutation wand, or shuffling environments to get the desired outcome, evolutionists are playing the guru telling the treasure hunter which map is the correct one.  This is forbidden.  The only evolutionary algorithm that is permissible on Darwin Island is blind search.  The island is the size of the universe, and according to our online book, the chance of getting even one useful protein, let alone a modular, functional network that can adapt to changing environments, is less than Dembski’s “universal probability bound” of 1 chance in 10¹⁵⁰.  It would be easier for a blindfolded man to pick a single marked penny out of a whole universe packed with pennies than to expect chance to succeed at this task.  But chance is all they have according to the No Free Lunch Principle.  And no, they cannot cheat by saying “Well, we are here, therefore it must have happened somehow.”  Unless they are willing to consider intelligent design, this is a post hoc fallacy.
    In conclusion, Darwinian materialism must retreat into pantheism, or else give up in despair.  You just read two Darwinists whispering about biological entities as if they were sentient beings.  Their pantheism is implicit, despite their intent to explain biological networks in materialistic terms.  As such, they are teaching pantheistic nature religion, not science – and of all places, right there in central Israel!  This is right where Baal worship, another nature religion, was condemned by the Hebrew prophets 2800 years ago.  Where is Elijah when we need him?  Phillip Johnson?  Henry Morris?
Next headline on:  Darwinism and Evolutionary Theory • Cell Biology • Genetics

Myosins are a large family of motor proteins that interact with actin filaments for motor movement and muscle contraction.  Myosin V is the workhorse of the myosin protein family.  It exists to ferry a cargo of proteins needed in a specific place at a specific time.  Fueled by hydrolysis -- the process of converting the molecule adenosine triphosphate (ATP) into energy -- myosin V travels in one direction using actin as a track to deliver its payload of cell vesicles and organelles.  Myosin V is also involved in transporting proteins that signal and communicate with other cells.
    Myosin V has a two-chained “tail” that diverges to form two “heads” that bind to specific grooves on actin and walk hand over hand along the track, similar to the way a child moves along the monkey bars in a playground.  Myosin V differs from the other myosin family proteins in that it is able to sustain this processive motion, enduring many hydrolysis cycles.  The other myosins grab on tightly to actin and release after one hydrolysis cycle.   (Emphasis added in all citations.)

Pictures say a thousand words, and in this press release the pictures and the words are all about design and nothing about evolution.  A key point here is that myosin V is useless without the actin trackway.  Considering the horrible impact from even one mutation, this appears to represent an irreducibly complex system – similar to the classic illustration by Michael Behe of a mousetrap, where if a single part is removed, it can no longer function.  Suppose a cell was producing thousands of specialized proteins and they had no place to go, or no way to get there.  In cells, everything must work together: the cargo, the delivery system, and the recipients.
    Evolutionists must explain the emergence of this complex system from simpler precursors, presumably by “co-option” of parts used for other functions.  Yet even a “simple” yeast cell contains three classes of myosin needed for key functions (See U of York), so the myosin-actin machinery must have arisen early, even in their own scheme.  Some evolutionists believe a mutation in one of the human myosin genes caused our ancestors to have smaller jaws, which then led to the development of bigger brains (see U of Washington article).  How can such leaps of imagination be justified when they have yet to explain how myosin evolved in the first place?
    The Darwinists are fond of saying that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.  This is another example of the converse: nothing in Darwinism makes sense in the light of biology – especially when seen with the aid of 3D electron cryo-microscopy.  It’s high time to eject the Darwin game CD and get back to the real world. 
    As you move about today, thank God for Myosin V.  His miniature invention provides the power-stroke for our muscles, from every blink of the eye and heartbeat to the most strenuous activity.  Recall images of a weight lifter straining every muscle to hoist 472 kg overhead, or a sprinter breaking a 4-minute mile.  Those feats are made possible by the collective action of untold myriads of myosin motors burning ATP – itself manufactured by other motors (02/23/2005).  Much as we applaud the champion athlete, who really deserves the gold medal?
Next headline on:  Cell Biology • Amazing Facts

Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithms play a critical role in the Bayesian approach to phylogenetic inference.  We present a theoretical analysis of the rate of convergence of many of the widely used Markov chains.  For N characters generated from a uniform mixture of two trees, we prove that the Markov chains take an exponentially long (in N) number of iterations to converge to the posterior distribution.  Nevertheless, the likelihood plots for sample runs of the Markov chains deceivingly suggest that the chains converge rapidly to a unique tree.  Our results rely on novel mathematical understanding of the log-likelihood function on the space of phylogenetic trees.  The practical implications of our work are that Bayesian MCMC methods can be misleading when the data are generated from a mixture of trees.  Thus, in cases of data containing potentially conflicting phylogenetic signals, phylogenetic reconstruction should be performed separately on each signal.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

For small trees one can hope to overcome the slow convergence by using multiple starting states.  However, mixtures coming from large trees may contain multiple species subsets where one tree has T1 as an induced subtree and the other has T2.  If there are k such subsets, then about 15^k random starting points will be needed.  Thus if there are 10 disagreement subsets, then 15¹⁰ random starting points will be needed in order to sample from the posterior distribution.

In our setting, BMCMC [Bayesian Markov-Chain Monte Carlo] methods fail in a clearly demonstrable manner.  We expect that there is a more general class of mixtures where BMCMC methods fail in more subtle ways.  These subtle failures may occur for many real-world examples where the Markov chains quickly converge to some distribution other than the desired posterior distribution.  Users of BMCMC methods should ideally avoid mixture distributions that are known to produce degenerate behavior in various phylogenetic settings.  A good practice is to decompose the data into nonconflicting signals and perform phylogenetic reconstruction separately on each signal.  Our work highlights important unresolved questions: how to verify homogeneity of genomic data and what phylogenetic methods can efficiently deal with mixtures.

What this seems to say is that the method might work on closely-related organisms, like species of snails, but the more you mix different types of organisms into a tree of common ancestry, the more the results of these popular methods will give misleading results.  Even with the closely-related trees, though, how can one be sure that the answers might “fail in more subtle ways”?  And how do we know that once the smaller trees are assembled, the algorithms won’t mislead horrendously in the final mix?
    Most creationists would probably not have qualms about trees of closely-related “kinds” of animals, like cats for one, or dogs for another.  It is the Darwinian assumption that everything is phylogenetically related – cats, pine trees, bacteria, sharks, petunias, turtles, mushrooms, senators – that causes the controversies.
    Evolutionists often showcase the printouts from these programs in their scientific papers to lend an air of computational legitimacy to their theories (see the fallacy of statistics).  Well, we warned you that evolutionists are bad at math (08/19/2005, 07/25/2002).  The only illustration in Darwin’s Origin of Species was a phylogenetic tree.  Since then, tree-building has become a favorite pastime around the Darwin Temple gamerooms (10/22/2001, 06/13/2003).  Impressive as the charts look to the uninformed, they hawk symbolism over substance.  This fits Hawkins Theory of Scientific Progress (right sidebar).
    After reading this article, and the links to previous ones, how do you feel about that NSF Tree of Life project costing $12 million in tax dollars? (10/30/2002).  If you want a better Tree of Life, try God’s (search) – it’s free, it’s honest, and you don’t have to play Monte Carlo to find it.
Next headline on:  Darwinism and Evolutionary Theory