“When you look at the individual steps in the development of life, Darwin’s explanation is difficult to disprove, because some selective advantage can be imagined in almost anything.  Like every other scheme designed to violate the second law [of thermodynamics], it is only when you look at the net result that it becomes obvious it won’t work.”
— Granville Sewall, professor of mathematics at Texas A&M University, Appendix D of textbook, The Numerical Solution of Ordinary and Partial Differential Equations, 2nd ed. (John Wiley & Sons, 2005)

A Whale of a SETI Tale   01/31/2006    
Disney’s Fantasia 2000 had an episode that pictured whales gliding through the air as if in outer space.  Lawrence Doyle of the SETI Institute connected whales with space in another way.  His article discussed whale language as a sign of intelligence.  Appealing to information theory and entropy, Doyle discussed how scientists deduce the syntax and entropy of whale messages, even when we can’t figure out the meaning.  By entropy, he means the “number of choices in a given communication system.”  For instance, squirrel-monkey language does not have enough entropy for Shakespeare to be translated into it. 

An important measure of entropy is the highest “entropic-order” at which the communication systems peaks.  In measuring this, we ask how dependent the signals are on each other.  In human speech we have grammar and in human writing we have spelling (or brush strokes, etc.) that depend on each other.  If you made a copy of a written page, but the toner in the copy machine was low, you would find that you could nevertheless recover some of the missing words because there are rules of spelling and grammar superimposed on our language system.  It is these rules that allow error recovery – and this works in both vocalization as well as written communication systems (as well as any others, e.g., chemical signaling units, bee dances, visual facial features, etc.)   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

And how might this apply to the search for extraterrestrial intelligence?  If there is a relationship between social complexity and vocal complexity, then the measure of one will be a measurement, to some degree, of the other.  If a SETI signal is received, and is a normal (i.e., un-coded) communication, it will have to obey the rules of information theory in order to transmit information.  Thus, a measure of the information complexity of such SETI signals could also be a first direct measurement of the social complexity of an extraterrestrial species, irrespective of the actual decipherment of the meaning of such a message itself.  Exciting prospect indeed!

Wait a minute.  We heard Seth Shostak say last month (12/03/2005) that SETI wasn’t looking for an information-bearing message, like the proponents of intelligent design claim, but only for a persistent narrowband whistle in an unusual context that they could claim was non-natural.  What’s all this talk about information theory?  Now the SETI institute is going even beyond the inference to intelligence to an inference about social complexity.  That’s a lot of inference from a persistent narrowband whistle.  Is it not more credible to infer an intelligent cause for a language with sufficient entropy to generate tens of thousands of precision protein machines, like DNA?
Next headline on: Mammals • SETI • Intelligent Design

Modern biology has arrived at two major principles that are supported by so much interlocking evidence as to rank as virtual laws of nature.  The first is that all biological elements and processes are ultimately obedient to the laws of physics and chemistry.  The second principle is that all life has evolved by random mutation and natural selection.

Many events in the history of life are thought to be singular, that is, without parallels, analogs, or homologs in time and space.  These claims imply that history is profoundly contingent in that independent origins of life in the universe will spawn radically different histories.  If, however, most innovations arose more than once on Earth, histories would be predictable and replicable at the scale of functional roles and directions of adaptive change.  Times of origin of 23 purportedly unique evolutionary innovations are significantly more ancient than the times of first instantiation of 55 innovations that evolved more than once, implying that the early phases of life’s history were less replicable than later phases or that the appearance of singularity results from information loss through time.  Indirect support for information loss comes from the distribution of sizes of clades in which the same minor, geologically recent innovation has arisen multiple times.  For three repeated molluscan innovations, 28-71% of instantiations are represented by clades of five or fewer species.  Such small clades would be undetectable in the early history of life.  Purportedly unique innovations either arose from the union and integration of previously independent components or belong to classes of functionally similar innovations.  Claims of singularity are therefore not well supported by the available evidence.  Details of initial conditions, evolutionary pathways, phenotypes, and timing are contingent, but important ecological, functional, and directional aspects of the history of life are replicable and predictable.

What this means is that to the degree Darwinian dogma relies on circular reasoning, it is like a gigantic house of cards balanced on a toothpick.  Effectively dislodge the point holding up the whole structure, and it could collapse quickly and catastrophically.
    Phillip Johnson predicted a growing body of scientists and lay people who would ask the right questions and no longer take bluffing and evasion for an answer.  Learn to look past the E. O. Wilsons and Lord Martin Reeses of the Darwin Party who stand up flaunting their science badges, spouting royal hot air about the overwhelming weight of evidence for evolution.  Remember what Schwarz said last week about that evidence? (01/26/2006).  Don’t look at the size of the house of cards or how intricately its parts are interlocked.  Look at the flimsy pillar of assumption supporting it.  Test that, and stand back.
Next headline on:  Darwinism and Evolutionary theory • Dumb Ideas

Most carcasses that harden into fossils, including those of birds, were deposited in a body of water and then buried by sediment, says David A. Krauss, a paleobiologist at City University of New York.  However, the irksome fact that dead birds float conflicts with this observation.  In fact, bird carcasses float for quite a while, according to the results of experiments conducted by Krauss and his colleagues.  The researchers reported their findings last October at a meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology in Mesa, Ariz.
    In their tests, conducted outdoors during the summer, Krauss and his colleagues placed carcasses of doves, swallows, and blackbirds in tanks filled with water.  Every one of the dozen birds floated.  By the end of the third day, a thick film of bacteria had formed on the carcasses.  Soon thereafter, the birds’ remains became infested with bugs and maggots.  Over the next 3 to 4 weeks, the carcasses decayed, lost some feathers, and began to fall apart—but they still floated.
    Only after decomposition breached the birds’ internal air sacs and permitted water to flow into those cavities did the body parts finally sink, says Krauss.  At that point, the remains certainly wouldn’t have made informative fossils.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

No, we are NOT going to say “billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth,” but think about this; it must require unusual conditions to get an Archaeopteryx and all the fine detail of preservation of feathers and soft tissues seen in many famous museum pieces, especially those coming out of the Liaoning Province of China.  Think of the dramatic fossil graveyards around the world where large mammals, dinosaurs or whales are buried in huge expanses of strata.
    Perkins speaks glibly about this 570-million-year-old embryo, or that 150 million year old Archaeopteryx, and such, but how can he know?  All this research is relatively new, and shows rapid decay within less than 20 years.  How is it possible to claim what a fossil will look like in millions of years?  Think of how little remains when coroners exhume famous remains like Jesse James to look for clues in some historical mystery, and yet fossil embryos and jellyfish have been found, and things as ephemeral as footprints, raindrops and even dinosaur vomit.
    This is a good area of research for a budding young scientist who has some decades of useful career ahead to work.  Since so many claims are made based on assumptions of long ages, it would be useful to know the requirements for fossilization with actual field testing, and get some numbers on how long various features can be expected to last even if completely mineralized.  We wonder if Harry Truman has fossilized at Mt. St. Helens under the ash at Spirit Lake.  Probably so; he was a pretty hard cuss already.
Next headline on: Fossils • Dating Methods

One point made clear was that this was an opportunity for people to learn about ID and to open the door for rational discussion on this issue in a pleasant, non-confrontational manner.  The pastor who acted as MC did not lead in prayer or create any religious pressure, but broke the ice by thanking them all for coming, humorously congratulating them for getting their small town in the national spotlight, and inviting them to share their questions.  Panel members stayed on topic about what ID is.  Though religious or philosophical implications are important on both sides of the debate, the panelists were careful to stick to the issue of whether design from intelligent causes can be approached scientifically.  Church volunteers brought tables of refreshments and a bookseller had a table full of ID books and videos for sale; another table contained handouts on ID topics found on the Discovery Institute website.
    This could be a great idea for your home town.  Organize a town hall on intelligent design and show one of the Illustra Media films.  These quality productions say most of what needs to be said.  Have handouts, serve some food, make some books and videos available for sale, and get some knowledgeable teachers or scientists to take a few questions.  You could well get a big crowd of interested people, like the little town of Frazier Park did.
    The Darwinists may have felt outnumbered on this occasion, but if so, they were overpowered only by friendly and gracious people.  Another producer was overheard to say that in his experience Christians and pro-ID people tended to be likeable, compared to pro-Darwinists who tend to be “loud, aggressive, insecure and unlikable, or just hopelessly naive.”  Every effort was made to give opponents a sympathetic hearing.  The emphasis of the meeting was to define what intelligent design is, and to learn more about it, without pressure or confrontation.  The film was extremely effective.  Afterwards, you could almost sense that any antagonists would have felt sheepish trying to contradict the arguments made so effectively.  They seemed to have been caught off guard.  The ID they learned about was apparently much more scholarly, well-reasoned and attractive than what they may have read in the newspapers.
    This is what needs to be done from the grass roots up.  One of Phillip Johnson’s books is entitled, Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds.  Let’s open some minds, shall we?
Next headline on: Intelligent Design

It’s worthwhile to measure things, and it’s fun to speculate, but without recreating Jurassic Park, we are not going to be able to know for sure.  Maybe they were back scratchers, or used for some unknown dino sporting event.  Maybe they were just cute.  One reader wrote in suggesting they were handles for the moms to carry their little darlings; one for each hand (claw?) and two for the mouth.  But then, doesn’t that give T. rex a handle, too?  Wait: T. rex has no hands to speak of.  Maybe the crest was like a steering column or joystick for the wild Lambeosaurus-back ride.
Next headline on: Dinosaurs

When, at the beginning of The Iliad – and Western literature – King Agamemnon steals Achilles’ slave-girl, Briseis, the king tells the world’s greatest warrior that he is doing so “to let you know that I am more powerful than you, and to teach others not to bandy words with me and openly defy their king”.  But literary scholar Jonathan Gottschall believes that the true focus of Homer’s epic is not royal authority, but royal genes.
    Gottschall is one of a group of researchers, calling themselves literary darwinists, devoted to studying literature using the concepts of evolutionary biology and the empirical, quantitative methods of the sciences.  “Women in Homer are not a proxy for status and honour,” says Gottschall.  “At bottom, the men in the stories are motivated by reproductive concerns.  Every homeric raid involves killing the men and abducting the women.”  The violent world of the epics, he says, reflects a society where men fought for scarce mates and chieftains had access to as many women as slaves and concubines.  And he thinks that everything written since Homer is open to similar analysis.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

Those influenced by freudianism, for example, might read a novel looking for hints of a child’s sexual desire for its parent.  A marxist would seek out economic and class conflicts.  [Joseph] Carroll [U of Missouri, St. Louis] has no truck with this: “The theories up to this point have all had a little bit of the truth, but have also all been fundamentally flawed,” he says.  “None comes to terms with the fundamental facts of human evolution.”

• Poetry:  One literary darwinist “uses ideas from cognitive science in her analysis of the mother-child bond in William Wordsworth’s Prelude.”
• Novels:  “A darwinian analysis of Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, he [Carroll] says, goes beyond the simple idea that women look for fortune in men, to show how such animal concerns are filtered through the vast flexibility of human behaviour, cultural conditions and individual variation.

  “I don’t look at Pride and Prejudice and try to sort out what is biological and what is cultural,” says Carroll.  “I look at it and examine the way underlying biological dispositions are organized in a specific cultural ecology.  Nobody in the novel escapes the problems of mate selection, status and forming alliances.  But the characters also integrate these concerns with human qualities, such as intelligence, character, morals and cultivation.”  The noble, romantic characters, such as Elizabeth Bennett and Darcy, integrate successfully, hiding their reproductive issues beneath their social graces.  The more comic characters, such as Elizabeth Bennett’s mother, do not (although in marrying off her daughters, she is quite the evolutionary success).

• Comedy:  “Romantic comedies play upon the audience’s pleasure at seeing reproductive strategies rewarded.”
• Tragedy:  Tragedies, like when Medea kills her children, “appeal by invoking recoil from maladaptive acts.”
• Folk literature:  Gottschall found that “the majority of folk tales feature brave heroes marrying beautiful heroines, with the two living happily ever after.”

Friends, Romans, first Corinthians, lend me your ears.  I come to bury Darwin, not to praise him.  The evil that men do lives after them, the good is oft interred with their bones.  So let it be with Darwin.  The noble Gottschall hath told you Homer was ambitious: if it were so, it were a grievous fault, and grievously hath Darwin answered it.... O judgement!  thou art fled to brutish beasts, and men have lost their reason.  Bear with me; my heart is in the coffin there with Wordsworth, and I must pause till it come back to me.
    If you have had enough of Darwin’s acerbic dregs, if you shudder at the destruction left in his wake, if this reduction of all that is noble and praiseworthy into sexual actions of mindless selfish genes leaves you horrified (realizing that no land is exempt, not even Narnia nor Jerusalem), if you have woken up to realize this is a crusade of titanic proportions, if you understand that Dennett’s universal acid has congealed into The Blob that is on the move, swallowing whole universities and institutions (12/21/2005), then rise to the occasion.  The darwinists have a vulnerability that neutralizes their acid and turns it into harmless vapor.  If you were perceptive, you caught it in their very words.  Joseph Carroll spoke of “the truth.”  Say those three little words that make the orcs freeze in their tracks and stab their own chests: What is Truth?
Next headline on: Darwinism and Evolutionary Theory • Politics and Ethics • Dumb Ideas

• Fossils:  The missing links Darwin expected to find “have not been found because they don’t exist,” he claims.  The gradualistic theory “glosses over gaps in the fossil record,” he accuses.
• Gradualism:  Gradual change does not occur: “evolution is not necessarily gradual but often sudden, dramatic expressions of change.”
• Resistance to change:  “Why don’t cells subtly and constantly change in small ways over time, as Darwin suggests?  Cell biologists know the answer: Cells don’t like to change and don’t do so easily.”
• Quality Control:  “Cells in their ordinary states have suites of molecules—various kinds of proteins—whose jobs are to eliminate error that might get introduced and derail the functioning of their cell.  For instance, some proteins work to keep the cell membrane intact.  Other proteins act as chaperones, bringing molecules to their proper locations in the cell, and so on.  In short, with that kind of protection from change, it is very difficult for mutations, of whatever kind, to gain a foothold.”
• Improbability:  Mutations “may be significant and beneficial (like teeth or limbs) or, more likely, kill the organism.”
• Disequilibrium:  “This revelation has enormous implications for the notion that organisms routinely change to adapt to the environment.  Actually, Schwartz argues, it is the environment that knocks them off their equilibrium and as likely ultimately kills them as changes them.  And so they are being rocked by the environment, not adapting to it.”

The mechanism, the authors explain, is this: Environmental upheaval causes genes to mutate, and those altered genes remain in a recessive state, spreading silently through the population until offspring appear with two copies of the new mutation and change suddenly, seemingly appearing out of thin air.

So he ends with a flourish, giving a little politically correct environmentalist spin to help legitimize his rhetoric and distract attention from his crazy idea.  This is rich.  Schwartz and Tattersall have just corroborated all the criticisms creationists bring against neo-Darwinism: mutations are generally harmful, cells are intricately designed to resist change, and the fossil record, riddled with real gaps, debunks gradualism.  Thank you, Dr. Schwarz, for helping shovel standard evolutionary theory into the dustbin of history.
    But is his replacement any better?  All he has done is transfer the creative power of evolution from one undirected, natural cause (gradual natural selection) to another undirected, natural cause (the environment and sudden natural selection).  Has he shown that the pool of recessive mutated genes has any more creative power to generate wings and eyes than the old gradualism?  Has he explained how fully-formed, functioning complex organs, like teeth or limbs, could burst on the scene, as if from nowhere?  This is not science, this is magic.  The new evolutionists have become illusionists, producing rabbits out of thin air.
    With friends like these, Charlie doesn’t need enemies.  This press release announces open season for creationists and intelligent design people and all the critics of evolutionary theory to brush past the fluff of “Sudden Origins” evolution and to say, “We told you so!”
Next headline on: Darwinism and Evolutionary Theory

For a country steeped in Darwinian dogma for over a century, with only a small minority attending church where religion is nearly moribund, this is quite a surprising statistic.  If Darwin gave the world the best idea anyone ever had, and is the figurehead of modern biology, why is his claim not so obvious to all the people?    Lord Martin Rees was glad there is no movement to oppose evolution like in the US, but then why can’t Darwin’s disciples win more converts when they have complete control of the science curricula and a near monopoly on the definition of science and truth?  Can’t the people see the weight of evidence?  Maybe they see through it.
Next headline on:  Darwinism • Intelligent Design

There are some things you should know in interpreting this story.

• None of the plaintiffs had students in the class.
• The class was an elective between semesters.  No one was required to take it.  The students all chose to be there, when they could have been out snowboarding, playing sports or hanging out with their friends.
• The parents all signed permission slips for their teens to take the class.
• The class had the full support of the principal, the superintendent, and a majority of the board of directors.
• While the final syllabus did contain a number of intelligent design videos and books on the list of suggested resources, it also included all eight hours of the PBS Evolution series, a video interview with paleontologist James W. Valentine, a presentation from the University of California Museum of Paleontology, and the textbook Evolution vs. Creation by Eugenie Scott (as recommended by Ken Hurst).
• The syllabus listed no resources promoting young-earth creationism, but only asked one question: “How does Intelligent Design differ from Creationism? and how is it similar?”  (Lest this item beg the question that young-earth creationism is somehow evil or unconstitutional, see what ID leader Phillip Johnson said about it on Touchstone, May 2004).
• Almost all the students are Christians, and none are staunch evolutionists, so they were not being subjected to unwelcome or forced instruction about creationism or ID.  If anything, their beliefs were subject to challenge by the pro-evolutionary material.
• The final syllabus used in the class states, “This class is not meant to guide you into a certain belief, but to allow you to search, become aware of the differences, and gain a better understanding of world views on origins.”  It also specified that “Equal and balanced instruction will be given on all philosophies.”
• The students appear unanimously upset at the reaction by those opposed to the class.  One is taking it upon herself to write newspapers around the country expressing her displeasure with the censorship imposed by evolutionists on this class. She wants to set the record straight on what was taught.
• The teacher invited a pro-evolution biology PhD from UCLA to teach for a day.  He spent a lot of time talking about the Miller experiment (see 05/02/2003 story).  Several of the students said that he dodged their questions.
• Lemburg explained her intentions in a letter published in the local paper.  After explaining what she meant by her statement “this is the class that the Lord wanted me to teach,” she wrote on January 8,

  My motives were honest and sincere, in that all I desired was to present an educational experience to give the students an opportunity to hear and study about the philosophers of design, to be able to critically analyze them and to learn to examine the opinions or philosophies and to weigh them...to ask who made the statement, what is their bias, what is their philosophy, what evidence do they bring?
      Each student in my class will have the opportunity to hear and study philosophies concerning the origin of life.  These ideas represent atheistic, agnostic, liberal and Christian views. We are looking at the ways these views have shaped and changed our world views, and I am challenging these students to know what they think and what those thoughts are based on.  To know it because they believe it, not because someone else says ‘it is so,’ but to become critical thinkers who can express their own beliefs.

Does this sound like a rabid Christian fundamentalist with an agenda, out to force her narrow religious beliefs down the throats of unsuspecting high school students?  Good grief.  The Darwin Party hypocrites have been telling us for years that ID was OK in philosophy, social studies, history or religion – just not in biology class, but look at what they do when someone takes them up on it.  This innocent little class in a minor rural town with 13 students and a mild-mannered teacher wanted to talk about “Philosophy of Design” and develop critical thinking skills, and the Darwin dogmatists went paranoid.  When will they realize this smells like the Inquisition?  The very people who preach against dogmatism are the most intolerant of all, worrying about the “hidden agenda” and the “camel’s nose under the tent,” as if high school students are so stupid, so incapable of reasoning, that they cannot handle the thought that Darwinism is not the infallible idol its priests say it is.  Teaching ID as philosophy should be completely non-threatening to evolutionists.  The action of this school made perfect sense to William Dembski, who called this a step in the right direction.
    One other thing.  The class was not ordered to end immediately.  It was allowed to complete its five-week run.  As part of the out-of-court settlement, the school agreed never again to offer a course that promotes creationism, creation science or intelligent design.  Sounds like an utter defeat for ID and a complete victory for the Darwinists, but Lemburg explains that she never intended to “promote” ID or creationism in the first place.  For all their gloating, the Darwin-Only-Darwin-Only DODOs won a hollow victory here, and earned a reputation as Inquisitors out to hunt down heretics, as hypocrites saying one thing then doing another, as dogmatists fearful of exposing their pet theory to scrutiny.
    School boards interested in getting this important debate a hearing on their campuses should not be alarmed by what happened in Frazier Park or Dover, because “teaching the controversy” is backed by the full force of the United States Congress and the President.  It is the law of the land.  For vital information on why teaching the controversy is legal and constitutional, get this must-see video by Phillip Johnson that explains it all: “One Nation Under Darwin,” available from Access Research Network.
Next headline on: Intelligent Design • Evolution • Education

• Stretchy Clocks:  A famous painting by Salvador Dali portrayed clocks draped over objects as if made of wet clay.  A new paper in PNAS¹ announced that scientists have figured out why human beings developed much longer generation times (length of childhood) than the apes: our molecular clocks are stretchy.  “Humans have a slow molecular clock,” explained Michael Balter for News@Nature.  By comparing gene differences between humans, gorillas and chimpanzees, the team decided all three clocks ticked at different rates.  Balter summarized, “Because the large difference in generation times between humans and chimps does not match the small difference between their molecular clocks, modern human generation times must have evolved recently—perhaps as early as 1 million years ago, the team calculates.”  And lo and behold, the teeth of Homo erectus seem to fit the picture of a shorter childhood.  They must be onto something.  Not everyone is convinced; Blair Hedges (U of Pennsylvania) believes that “generation time might only be one factor among many that control the molecular clock,” Balter wrote.
• Neanderthal Nimrod:  Forget the beetle-brained, stoop-shouldered Alley Oop image of Neanderthal Man.  Now we’re told by EurekAlert that they were ahead of the game: Neanderthals were just as good at hunting as modern man (probably better, since hunting is a lost art except in the frozen foods section).  Since the superior skill of modern man was part of the story of the disappearance of Neanderthals, “This study has important implications for debates surrounding behavioral evolution and the practices that eventually allowed modern humans like ourselves to displace other closely-related species.”  Maybe the moderns did better in Social Studies, the article suggests.
• Neo-Neanderthal:  Speaking of Neanderthal Man, a paper in Nature last November argued that Neanderthals apparently coexisted with moderns in the same cave.²  They used radiocarbon and stratigraphic analysis in a French cave to conclude, “These data strongly support the chronological coexistence—and therefore potential demographic and cultural interactions—between the last Neanderthal and the earliest anatomically and behaviourally modern human populations in western Europe.”  See also a related article on MSNBC.
• Face the Facts:  Last month in PNAS,³ a team of anthropologists kicked out another prop holding up the standard story of where Europeans came from.  A study of 24 facial features of human fossils around Europe found only “a questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form.” 

  The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants, although the prehistoric/modern ties are somewhat more apparent in southern Europe.  It is a further surprise that the Epipalaeolithic Natufian of Israel from whom the Neolithic realm was assumed to arise has a clear link to Sub-Saharan Africa.  Basques and Canary Islanders are clearly associated with modern Europeans.  When canonical variates are plotted, neither sample ties in with Cro-Magnon as was once suggested.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

  So what’s my new line?  “The data treated here support the idea that the Neolithic moved out of the Near East into the circum-Mediterranean areas and Europe by a process of demic diffusion but that subsequently the in situ residents of those areas, derived from the Late Pleistocene inhabitants [sic], absorbed both the agricultural life way and the people who had brought it.”  Any questions?
• Cannibal Animal:  Mike Balter explored a recent claim on the human evolution story in ScienceNow: are we descended from cannibals?  Apparently not; an earlier study appears flawed.  Thank God (see our cannibal parable).
• Ethiopia: The Place to Be:  Rex Dalton ventured out with paleoanthropologists to get the view from Afar (Ethiopia, that is), where rival teams of researchers with “hominid fever” dodge bullets of political rivals, avoid lions, endure oppressive heat, protect their secret spots and bounce around on rattletrap trucks to search for their precious quarry: hominid bones.  In his Indiana-Jones style account in Nature,⁴ Dalton gave more an impression of a gold rush than a reliable scientific enterprise, complete with claim jumpers and inflated announcements.  “This is where it all began,” they are convinced, as Dalton “gets on the trail with a team of devoted experts who just live for the next find.”  A few, like Tim White, are trying to be careful.  “White dislikes what he calls ‘hominid treasure hunts’, where researchers move in for short field visits to grab hominids and then headlines,” Dalton wrote.  As for White’s most recent find, it was a surprise: “hominids – then the earliest known – lived in a wooded environment, not a savannah as previously thought”  (see also 09/01/2005 story).  Any consensus theory seems Afar way off.
• Egypt U:  Science,⁵ however, announced last October that Egypt is the place to be.  A find in Egypt by Seiffert et al.⁶ was described by Jaeger and Marivaux as “Shaking the Earliest Branches of Anthropoid Primate Evolution.”  The paper began, “Early anthropoid evolution in Afro-Arabia is poorly documented, with only a few isolated teeth known from before ~35 million years ago....”
• Spanish-American War:  Believers in the 40,000-year-old Mexican footprints are not giving up without a fight, reported BBC News (see 11/30/2005 story).  Dr. Silvia Gonzalez seems to have a ready answer for every skeptical criticism.  That makes some of her critics even more skeptical.
• Intercontinental Ballistics:  National Geographic News last month entertained the novel suggestion that the favored “Out of Africa” theory might be wrong.  Maybe they evolved from Asia.  Interesting; provocative; possibly persuasive; not convinced – those represent some reactions so far.  Nature studied the suggestion also⁷:  “We show here that it is time to develop alternatives to one of palaeoanthropology’s most basic paradigms: ‘Out of Africa 1’,” wrote Robin Dennell and Wil Roebroeks.  The more basic paradigm, of course, is that mankind did evolve from somewhere.  That paradigm is not on trial.

Anyone who has worked around scientists enough knows that a community of specialists in a given subject takes on the character of a club.  Scientific conferences have a certain social structure and networking protocol similar to a small town.  Everyone knows everyone else, and gossip is a favorite pastime.  While exciting finds and new twists on the plot are welcome (though usually greeted somewhat more dispassionately than at a healing service), there is a certain code that guards against anyone straying too far out of bounds.  You can wear a cowboy hat, but act like a maverick and you are likely to be shunned more than overtly criticized.  For many, that is too much a price to pay.  The respect of one’s peers is vital for a scientific career.
    So here we have the paleoanthropology crowd, roaming around the globe or wading through rivers of genes for their nuggets, trying to fit them into a huge crown for Charlie.  The crown is much bigger than the specks found so far, so it will take a long time to complete.  To finance these expeditions, the participants need to convince their home institutions, usually funded with government grants, that it is all worthwhile because we are getting warmer looking for just the little piece that fits into the niche we have selected to work on.  (The shape and style of the crown, of course, has already been decided, along with the wearer; only the details of gem placement provide some artistic license.)
    Is this really a search for truth?  Could it be a massive case of self-deception that relishes the process more than certainty?  Might it be that Big Science is in a rut, entrenching a social protocol guaranteed to keep mavericks in line and preserve paradigmatic presuppositions?  You can see why any outsider looking at this game and deciding that it is all bunk, all unsupported and contradictory nonsense that does nothing to disprove the belief of the majority of people on this planet that humans were created, would not receive a very friendly reception.  It’s too late to turn back now.  Too much is riding on it.  The show must go on.  (And keep those funds flowing.)
Next headline on: Early Man • Genetics • Fossils • Dumb Ideas

While high school freshmen sometimes struggle with parallelograms and the Pythagorean Theorem, people deep in the Amazon quickly grasp some basic concepts of geometry.
    Although these indigenous tribes had never seen a protractor, compass, or even a ruler, a new study found they understood parallelism and right angles and can use distance, angles, and other relationships in maps to locate hidden objects.
    The finding suggests all humans, regardless of language or schooling, possess a core set of geometrical intuitions.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

Our experiments, in contrast [to Socrates], provide evidence that geometrical knowledge arises in humans independently of instruction, experience with maps or measurement devices, or mastery of a sophisticated geometrical language.  This conclusion is consistent with paleoanthropological evidence and with previous demonstrations of a right-hemisphere competence for nonverbal tests of geometry in split-brain patients.  Further research is needed to establish to what extent this core knowledge is shared with other animal species and whether it is available even in infancy or is acquired progressively during the first years of life.  There is little doubt that geometrical knowledge can be substantially enriched by cultural inventions such as maps, mathematical tools, or the geometrical terms of language.  Beneath this fringe of cultural variability, however, the spontaneous understanding of geometrical concepts and maps by this remote human community provides evidence that core geometrical knowledge, like basic arithmetic, is a universal constituent of the human mind. Constance Holden in Science³ also wrote up this story about possible “cognitive universals” but mentioned a couple of skeptics who think interpretation of the results is difficult.  Even so, they seem to point to at least a “general reasoning ability” that has only been demonstrated in humans.  Cognitive neuropsychologists are very interested in the study.

Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, the Stoics and many other great thinkers in the classical world – probably the majority of the famous philosophers (Democritus and Lucretius being exceptions) – believed in intelligent design.  They were non-evangelical, pagan philosophers to whom the intrinsic order and design of the universe and life was self-evident.  Their concepts of the Designer differed, but they all pointed to design as coming from an intelligent source.
    Most of the classical philosophers were also absolutists.  They believed that outside of the mind of man there existed an unchanging truth beyond the mere objects accessible to the senses.  Evolutionists will find little support for relativism and materialism among the ancients.  History does not support their contention that intelligent design is a conspiracy by evangelical Christians.  The burden of proof should be upon the modern sophists who claim geometry is an artifact of the mindless, materialistic process of natural selection.
    So the stone-age indigenous peoples of the rain forest comprehend geometry.  Fascinating.  Tell us, Darwinists, how did this evolve?  Be sure to include your axioms.
Next headline on: Early Man • Human Body • Amazing Stories

If altruism and spite are unique to humans and are not present in chimpanzees, then it is likely [sic] that these characteristics have arisen in the last 6 million years [sic] since humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor [sic].  Humans’ intense regard for each other, either positive or negative, may have made an important contribution to our ability to cooperate, our sense of fairness, and the morality that defines today’s society.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

Only an evolutionist can take negative evidence and give it a positive spin.  Only an evolutionist can take moral evil and turn it into brain chemistry.  Only an evolutionist can speak of morality and altruism while denying the definitions of the words.  Should evolutionists be able to get away with presenting these ideas as the only permissible scientific explanations in public schools?
Next headline on: Mammals • Human Body and Society • Politics and Ethics • Dumb Ideas

In the history of science, practitioners sometimes invoked “imponderable substances” in their theories.  These included phlogiston, caloric, wound salve, ether, electricity, magnetism, and animal magnetism.  Some of these substances went the way of the dodo, others became staples of science.  So far, it appears that cosmologists are in the dark about dark matter (put "dark matter" in the search box above and see).  It will be interesting to see how future astronomers look back on this period.  Till established, theories built on dark matter should be treated like phlogiston theory or The Force.  Duct tape is like The Force.  It has a dark side, a light side, and it holds the universe together – at least as well as dark matter.
Next headline on: Cosmology • Physics

Their conclusion is controversial, as it amounts to a radical reinterpretation of how the ear developed in land-based animals.  If it withstands scientific scrutiny, the fossil will be a rare example of an organ glimpsed partway along its evolutionary path, at a point when its function was very different from that of its final form.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

Let us pause for a moment to think like a consistent evolutionist.  This is very hard to do and is rarely accomplished.  It requires purging our minds of certain persistent myths and misconceptions promulgated by textbooks and TV animators.  First, we must disavow orthogenesis.  The concept of “straight-line evolution” is out; we cannot arrange Eusthenopteron, Panderichthys and Acanthostega on a straight line and imagine one form evolving in a direct fashion to the other.  No – we must picture evolution branching out in a tree or bush-like pattern, and, therefore, place all these fossils at different points on different branches.  Next, we must disavow Lamarckianism.  There is no inheritance of acquired characteristics.  If an early Panderichthys acquired a spiracle by accident or striving, such a structure would not be inherited unless the mutation affected the germ line.  Third, we must disavow teleology.  None of these creatures were “trying” to evolve an ear, or even a spiracle.  There was no purpose or goal of achieving a fully functioning tetrapod ear.  Evolution cannot see into the future.  Natural selection acts only on present survival requirements.  Finally, we must disavow vitalism.  None of these creatures had any kind of world-soul or vital energy driving them upward by some inexorable path toward higher degrees of complexity and organization.  The fitness landscape is not a mountain, but a chaos of undulating, dynamic hills and valleys.  Ready?  Good, let us proceed.
    Now, we consistent evolutionists are ready to give an honest look at the challenges of those pesky creationists.  They say that it is not just the bones of fossils, but the missing soft parts, that are key to understanding the impossibility of getting irreducibly-complex organs via natural selection.  The mammalian ear, they say, has a cochlea, an organ of Corti with molecular springs and motors, a tympanic membrane, some finely-tuned bones that act like levers, and a complex brain to interpret the electrical signals transduced mechanically from air or liquid to nerve impulses.  They say that there should not be one questionable transition, but thousands of them.  They also say that these alleged transitions must have complete functionality at each stage, such that they outcompete those lacking the function to the point of remaining the only survivors in a vast battlefield of death (the cost of selection).  They point to “living fossils” like Coelacanth that were long thought to represent transitional forms, only to be found alive and well in the present day (and not using their lobed fins for anything resembling walking).  They embarrass us with the shortness of time in our scheme for coming up with major new body plans and organs, and they cast doubt on the dating and timing of the few existing fossils.  They tease us by saying that these branches would have had to be “evolutionary dead ends” that went extinct and therefore did not go on to develop functional ears.  And they pester us with reminders that new function requires new genetic information.  They criticize this paper as representing little more than a just-so story unless a detailed series of steps can be elucidated to show how new information for a spiracle or ear was embedded into the genes and then translated into proteins and developmental programs.  In short, they are not quivering at this announcement, and have delivered us all these counter challenges.  So now, let us consistent evolutionists, having cleansed our minds of misconceptions, rise to the occasion and answer them.  Who will be first?  Isn’t there someone?  Isn’t there anyone?  Goliath, how about you?  Pretty please?  No fair hiding in that coffin we built for the creationists.
    The ancient biosphere was more diverse and ecologically rich than our modern world.  Many extinct species are found in the record.  Undoubtedly these can be arranged and rearranged into all kinds of imaginary ancestral relationships.  Evolutionists have a bad habit of arranging only the similarities that fit their preconceived imaginary trees into homologous groupings, and calling other similarities analogous.  Why shouldn’t a school kid look at a proboscis monkey, a tapir and an elephant and use similar reasoning to think this is a transition from nose to trunk?  Or a jellyfish to sea slug to a jelly sandwich?  Maybe mudskippers and walking catfish are evolving into lizards or salamanders, or butterflies into birds, or penguins and seals into whales.  Sea stars have five fingers like a human hand.  Octopi have eight tentacles and spiders have eight legs.  Similarities are everywhere; why get worked up about a select few?  Could it be because they reinforce a favorite story?
    For more on problems with the fish-to-tetrapod transition in evolutionary theory, see the review of the evidence by Paul Garner from the Creation Technical Journal.
Next headline on:  Marine/Aquatic Life • Fossils • Evolutionary Theory

This study provides an analysis of the antibiotic resistance potential of soil microorganisms.  The frequency of high-level resistance seen in the study to antibiotics that have for decades served as gold-standard treatments, as well as those only recently approved for human use, is remarkable.  No class of antibiotic was spared with respect to bacterial target or natural or synthetic origin.  Although this study does not provide evidence for the direct transfer of resistance elements from the soil resistome to pathogenic bacteria, it identifies a previously underappreciated density and concentration of environmental antibiotic resistance.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

The superiority of such acquired mechanisms is illustrated by the contrast between Staphylococcus aureus strains that have decreased susceptibility to vancomycin through mutations (so-called VISA strains) as compared to VRSA strains, S. aureus that acquired a complete vancomycin-resistance gene complex via the transposon Tn1546.  The VISA strains have low-level resistance (the minimal inhibitory concentration of vancomycin is 6 to 12 g/ml), are often associated with reduced oxacillin resistance, and show abnormal cell wall synthesis; the multiple transcriptional changes documented by DNA microarray analysis reflect the complexity of this mechanism.  In contrast, in VRSA strains, the Tn1546-based mechanism produces high-level vancomycin resistance (with a minimal inhibitory concentration of more than 500 g/ml) that does not interfere with oxacillin resistance, and cell wall synthesis proceeds with a depsipeptide cell wall precursor specific to these strains.

Neither of these papers ruled out that the resistance mechanisms have always been present in the gene pool.  If so, then the claim that bacteria “evolve” resistance to antibiotics is negated.  Bacteria may simply find access to an existing library of information, a “resistome” that, coupled with a packaging and delivery mechanism (plasmids and transposons), confers the resistance that previously appeared to evolve out of thin air.
    Notice that the resistance conferred by mutations harms the organism.  The case cited by Tomasz reduced the fitness of the organism by weakening its cell wall.  Mutationally-gained resistance is like the illustration Lee Spetner gave: cutting off a man’s arms makes him resistant to handcuffs.  In a population of prisoners being handcuffed, this person would be the fittest, but only in a specific environment and at the cost of overall fitness.  In the wild, he would be at a disadvantage.  Scott Minnich also illustrated this type of bacterial resistance in the film Icons of Evolution with cultures of bacteria exposed to antibiotics.  The kind of resistance conferred by specialized enzymes able to disable the agent, however, require specific genetic information that appears designed.
    Too little is known at this point, but these articles uncover the possibility that genetic information that confers antibiotic resistance is already present in the environmental resistome.  If so, this undermines a commonly-used evidence for evolution.
Next headline on: Cell Biology • Genetics • Darwinian Evolution

Any commentary would be superfluous.  Click on the image for the full size, and just look.
Next headline on: Stellar Astronomy • Amazing Stories

Speleothem records may be influenced by kinetic isotope effects such that temperature-controlled equilibrium fractionation models alone cannot adequately explain the significance of the records.  Proper interpretation of these records may require that the non-equilibrium isotope effects ... be calibrated to physical conditions in the cave, such as temperature, cave P_CO2, drip rates, calcite precipitation rates, stalactite geometry, and drip water chemistry.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

This study points out some important principles of interpretation in scientific studies, especially those used to infer conditions in the unobservable past.  There are usually more factors influencing a measurement than many simplistic models assume.  Consider, for instance, how the experimental apparatus itself can alter a measurement.  The authors noted that even the shape of their glass plates differed from the natural situation: “Our experiment uses flat glass plates, which may affect the stable isotope composition of calcite along the growth layer by forcing the drip water to flow across a flat surface, unlike a natural convex stalagmite,” they said.  “This likely prolongs the residence time of drip water, relative to a natural stalagmite, allowing more time for CO₂ degassing and calcite precipitation.”  Though they discounted the effect of this particular influence, there could well be other influences they did not consider.  After all, previous studies working on this subject apparently did not take speleothem geometry into account.
    Even putting a human being in a cave next to a stalagmite alters its environment.  A body gives off over 100 watts of heat, and alters the moisture of the atmosphere with his or her breath.  When making sensitive measurements of delicate isotopic ratios on a glass plate, how can they be sure all such influences have been calibrated, or even considered?  In addition, as they mentioned, the measurements are sensitive even to the geometry of the drip source.  Perhaps you can think of other influences that would be difficult to calibrate and easy to ignore: microbiology in the soil between the atmosphere and the cave, changes in the source of the water, the complex arrangement of cracks and channels in the cave roof, the presence of cave biota, or much more.  Consider how in recent decades a major paradigm shift in cave geology occurred when geologists began to consider the effect of bacteria on cave formation (05/10/2004).  Prior to that, they were not even thinking about it.  They were looking at geological forces alone, and had overlooked factors that turned out to have a huge effect on cave excavation processes and speleothem formation rates, leading to whole new ways of thinking about underground geology.  Meanwhile, summer-hire cave tour leaders were still regurgitating the old paradigm to the tourists.
    Regardless of how comfortable these scientists feel in their conclusion that isotopic ratios can reflect climate history with some degree of reliability, they admitted that the correlation of oxygen and carbon isotopic covariations was only about 55%.  Some studies showed no correlation, or even a negative correlation.  How can they know that the anomalous studies were not the more significant for true understanding?  Does the majority rule in science?  None of these questions should suggest that field studies and careful measurement are not profitable, but before swallowing a simplistic statement in a popular-level book or TV program about how we “know” something about prehistory, remember that even the best estimates are subject to drastic revision by subsequent findings.  Even if scientists could garner accurate measurements of every “known” parameter in the present, they cannot, in principle, know the unknowns.  In addition, the further that present processes are extrapolated into the past or future, the more uncertain they become – the more subject to assumptions that cannot be tested.  This is an inherent limitation of the scientific method.  Process is not the same as certainty.  When that is admitted, it is a good thing.  More often than not, interpretations are touted as facts, and the assumptions underlying the interpretations are not disclosed.
    For an interesting analysis of factors that call into question consensus views about cave formation and speleothem dating, order this DVD by Dr. Emil Silvestru, a specialist in karst geology with years of field experience: Geology and Cave Formation.  It also contains stunning photographs of some incredible crystalline wonders hidden in the darkness of these underground cathedrals (photo).
Next headline on:  Geology • Dating Methods • Physics

Within eutriconodontans, lumbar ribs are present in gobiconodontids but not in the related Jeholodens.  Within spalacotheroids, these are present in Akidolestes but absent in zhangheotheriids.  Outside the crown mammals, lumbar ribs are absent in morganucodontans but variably present in many advanced cynodonts.  It is possible that this rampant homoplasy of the lumbarosacral vertebral ribs is patterned by developmental genes that are deeply conserved in widely separated mammalian taxa that lacked a recent common history.  However, homoplastic development of the lumbar ribs is not mutually exclusive of the interpretation that these ribs and related features also have convergent function to extant monotremes.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

Words like “homoplasy” and “convergent evolution” are surreptitious gimmicks evolutionists use to hide their naked assumptions.  When data are not cooperative, when fossils exhibit “surprisingly convergent features,” when evolutionary paleontologists don’t have the foggiest idea where to hang their ornaments on the tree, they use such hand-waving terms to pretend their speculations are scientifically based.  Here you see the “stretch and squish” theory of “evolutionary agility” (12/14/2004) in action, with working magicians manipulating words to keep Darwinism safe from the observations.  Don’t be fooled (see Smokescreens in the Baloney Detector).
Next headline on: Fossils • Evolutionary Theory

Did they watch dust collecting?  No – it was an inference based purely on seeing longer wavelengths than expected from the disk region.  Did they watch for millions of years to see what would happen?  Obviously not.  Did they see planets forming?  No.  Did they demolish conventional theories of star formation?  Yes.  Did they tell a fairy tale?  You decide.
Next headline on: Stellar Astronomy • Dumb Ideas

Now you can advertise this film as the one shown at the Smithsonian (06/09/2005) and on Hollywood Boulevard.  The Privileged Planet is a keeper.  The visuals, the original music by Mark Lewis, the narration by John Rhys Davies, and the content are all exceptional; it has “quality” stamped all over it, and the message is equal to the production excellence.  It covers a tremendous amount of interesting and important scientific, historical and philosophical material in just 60 minutes without feeling rushed or overly technical.  The speakers, mostly PhD scientists with strong credentials, including Paul Davies, Robert Jastrow and Donald Brownlee (principal scientist for the just-landed Stardust mission) are unimpeachable.  This film will make an impression – get it and pass it around.
Next headline on: Cosmology • Solar System • Intelligent Design • Media

Based on no fewer than 62 mathematical equations and expressions, the theory provides a possible explanation for the structure of various regions including the cerebral cortex and spinal cord.  The theory is based on the idea that maximum brain function requires a high level of interconnectivity among brain neurons but a low level of delays in the time it takes for signals to move through the brain.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

Gray matter contains neuron somata, synapses, and local wiring, such as dendrites and mostly nonmyelinated axons.  White matter contains global, and in large brains mostly myelinated, axons that implement global communication.  What is the evolutionary advantage of such segregation?  Networks with the same local and global connectivity could be wired so that global and local connections are finely intermixed.  Since such design is not observed, and invoking an evolutionary accident as an explanation has agnostic flavor, we searched for an explanation based on the optimization approach, which is rooted in the evolutionary theory.

We started with the assumption that evolution “tinkered” with brain design [sic] to maximize its functionality.  Brain functionality must benefit from higher synaptic connectivity, because synaptic connections are central for information processing as well as learning and memory, thought to manifest in synaptic modifications.  However, increasing connectivity requires adding wiring to the network, which comes at a cost.  The cost of wiring is due to metabolic energy required for maintenance and conduction, guidance mechanisms in development, conduction time delays and attenuation, and wiring volume.

Brains are mathematically perfect for achieving the sweet spot between maximized interconnectivity and minimized transmission delays.  The authors reminded us that a human brain contains about 10 billion neurons, and that each one can contain thousands of connections with other neurons.  The two-layer structure meets the competing requirements to a T.  That part is amazing.  Assuming that evolution did it earns this entry the Dumb award – really dumb.
    Here again we are told about another apparition of the goddess of the Darwin Party, Tinker Bell.  As the legend goes, she flitted aimlessly around the Cambrian swamps about 500 million years ago, zapping some emerging vertebrates with her mutation wand, killing countless myriads of them till one emerged lucky enough to have the beginnings of an optimized brain.  As animals evolved, this process was repeated myriads of times more over millions of years, producing larger and more complex brains.  Finally, at the end of the line, computational biologists emerged who could look back and analyze the whole process with abstract reasoning and mathematical equations, concluding that evolution had produced an optimized brain.  Let us ask these true believers a simple question.  If the brain evolved, how can you be sure of anything, including the proposition that the brain evolved?  (From experience, we know that posing this type of question to a Darwinist is like putting a moron in a round room and telling him there is a penny in the corner.)
    By assuming evolution at the outset, these computational evolutionists have provided as much insight into the origin of the brain as the vain mathematician did in the “assume we have a can opener” joke in the 12/17/2005 commentary.  Their logic is as follows: Assume evolution produces optimized structures.  An optimized brain would be structured so as to maximize interconnectivity and minimize delays.  The brains we observe accomplish this by segregating highly-connected neurons in a gray matter layer and long axons in a white matter layer, thus fulfilling both requirements in an exquisite product that is the most complex device in the universe, that took us 62 simultaneous equations to describe.  Isn’t evolution wonderful?
    Undoubtedly this paper will be dutifully added to the growing corpus of scripture that the Darwin Party can hold up at school board meetings to show that the peer-reviewed scientific journals are filled with evidence for evolution, and that nothing in biology would make sense without it.  Anyone raising his hand and saying, but to me, that looks like design would be quickly answered with, “Excuse me, we are talking about science here.  If you want to change the subject to religion, go to church.”
    Assumption is the mother of all myths.  Perhaps you have heard the etymology of the word ASSUME: making an ASS (donkey) out of U and ME.  Having gray matter is one thing.  Using it is another.
Next headline on: Human Body • Darwinism • Amazing Facts • Dumb Ideas

CEH does not generally take positions on political issues like global warming, but two lessons stand out from this surprising discovery:
(1) Plants must have some yet-to-be-discovered remarkable mechanism for producing an unlikely molecule in oxidizing conditions.  Here’s a chance for an ID-friendly researcher to find out how and why plants accomplish this feat.  Think of the possibilities for ID science: can plants teach us an efficient way to produce natural gas?  Could this bring our energy bills down?
(2) There may be a lot more going on in this old world than the experts, who influence the politicians, could ever realize.  When they speak glibly about what the climate was doing umpteen gazillion years ago, take note of this startling finding that was right under their noses, right here in the present.
Next headline on: Plants • Politics and Ethics

1. Waddle of the Penguins:  Max Kurz at U of Houston enjoys watching cuddly penguins like most of us, but wonders how they waddle without falling down.  If he can figure out how they keep their balance as they bob from side to side when walking, he thinks he may be able to help the elderly and disabled.
2. Antlers in a Rut  How can male elk and other members of the deer family grow such huge bony structures every year?  Joanna Price of the Royal Veterinary College wants to know, reported BBC News.  The antlers apparently grow from stem cells.  If they can do it, maybe humans can learn the secret of regenerating body parts.
3. Go to the Ant, Thou Student:  Well, what do you know: ants have teachers and students.  An article in UK News Telegraph summarized a paper in Nature¹ by two biologists at University of Bristol who found that ants can do “tandem teaching” – that is, the teacher will stop until the student signals that he got the lesson.  This is better pedagogy than in the ape world, where the teaching is always one-way.
       The scientists were stunned at this “example of teaching.”  They wrote that, “to our knowledge,” this is “the first in a non-human animal, that involves bidirectional feedback between teacher and pupil.”  Reporter Roger Highfield threw in a rather quizzical line at this unevolutionary finding: “dullards and dunces will be encouraged by the discovery that it is the value of what is being taught and the teaching style, rather than brain size, that has most influenced the evolution of teaching”² (emphasis added).  Teacher, could you repeat that?

We’re going to just keep racking up cases of wonders in the animal kingdom, and evolutionists’ utter cluelessness about explaining them, till students everywhere get the lesson.
Next headline on: Birds • Mammals • Terrestrial Zoology • Amazing Stories

Proponents of intelligent design, which holds that a supreme being [sic] rather than evolution is responsible for life’s complexities, have long criticized science [sic] for not being able to explain some natural phenomena, such as how bees fly.
    Now scientists have put this perplexing mystery to rest.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

... They are also pleased that a simple thing like bee flight can no longer be used as an example of science failing to explain a common phenomenon.
    Proponents of intelligent design, or ID, have tried in recent years [sic] to promote the idea of a supreme being [sic] by discounting science [sic] because it can’t explain everything in nature.
    “People in the ID community [who?] have said that we don’t even know how bees fly,” [Douglas] Altshuler [Caltech] said.  “We were finally able to put this one to rest.  We do have the tools to understand bee flight and we can use science to understand the world around us.”

This article is very perplexing.  Who were they talking about?  Steve Meyer, did you ever say that?  Paul Nelson?  William Dembski?  Did you ever define intelligent design that way, as an argument from ignorance?  Phillip Johnson?  Jonathan Wells?  Michael Behe?  President Bush?  Pope Benedict?  Any of you creationists ever say that science could never understand how bees fly?  Duane Gish?  Henry Morris?  Isaac Newton?
    We don’t get it.  We have no idea what these guys are talking about.  Everyone in the ID community we know respects and loves observational, testable, repeatable science.  No problem.  What we would really like to hear, dear LieScience reporter, is how these racing-car hovering flight mechanisms that are the envy of engineers originated.
    So here goes Stupid Evolution Quote of the Week: “Proponents of intelligent design, or ID, have tried in recent years to promote the idea of a supreme being by discounting science because it can’t explain everything in nature.”  If LieScience doesn’t understand how they won this award, they need to study up on Straw Man in the Baloney Detector.
Next headline on: Darwinism and Evolutionary Theory • Intelligent Design • Biomimetics • Terrestrial Zoology • Dumb Statements

Although the flaws in the Hwang paper were especially difficult for reviewers to catch, the peer-review system is far from foolproof, its supporters concede.  In 1997, editors at the British Medical Journal (BMJ) described a study in which they inserted eight errors into a short paper and asked researchers to identify the mistakes.  Of the 221 who responded, “the median number spotted was two,” says Richard Smith, who edited BMJ from 1991 until 2004.  “Nobody spotted more than five,” and 16% didn’t find any.

In the aftermath of the Hwang case, editors at Science will be having “a lot of conversations about how we can improve the evaluation of manuscripts,” says Kennedy.  One thing unlikely to change is the aim of high-profile journals to publish, and publicize, firsts.  “You want the exciting results, and sometimes the avant-garde exciting results don’t have the same amount of supporting data as something that’s been repeated over and over and over again,” says Katrina Kelner, Science’s deputy managing editor for life sciences.  In weighing whether to publish papers such as these, “it’s always a judgment call,” she says.

We don’t wish to be overly critical of peer review nor draw exaggerated conclusions from this one case.  Peer reviewers, editors and scientists are all only human, and are like most of us: trying to work on many things simultaneously under time pressure, subject to mood swings and emotions, loathe to become bogged down in petty details, easily distracted, desirous of recognition and usually trusting of their peers.  In general, there is safety in numbers.  Independent eyes can catch errors in reasoning and constructively criticize unwarranted claims.  Supporters of the peer review status quo can also claim that this fraud was eventually uncovered.  See?  Science is a self-correcting process (echoes of positivism).  A few flaws get through, but at worst, peer review is like American government: awful, but better than any of the alternatives.
    OK, granted, but look how the Darwin defenders use peer review as a selling point.  For one thing, they trumpet all the thousands of papers on evolution, as if the more buckets of sand, the more solid the foundation.  For another, they chide supporters of intelligent design for their shortage of peer-reviewed publications.  Third, they rank the journals by prestige: Science and Nature win more points than the lower-profile journals (remember how Stephen Meyer’s peer-reviewed ID article was disparaged for being published in a “low-impact” journal? 09/08/2004).  Clearly, many evolutionists treat peer review like a gold standard of scientific validation, an imprimatur of officiality and a badge of membership into elite scientific circles.
    So now that we see how the sausage is made – the push to be first with sensational stories, the time deadlines, the lack of rigor, the assumptions about data being honest, and the ease with which mistakes get through – how much stress should be put on peer review?  Are the more prestigious journals better at it?  Is it the only standard?
    Peer review can be a safeguard, but is no guarantee.  In almost each interview in Current Biology, a working scientist is asked about peer review.  The answer usually expresses problems with it and with the whole way scientific information is validated.  They get angry that it can spill the beans of hard-bought original work to rivals.  They doubt that the best findings get the prominence they deserve, or that the papers that get published are really all that significant (remember the “publish or perish” syndrome?)  Authors squeeze in their names as contributors when maybe all they did was run the software application and record the numbers in a lab book.  Among all the verbiage and charts and references and impressive equations, how much is really significant?  Can really fundamental work never get noticed, because it never gets past the Board of Reviewers who are looking for “novelty, originality, and trendiness”?  How about truth?  A lot of Darwinian papers look novel and trendy, but like the tiresome papers on game theory or digital evolution, seem to have little or nothing to do with the real world.  They amount to little more than trendy, original, novel twists on the art of just-so storytelling.
    Recall also that peer review as a “touchstone of the modern scientific method” is a recent tradition (see Wikipedia).  Though its roots date from the Royal Society in the 1700s, its implementation only became routine after World War II.  Throughout history, even up to the present day, many of the most important discoveries have been announced in books with NO peer review.  Copernicus, Newton, Boyle, Maxwell, and many others proposed the most earth-shaking scientific theories in book form out of their own creative genius.  Darwin himself wrote The Origin of Species single-handed, with no PhD.  Peer review these days often shuts out alternative viewpoints, like intelligent design, at the front door (12/21/2001).  It is often rigged to perpetuate reigning paradigms and hinder original-thinking mavericks (02/06/2003).  One can still publish original work without asking some distant editors owing allegiance more to Darwin than to Diogenes to cast judgment on it.  What’s important in science is for an idea to be correct, not for it to pass the muster of a few other fallible humans, or to garner prized real estate in a prestigious rag.  ID proponents may not have many peer-reviewed papers in journals yet, but they have published a great deal of original, scholarly research in groundbreaking books, such as Dembski’s The Design Inference (Cambridge University Press, 1998).  Read good books and do more than just peer.  Review.
Next headline on: Genetics • Politics and Ethics
PS:  This huge embarrassment to Science began just one week after they had announced “Evolution in Action” as “Breakthrough of the Year” (see 12/22/2005).  Trendy!  Novel!  Original?  (True?)

“Something biologically wakes up around high fertility and says, ‘Is your romantic partner the best sexual partner for you, given that you’re likely to conceive?’” says Martie Haselton, assistant professor of communication and psychology at UCLA’s Center for Behavior, Evolution, and Culture.
    Along those evolutionary lines, men more than women desire a variety of sexual partners because genes carrying that trait were passed along in men, Haselton says.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

Pastors, this one is for you.  Notice two things about this putrid article.  The obvious one is that this is another (06/07/2004, 08/20/2001) stupid, pseudoscientific rationalization for cheating (they call it that, too!) on one’s “partner” (whoever or whatever that is; we wouldn’t want to use the old words husband or wife for fear of offending someone with some other, more liberated relationship), based on flawed reasoning, shoddy technique, and baseless interpretations of weak data, leading to purely amoral ends, justifying immorality, all flowing straight out of Darwinian evolutionary dogmatism.  Nothing new, in other words.
    The second thing, even more alarming, is that you, as a pastor, have nothing to contribute to this discussion.  You see, our culture has decided that any stupid thing a “scientist” says about reality, even culture and the most intimate of human relationships, is sacrosanct and not open to question (except perhaps between competing Darwinian views).  Make any claim in the name of Darwin and “science” and you will have an eager lapdog reporter panting at your knees, waiting to retrieve your stick and run with it.  The evolutionary tale will be dutifully recorded in the growing materialistic scripture known as the scientific journal.  By contrast, when was the last time they came to your church and took notes from your sermon? (except, perhaps, with intent to file a lawsuit on the grounds of separation of church and reality.)
    Pastors have no voice in this culture.  In colonial days, pastors were esteemed as pillars of the community.  Pulpits stirred the heart and soul of the young republic, and government leaders looked to the men of God for inspiration and guidance.  Now, virtually no one in the media or elite institutions of power in this country takes a pastor’s view on marriage and adultery seriously, even if he is a scholar of the Bible, history, theology and philosophy with multiple degrees and fluent in Greek and Hebrew, because, you see, he represents “religion,” something for the weak and backward who don’t yet understand “science” (i.e., molecules to man evolution).
    If you think that’s disturbing, read Janet Folger’s wake-up article in the cover story of Whistleblower magazine (Dec. 2005).  It may not even be safe very long for you to say what you think about these matters from your own pulpit, to your own congregation, on your own property.  While the public schools do “reverse evangelism” on your young people with unopposed license (see Agape News), the powers of government influenced by special interest groups and activist judges may soon rule it intolerable for you and your church to engage in evangelistic activities (i.e., hate speech) in the community, and may make it illegal for you to spread your message outside the walls of your church building – or jail cell.  Now read Ezekiel 22.
Next headline on: Darwinism • Politics and Ethics • Dumb Ideas

Flock of dodos.  Wonderful.  Such a scholarly, uplifting title.  With an evolutionary ecologist running the show, any doubt who will be labeled as the real dodos?  Do you think the word dodo will stand for “Darwin Only! Darwin Only” to an evolutionary ecologist who will be showing off his work at Harvard?
    There is a slight chance he will warn his fellow Darwinists they might go extinct without better marketing, but more likely, the blurb sets the odds: “Filmmaker and evolutionary ecologist Dr. Randy Olson tries to figure out who exactly is the flock of dodos.”  Compare this attitude with the respectful, evidence-focused comportment of films like Unlocking the Mystery of Life and The Privileged Planet.  The Darwinist strategy is, when you can’t block, mock.
Next headline on: Darwinism and Evolutionary Theory • Intelligent Design • Media

• Dover Board Rescinds Policy:  As expected, the new Dover school board quickly put an end to the policy that required reading a statement that alternatives to evolutionary theory exist, including (but not limited to) intelligent design.  See: LiveScience and MSNBC News.
• Jews News:  The Miami New Times reported about a lively debate before an audience of 300 Jewish scientists and intellectuals in Miami about how Jews should respond to the ID debate.  Opinions at the “Sixth Miami International Conference on Torah and Science” ranged everywhere from calling Darwinism irrational to saying embracing ID would be a disaster.
• Great IDEA?:  Sarah Price Brown reported on BeliefNet about the rising interest in forming ID clubs on campuses, and how the IDEA Center is assisting.  There are about 30 IDEA clubs at last count, including ones at Cornell, UCSD and George Mason University.
• Basking Sharks II:  The Wichita Eagle reported that the lawyers who defeated the ID initiative in Dover, Eric Rothschild and Stephen Harvey, are scheduled to speak at the University of Kansas later this month.  They want to leverage their experience for others involved in the debate.
      The losing side, though, is not going away any time soon – there is too much momentum across the country, said Richard Thompson, President of the Thomas More Law Center that defended the school board.  He criticized the Dover decision: “The judge specifically ordered the school board never to denigrate or disparage the theory of evolution,” he remarked, “which now makes that theory sacrosanct and violates one of the major principles of America -- that no official, high or petty, should establish dogma or orthodoxy in a method of thinking.”  Source: Agape Press.
• Domino:  Both Nature and Science expressed triumph over the Dover decision, claiming it affirmed unequivocally that ID is not science, and that this decision is likely to affect other cases.
• Just the Facts:  Robert Crowther on Evolution News criticized the habit of major media to editorialize.  Instead of reporting the facts, they are intent on telling us “what it means.”  Crowther says they go even further, trying to tell people how to think about what it means – and that, according to Crowther, in their usual biased and inaccurate manner.
• Danger Signs:  R. Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, CrossWalk.com used the title of Daniel Dennett’s book Darwin’s Dangerous Idea to warn that there is “no middle ground” in this debate.
• Science by Court Order:  Robert Robb in the Arizona Republic criticized the Dover decision by Judge Jones, saying it is not the provenance of the courts to determine what is science.
• Is ID Testable?  Jay Richards and Jonathan Witt made the case on Evolution News that intelligent design is empirically testable and makes predictions.
• Freedom!  D. Eric Schansberg argued for the Acton Institute that the solution to the ID-Darwin acrimony in schools is to give parents freedom of choice.  Lord John Acton (1834-1902) was the British historian famous for the phrase, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”  Schansberg tied this thought to the education monopoly.
• Separation of Church and Science?  According to Agape Press, some professors at Samford University, a Southern Baptist school in Alabama, are protesting the appearance of an ID proponent with degrees from Cambridge and Oxford, Dr. John Lennox, who has 60 peer-reviewed publications to his name.  The grounds of the protest?  Go figure– “separation of church and state.”
• Lawyer Pub:  Albert Alschuler continued his blog about the Dover decision on the University of Chicago Law School site, and got a variety of reactions.
• Outdoor Evangelist:  Biblical creationist Peter DeRosa got good press in Florida’s Contra Costa Times.  The fossil hunter and his dinosaur-digging team reject the “lightweight Christianity” that remains nebulous about the designer.  They are not ashamed to declare the Bible as the true Word of God, and Jesus Christ the Lord as the Creator.  But DeRosa also holds his own answering tough questions about scientific evidence, and while polishing in his lab the allosaurus his team found (01/29/2003), explains why the evidence contradicts evolution and supports the Genesis creation account.

With so many opinions flying left and right, it is more important than ever to keep informed, know how to use your baloney detector, and understand the key issues.  Here, you get the sources where the proponents can explain their views in their own words.  Don’t expect the major media to get it right, especially when discussing ID.  Go to the Discovery Institute and Access Research Network and get the story straight from the sources rather than letting reporters “explain what it means” for you.
    Pay particular attention to which side wants open debate and which wants to shut it down.  Notice who wants the scientific evidence to speak for itself, and who threatens lawsuits or relies on judges to issue orders from the bench.  Notice which side speaks with reason and scholarly logic, and which resorts to mockery.  Such observations contain an important message, sometimes more important than the actual arguments used.
Next headline on:  Education • Intelligent Design • Darwinism and Evolutionary Theory

Why do people not walk or even run with a smooth level gait, like a waiter holding two cups brim-full of boiling coffee?  Why do people select walking and running from the other possibilities?  We address such questions by modelling a person as a machine describable with the equations of newtonian mechanics.  The basic approximations are: first, that humans have compact bodies and light legs; second, that gait choice is based on energy optimization; and third, that energy cost is proportional to muscle work.  We use a simplification of previous models, perhaps the simplest mechanical model that is capable of exhibiting a broad range of gaits that includes walking and running.  Although the model is a mechanical abstraction that is not physically realizable, it is subject to the laws of physics.  Because of its simplicity, the model is amenable to interpretation.  It can also be studied with exhaustive and accurate simulation experiments, far beyond what is possible with human subjects.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

That statement merely assumes evolution, again – the mortal sin of Darwinists.  “Before the Achilles tendon was fully evolved,” right.  Since evolution is already a fact to these dogmatists, it must make perfect sense.  After all, running in circles in a big enough squirrel cage provides the illusion of making progress down a straight track.
    Human bodies can be treated like physical objects and described according to physical laws.  Drop yours out a window and you will accelerate at thirty-two feet per second squared till reaching terminal velocity.  The crater you formed can be measured, and the force you generated on impact can be calculated.  The mechanics of running can be described, quantified, and modeled (see 11/18/2004).  This is all wonderful and useful, but says nothing about how humans, and these mechanical abilities, arose.  Nor does it say how we should use them.  Newton needed to look elsewhere for those laws: Walk circumspectly; do not run in vain.
Next headline on: Human Body • Physics • Amazing Stories

1. Heroic Underdogs in the Brain:  Neurons always got the glory in neurology studies, but now it appears that structural cells called astrocytes deserve more respect.  A summary of work at U. of Rochester posted on EurekAlert says that these “housekeeping” cells actually perform critical functions in regulating blood flow.  They “play a direct role in controlling blood flow in the brain, a crucial process that allows parts of the brain to burst into activity when needed.”  When they malfunction, they might contribute directly to degenerative maladies like Alzheimer’s disease.  See also LiveScience.
2. The Vital Destroyer:  When cancer spreads, hope shrinks.  Friends and family of cancer victims know the agony of metastasis.  At least in some kinds of cancers, metastasis may be traced to failure of a protein named caspase-8 that acts like a curfew cop.  Normally, reported EurekAlert about work by St. Jude’s Research Hospital, caspase-8 patrols the surfaces of tissues looking for vagrant cells that have dislodged from their normal locations and are wandering into unsafe territory.  When it finds them, it turns on their built-in self-destruct program, called apoptosis.  When the cops are out sick, the vagrants get out and cause trouble.  The paper was published in Nature.¹
3. Your Third Eye:  A rare type of eye cell can see.  Rods and cones, we know, do most of the real-time visualization, but scientists at Brown University found “intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells,” or ipRGCs, that respond to light and are hardwired to the brain.  They are pretty sure these slower-acting light sensors are responsible for setting our biological clock and controlling the iris muscles, regulating how much light enters the eye.  “These cells operate like a light meter on a camera,” said researcher David Berson.  “They tell the brain to constrict the pupil based on the amount of light registered over time.”  There are about 2,000 of these cells in the eye, compared to millions of rods and cones.
4. Don’t Bang the Eardrums:  Our ears can tolerate many orders of magnitude in volume, but there are limits.  Researchers at Ohio State found that “years of repeated exposure to loud noise increases the risk of developing a non-cancerous tumor that could cause hearing loss.”  Please pass this warning along to your local fitness center.
5. Watergate Scandal:  Point mutations to our water gates, the water-regulating channels in cell membranes, can let the wrong substances in, reported Breitz et al. in PNAS.²  These elaborate channels made of protein, called aquaporins, depend on a precise amino-acid structure to authenticate water but keep other similar-size molecules out; they can even keep out tiny protons.  The team inserted mistakes here and there and found that contraband like urea or glycerol could sneak in.  One amazing factoid they mentioned is that a single red blood cell has as many as 200,000 aquaporins.  For more on membrane channels, see 05/29/2002 and 12/20/2001.  A reader found detailed powerpoint presentations and animations at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign website, and more at the University of Maine.
6. Gutfull Wonders  The stomach is a lively place.  Lots of organisms live there; hope you don’t mind.  A team from Stanford and NYU decided to start surveying these one-celled companions, because “The microbiota of the human stomach ... remain largely unknown.”  Their preliminary results, published in PNAS,³ began, “A diverse community of 128 phylotypes was identified, featuring diversity at this site greater than previously described.”  Ten percent of them were previously unknown, and they come from at least five separate phyla.  Surprisingly, the population in the stomach differs from that in the mouth and esophagus, and different people have different assortments.  There are some known bad bugs like Helicobacter pylori that form ulcers, but most of them must be OK or even helpful, since we usually feel good after a big meal: “The gastric microbiota may play important, as-yet-undiscovered roles in human health and disease,” they said.
7. Clamp Champs:  You have sliding clamps in your cells.  Really.  Current Biology⁴ talked about these wonderful machines that twist DNA during the copy process:

   DNA sliding clamps were first characterized as DNA polymerase processivity factors: without their presence, cell division would be inconceivably slow; replication of long stretches of DNA would be hopelessly inefficient because DNA polymerases tend to fall off the DNA after elongating a strand by just a handful of bases.  By tethering the polymerase to the DNA, such processivity factors enable the polymerase to add thousands of bases in a few seconds without detaching from the DNA.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

   They work kind of like magic Chinese linking rings.  Somehow they melt around the DNA strand without harming it.  This allows all the other machinery to get a grip during that heavy-duty copying cycle.  Good thing we don’t have to wait so long for the copy operation or we might never grow up.
8. DNA Gyrations During Packaging:  Nature printed articles on two other DNA motors that deserve special notice: one is an acrobatic “gyrase” that generates negative supercoils in DNA (that’s important for packing and safety during cell division).⁵  In their words, “Negative DNA supercoiling is essential in vivo to compact the genome, to relieve torsional strain during replication, and to promote local melting for vital processes such as transcript initiation by RNA polymerase.” The little motor runs on the cell’s special fuel pellets, ATP.  The scientists put beads on it and watched it spin around.  They found it was quite sensitive to tension.
9. More DNA Acrobatics:  Another team publishing in Nature⁶ studied motors called DNA helicases, which are “involved in nearly all aspects of DNA and RNA metabolism.”  Utilizing special techniques, they watched this incredibly tiny molecular motor and discovered that it “might move like an inchworm” (that’s scientific lingo).  It also runs on ATP in a precise range of stresses.  Without the helicase machinery, DNA unfolding would be very, very slow.  This particular helicase, named NS3, is just one of many “helicases involved in many essential cellular functions.”

Most of these articles mentioned little or nothing about evolution.  Here is legitimate science in action: seeking understanding, observing phenomena in real time, learning things so as to benefit human health.  Was Darwinism valuable in the slightest?  These articles are mere glimpses into the new world of molecular machines for which evolutionary theory was completely unprepared.  Most of these machines are parts of complexes with other machines, and they all must meet precise specs or they won’t work – and not working often means serious impairment or death.  How could such elaborate factories emerge by mindless, undirected processes of evolution?
    Darwinists are either scrambling to patch up their theory with new just-so stories, or else going schizophrenic by not even attempting to explain these machines on one side of their head while stating “evolution is a fact, like gravity” on the other.  Any thinking person examining evidence like this will quickly tire of the “maybe this, maybe that” habit of the Darwin Party: “perhaps in some warm little pond, the first life needed a way to pack DNA, so it invented gyrase.”  Yeah, right.  Preach it, brother.
    Charlie was plagued by stomach aches most of his life.  Had he knowledge of such small wonders, his groans might have been heard round the world.  Those not infected with Gastroenteritis darwini can avoid infection by clicking back through five years of Chain Links on Cell Biology and Amazing Stories.  Doing so has the added benefit of inducing a state of euphoria, also known as intelligent worship.
Next headline on:  Health • Cell Biology • Amazing Facts

For two decades now, theorists in the think-big field of cosmology have been stymied by a mathematical quirk in their equations.  If the number controlling the growth of the Universe since the Big Bang is just slightly too high, the Universe expands so rapidly that protons and neutrons never come close enough to bond into atoms.  If it is just ever-so-slightly too small, it never expands enough, and everything remains too hot for even a single nucleus to form.  Similar problems afflict the observed masses of elementary particles and the strengths of fundamental forces.
    In other words, if you believe the equations of the world’s leading cosmologists, the probability that the Universe would turn out this way by chance are infinitesimal – one in a very large number.  “It’s like you’re throwing darts, and the bullseye is just one part in 10¹²⁰ of the dart board,” says Leonard Susskind, a string theorist based at Stanford University in California.  “It’s just stupid.”   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

Because other universes would be causally separated from our own, it seems impossible to tell whether our cosmos is the only one, or one of many.  Most scientists find this disturbing.  Talk of a Universe fine-tuned for life has already attracted supporters of intelligent design, who claim that an intelligent force shaped evolution [sic].  If there’s no way to tell whether the values of scientific constants are a coincidence, the movement’s followers argue, then why not also consider them evidence of God’s handiwork?

In the popular ID film Unlocking the Mystery of Life, Dr. Paul A. Nelson pointed to the arbitrariness of rules that say one cannot use intelligent causes in science.  “Science should be a search for truth about the world,” he said.  We shouldn’t throw out a kind of cause in advance by saying I don’t like that idea, but instead, should bring to bear all the causes that could explain a phenomenon.  If the evidence is shouting design, then why not investigate intelligent causes?  Yes, it would be very foolish to throw away the right answer when that’s where the evidence leads.
Next headline on: Cosmology • Intelligent Design

This is a significantly greater number of essential genes than the 265-350 predicted in our previous study of M. genitalium, or in the gene knockoutdisruption study that identified 279 essential genes in Bacillus subtilis, which is a more conventional bacterium from the same Firmicutes taxon as M. genitalium.  Similarly, our finding of 387 essential protein-coding genes greatly exceeds theoretical projections of how many genes comprise a minimal genome such as Mushegian and Koonin’s 256 genes shared by both H. influenzae and M. genitalium, and the 206-gene core of a minimal bacterial gene set proposed by Gil et al.  One of the surprises about the essential gene set is its inclusion of 110 hypothetical proteins and proteins of unknown function.  Some of these genes likely encode enzymes with activities reported in M. genitalium, such as transaldolase, but for which no gene has yet been annotated.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

Wow – that’s a lot of genes, for a lot of proteins and cellular functions.  The authors’ charts of gene networks look like complex flowcharts designed by an engineer.  Since getting one protein by chance is so improbable it would never happen in countless universes (see online book), expecting to get 387 is overkill on evolutionary theories, kind of like H-bombing a city a googolplex number of times.  After awhile, it becomes ridiculous to expect to find any survivors.
    What’s also interesting are the 100 or so nonessential genes.  How could these evolve?  If they do not have survival value, why would nature select them?  Darwinism’s criterion of survival value appears to be too reductionist to explain many aspects of life that, while not essential, add some seasoning to life.
Next headline on: Cell Biology • Genetics • Origin of Life