Cosmic Star Formation: When Elegant Theories Are Wrong   06/30/2007    
An astronomer wrote about “cosmic train wrecks” in Science recently.¹  Paolo Coppi (Yale) was speaking about galactic mergers, but he could have just as well been talking about current cosmological models.  Things once thought to be understood are coming in for new scrutiny, now that more powerful telescopes can peer deeper into the veiled hearts of galaxies.  One galaxy in particular, NGC 6240, thought to be the result of a merger, was mapped recently in unprecedented detail. 
    In the middle of a rather straightforward article describing current thinking about what happens when galaxies collide, how stars form, and how black holes behave, he ended one paragraph with a surprise.  It was kind of like the ending word “not” in the slang of young people – e.g., “Astronomers understand star formation – NOT!”

Detailed observations of nearby galaxies, the only kind we could carry out until recently, identified two main modes of star formation: powerful and rapid “starbursts” caused by NGC 6240-like collisions and the much less dramatic but quasi-steady formation seen in the disk of our Galaxy.  Because objects like NGC 6240 are rare today, one might speculate that most stars form “quietly” in disks.  The larger, so-called elliptical galaxies, which do not contain much gas, then come from late-time mergers of smaller disk-dominated galaxies that have turned their gas into stars.  Mergers play a minor role, mainly gravitationally scrambling already-made stars.  While elegant, this story seems wrong.

Today’s elliptical galaxies are “red and dead” because they contain predominantly old (red) stars and are not forming new ones.  Very surprisingly, some of the elliptical progenitors also appear to be “red and dead”.  Unless we invoke a new mechanism that rapidly and permanently stops star formation, the most massive objects in simulations turn out to be too massive and never sufficiently red and dead.

If new calculations are correct, the universe just got even stranger.  Scientists at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, have constructed mathematical formulas that conclude black holes cannot exist.  The findings--if correct--could revolutionize astrophysics and resolve a paradox that has perplexed physicists for 4 decades.

The point of this entry is not to take a position on controversies about star formation, black holes or galactic mergers, but to illustrate the difference between real objects and scientific objects.  A scientific object is something about which we cannot know directly through experience: a black hole, a quark, the core of the earth, the interior of the sun, a universal common ancestor, a prebiotic soup, etc.  Nobody denies that cars exist, and that if you drive one into a telephone pole, bad things will happen.  But scientific objects can only be inferred indirectly.  Scientists conceive of their objects as useful entities in equations, and elements of their models in theories.  How real are they?  That is an entirely different question.
    Here we have seen astronomers and cosmologists struggling with and arguing over some scientific objects.  There is no question that they “feel” these things are real, and “believe” they are discussing objective reality, but how can they justify those beliefs?  As with Darwinism, new and better observations frequently raise new puzzles and occasionally threaten to overthrow what was formerly thought to be well understood.  As “elegant” as some ideas may seem, that alone does not prove they represent reality.  The universe has no obligation to submit to human measures of elegance.
    It may have been elegant to envision galaxies aging slowly, with star formation occurring at a relaxed rate over billions of years.  It may have been elegant to envision ellipticals as relics of mergers that stripped away their gas and left them as museums of already-formed stars.  Now what?  The new observations led Coppi to admit, “While elegant, this story seems wrong.”  Now he has to tweak his scientific objects.  Now he has to envision a new mechanism that “rapidly and permanently stops star formation,” or has to tweak the models to include feedback from gravitational collapse, or has to keep black holes from colliding.  Then Krauss et al come along and claimed black holes are not real.  At what point can they claim their scientific objects are real objects?
    Dr. Steven Goldman (Lehigh U) produced an interesting 12-hour series for the Teaching Company on this problem: “Science Wars: What Scientists Know and How They Know It.”  We’ve mentioned the applicability of these lectures before to questions we often discuss here.  In excruciating detail, Goldman gives example after example of controversy in all areas of science for over 2,000 years.  Are scientists talking about truth and reality, or are they merely playing games, like members of a fraternity?  Do the scientific objects they talk about represent reality or not?
    Goldman leaves the controversy open.  His only suggestion, offered as a personal opinion in the last lecture, was that we don’t talk about scientific objects as realities, but as actualities – useful entities that allow scientists to make headway in their attempts to understand nature.  Yet it should be clear with a little analysis that this is mere quibbling over definitions.  Unless an actuality corresponds to reality, what is it?  If it isn’t real, or cannot be demonstrated to be real, then what kind of work are scientists doing?  That leads to other serious and troubling questions: should the public pay for it?  If all they are doing is speculating about things they cannot know, then what value does it have over other kinds of inquiry, that we should grant it epistemic authority and millions of dollars in funding?
    Goldman illustrates the point that almost everything scientists thought they knew at the turn of the 20th century is now considered to be wrong.  There is hardly any scientific object, whether the earth, the atom, the universe, mass, time, space, the mind, consciousness, or just about anything else from physics to economics, that is looked at the same way today.  A logical corollary is that we have no confidence in 2007 that we understand scientific objects so well that our ideas will not be overturned a hundred years hence.
    These kinds of questions need to be considered every time scientists talk about the objects of their study as if they are arriving at “the truth” about the universe.  Better data, better equipment, and better observations are essential.  We are not the ones to judge, however, the point at which our data are so good, and our ideas so solid, that no further scrutiny is needed.  The history of scientific revolutions warns us that even Newtonian physics, the epitome of rock-solid science, was vulnerable.  This is not to say that we must doubt everything.  Rocket scientists, after all, do get spaceships to Saturn at the right spot and the right time.  Scientists must be doing something right.  When observations continue to contradict theory for decades, though, and when the scientific objects involved are especially remote and far from experience, there is one law that actually gains credibility:  Murphy’s.
Next headline on:  Astronomy • Cosmology • Physics

• Chunks of missing DNA
• Extra genes
• Number of chromosomes and chromosome structure
• Altered connections in gene networks
• Indels (insertions and deletions)
• Gene copy number
• Coexpressed genes

But truth be told, Wilson and King also noted that the 1% difference wasn’t the whole story.  They predicted that there must be profound differences outside genes—they focused on gene regulation—to account for the anatomical and behavioral disparities between our knuckle-dragging cousins and us.  Several recent studies have proven them perspicacious again, raising the question of whether the 1% truism should be retired.
    “For many, many years, the 1% difference served us well because it was underappreciated how similar we were,” says Pascal Gagneux, a zoologist at UC San Diego.  “Now it’s totally clear that it’s more a hindrance for understanding than a help.”

This is a very disturbing article.  We have basically caught the Darwinists in a bald lie that has hoodwinked the world for over 30 years.  Gagneux says, “For many, many years, the 1% difference served us well” – stop right there!  Who is “us”?  Was it the millions of school children and laymen who were lied to?  Was it the majority of people who believe God created mankind, suffering under an onslaught of lies told in the name of science?
    No!  “Us” refers to the members of the Darwin Party, the dogmatists who shamelessly lied to advance their agenda.  They had a strategy to portray humans and chimpanzees as similar as possible, in order to make their myth of common descent seem more plausible.  Now, 32 years later, they have come clean, without any remorse, only because the usefulness of that lie has run out, and needs to be replaced by new lies.  They had a political, social and cultural agenda that, in many cases, worked for 32 years.  “Truth be told,” he said.  Too late.  These guys wouldn’t know Truth if it bit them on the lips.  Truth that evolves, or that is an emergent property of material particles, is not the Truth.
    For other examples of the Useful Lie tactic used by Darwin propagandists, see 05/02/2003, 07/25/2003, 11/19/2004, 03/02/2006, 02/01/2007, 05/31/2007 and many others under the chain links Darwin and Education that have been exposed on this website.  Liars, we bare.  Buyers, beware.
Next headline on:  Early Man • Genetics • Evolution

Look no further if you need evidence that Darwinians worship their little bearded buddha.  They said it (see also 07/18/2006, 02/13/2004 commentary).  They’ve got their Mecca.  All they need now is finch-beak-shaped minarets to remind the faithful to bow toward Downe House six times a day and pray for the destruction of creationism.  They already have their terrorism down to a science (Evolution News #1, #2; book burning, too: #3).
    Let’s see how the Darwin faithful are keeping up to the Statement of Faith.

1. The understanding of the natural world: if they really understood it, they would see design, stasis and decay, not evolution.  Their method of understanding is to presuppose evolution as a fact and to fit every bit of data into their a priori belief system.
   • by observation:  Have they observed the Cambrian explosion?  fossils out of order from Charlie’s myth?  living fossils?  catastrophism?
   • by hypothesis:  The Darwinians are good at speculating on causes, but hypothesis is only the starting hunch for a scientific quest (see 01/15/2004 commentary), not science itself.
   • by experiment:  Tell us, Darwinites, how you plan to experiment on history.  Tell us how you plan to show us one phylum evolving into another, when they all appeared simultaneously in the earliest layers of the fossil record.  Extrapolating minor changes is a logical fallacy.
         Need we also remind readers that Darwin did not invent experimental science?  The experimental method goes back to 11th century Christian Europe at least, when Hugh of St. Victor, Richard Grosseteste, Roger Bacon and others urged observation and experimentation as a means of glorifying God and obeying the Genesis mandate.  The values that lead to scientific investigation can be traced back to King Solomon – or even Adam.
         What experiments did Darwin do to try to confirm his theory?  None!  He observed a lot of animals and plants that live in the present – barnacles, orchids, pigeons, the plants in his fields – but never experimented on how they might become new species.  He only speculated on how they might evolve over unseen ages of time.
2. Free and wide exchange of information and ideas:  Great idea.  When do they start? (06/22/2007).  No controversy with creationists and ID people here.
3. Theory building:  This is meaningless without explaining what is meant by theory.  Only a very loose use of the word would permit Darwin’s “one long argument” to be considered a theory.  Critic David Berlinski said that the evidence adduced in support of Darwin’s theory, like oscillating sizes of finch beaks, does not even rise to the level of anecdote.
4. Communication:  Another great idea, if only.  The Darwinites are masters at indoctrination (see CMI for one recent analysis of how schools mislead and indoctrinate students with flawed arguments).  Communication implies the communion of ideas between two parties, not the one-way imposition of dogmas onto a target audience.

There’s a word for people who profess one thing and do another.  We don’t care to visit Downe House because of all the hypocrites in the Church Mosque of Darwin.
Next headline on:  Darwin • Dumb Ideas

So where’s the Monkey Red Cross, or the United Apes Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization?  Why don’t The Monkeys organize a rock concert (03/27/2007) to raise funds for Banana Aid?  The chimp behavior only underscores the gulf between me, thee, and the chimpanzee.
    Animals in captivity often take cues from their human caregivers and respond in ways that are likely to produce rewards.  Your dog probably shows more charity to you than these apes ever would (though Lassie shows never revealed the off-set director with his cues).  Even in the wild, animals often show care and sacrifice (think ants, bees, and March of the Penguins).  These acts, however, are limited to the population, explained as learned adaptations that help pass on the genes of the species.  Mutualistic symbiosis also has “selfish” evolutionary stories.  (Darwinism is built on SELF as the designer god.)
    Evolutionists have felt they have had plausible just-so stories for all behavior but this one: true, self-sacrificing altruism toward strangers.  That’s why the excitement every time an experiment suggests or appears to shed light (Darwinian code for hoping in the dark) on a missing puzzle piece for their scheme.  Did you notice their explanation?  It’s becoming all too familiar.  They pushed the origin of the trait further back into the misty past, suggesting it arose millions of years earlier in a remote, mythical, unspecified common ancestor.  This is how they lock up their documents in the basement.  When we want to see them, they just smile and say, “trust us.”
    Good grief, the neighboring chimps banged on the door so loud the “altruistic” ones probably gave in just to get some peace and quiet.  Let’s see the chimpanzees organize a campaign to rescue an endangered species – like rational humans.
Next headline on:  Early Man • Mammals • Ethics

Summing up: (1) the fossils are tens of millions of years out of order.  (2) One of the two species was larger than any penguin alive today – as tall as a human.  (3) It had a larger beak: “Both new species had long narrow pointed beaks -- now believed to be an ancestral beak shape for all penguins.”  (3) It was found at an equatorial latitude, indicating a richer biodiversity in the past.  (4) Everyone was surprised by these findings.  Conclusion: another victory for evolutionism.
    Encore:  (5)... “during a period when the earth was much warmer than it is now” (36 million years ago).  Conclusion: we must take drastic measures because humans are responsible for global warming.
Next headline on:  Birds • Fossils • Evolution

A University of Utah study shows how various regions of North America are kept afloat by heat within Earth’s rocky crust, and how much of the continent would sink beneath sea level if not for heat that makes rock buoyant....
    Mile-high Denver’s elevation would be 727 feet below sea level and Salt Lake City, now about 4,220 feet, would sit beneath 1,293 feet of water.  But high-elevation areas of the Rocky Mountains between Salt Lake and Denver would remain dry land.

The Bible says that during the height of the Flood, all the high mountains were covered.  Most likely there were no Rocky Mountains at the time.  As a consequence of tectonic upheavals that brought on the Flood, mountains were pushed up and the ocean basins sank down (see Psalm 104:6-8).
    The geologists mentioned in this article would most likely laugh at the Biblical account.  We should remind them of what geologists David Stevenson (Caltech) admitted about how little we know of what lies below (see 04/02/2004; see also 11/05/2003).  We’ve seen geologists change their stories drastically many times (overview, 11/04/2003).  Even the current paradigm of plate tectonics is not on solid ground (11/14/2002).  Explaining the continents involves balancing contradictory forces and is not well understood (06/27/2002).  An Eyewitness was there and told us what happened.  Why not check out His credibility as you would with any other witness?
    Hikers on mountains feel like they are on terra firma, and they are in the present epoch.  But the heat below and forces under the crust can cause catastrophic change.  On a planet 70% covered with water, people often forget how unusual continents are, and how much water would be available to cover them if God were to level the playing field.
Next headline on:  Geology • Bible

Our Complex Brains: Lessons from Phrenology   06/25/2007    
This is your brain on science: it is too complex for simplistic diagrams.  Back in the 19th century, the “science” of phrenology was in full swing.  Phrenologists divided the brain into more than two dozen regions of “mental faculties” that controlled such things as instincts for eating and sex, sensation of color, language ability, and even moral and intellectual qualities such as love, wisdom, poetry and ability to ponder metaphysics.  Once these regions were mapped out, some practitioners believed they could rate your abilities by feeling the bumps on your head.  These beliefs quickly degenerated into ranking races and groups as intellectually superior or inferior.
    Even into the late 20th century, it was common for textbooks to subdivide the brain into distinct functional regions.  There is observational support for this: we know that sensory organs (eyes, ears) map to localized regions in the brain, and that sensory and mental disorders can be traced to sites of damage or poor development.  In addition, the brain does have a noticeable structure: a stem, a hypothalamus, white matter, gray matter, the cerebral cortex and other recognizable parts.  The left and right hemispheres have different properties – though not to the degree to support popular misconceptions that women are right-brained and men are left-brained, or that artists are right-brained and scientists are left-brained.
    Neuroscience of the brain is a rapidly growing field.  The brain can be approached through multiple paths.  Scientists can strive to understand the workings of individual brain cells, such as the varieties of neurons and glial cells.  Others can monitor brain waves during various activities.  The effects of diet, exercise and sleep can be measured.  Comparative anatomy can compare and contrast brain structure and function in lab rats, cats, monkeys and humans.  And the effects of brain damage can be ascertained.  Our ability to probe the brain’s secrets have become increasingly sophisticated with MRI, fluorescent proteins, genetic engineering and more.
    We have learned much, but there is a vast undiscovered landscape within the brain still to be understood.  Some idea of the status of brain research can be found in a couple of recent papers.  They show one clear lesson: that ideas about localized functional areas are far too simplistic.  Phrenology was wrong.  The entire brain is in constant communication: function cannot be restricted to distinct regions, and we still have the profound mind-body problems about the seat of consciousness and intellect.  Actually, phrenology might have served as a useful heuristic device, an attempt to bring order out of complexity, but it is dismissed as pseudoscientific today.  Here are some of the recent indications that more than we can imagine is going on at the nexus of structure and function.

1. PhreNOlogy:  Robert Knight in Science June 15 commented about recent papers that “debunk phrenology.”¹  His first paragraph pretty much sums up the verdict:

   Systems neuroscience aims to understand how billions of neurons in the mammalian brain support goal-directed behavior, such as decision making.  Deciphering how individual neurons respond to sensory inputs or motor decisions has focused on delineating the neural basis of these processes in discrete regions of the brain’s cortex, and has provided key insights into the physiological basis of behavior.  However, evidence from neuropsychological, electrophysiological, and neuroimaging studies in humans has revealed that interactions between widespread neural regions in the brain underlie fluid, organized behavior.  Two papers in this issue, by Womelsdorf et al. on page 1609 and Saalmann et al. on page 1612, and a recent paper in Science by Buschman and Miller, unravel the details of these interactions by assessing the simultaneous activity of neurons in multiple sites of the mammalian brain.  The studies show that network interactions among anatomically discrete brain regions underlie cognitive processing and dispel any phrenological notion that a given innate mental faculty is based solely in just one part of the brain.

   Researchers found multiple regions of the brain responding to the same visual tasks in monkeys.  There appeared to be feedback between widely-separated regions.  Some of these regions communicate at different frequencies of oscillations.  The current picture is one of neural networks involving the entire brain, not just localized regions responding to sensory inputs.
2. Primer:  Stewart Shipp gave readers of Current Biology a primer on brain structure.²  He began by giving a reason why our gray matter has its odd, wrinkled shape.  It provides efficiency in wiring:

   The grey matter of the cerebral cortex is a convoluted, layered sheet of tissue, 2-3 millimetres thick in man but with a surface area of several hundred square centimetres.  This is not an adaptation to promote gaseous exchange, or heat loss – rather, if the grey matter is compact in at least one dimension, it is outgoing axons that may readily escape it; once outside, they club together and form the cortical white matter.  If grey and white were intermixed, the average separation of neurons would be greater, creating extra neural ‘wiring’.  The speed of cortical computation would suffer accordingly.
       The principle of economic wiring can also be invoked to account for regional specialisation of function across the surface area of the cortex.  Put simply, neurons performing similar roles need to communicate, and do so more efficiently if nearby.

   Thus the reason for regions of function.  Nevertheless, it’s not the whole story: there is also a great deal of cross communication between regions, as well as cross-level communication within regions.
       Shipp described how columns of neurons (perpendicular to the layering) were found to correspond to distinct parts of the body: a patch of skin, for instance, might activate a column of neurons within the motor region.  But there is also communication parallel to the layering across columns, and this is where the simple idea of distinct regions breaks down:

   Moving tangentially through the sheet (parallel with the plane of layering) the discovery was that neighbouring columns have neighbouring receptive fields — the ensemble of columns ultimately giving rise to a cortical map of the relevant sensory surface.  In sensory cortex, this engenders the ‘one map, one area’ principle for parcelling the cortical surface into discrete areas, each of which is thought to have some nuance of functional specialisation.  Cortical areas are richly interconnected – with each other and with subcortical structures – and the layering of the cortex reflects the radial organisation of all these input-output relationships.  Indeed, the layered pattern is rather uniform over the expanse of the sheet, as if to serve basic ‘housekeeping’ operations that generalise across cortical applications as diverse as colour vision, speech and music.

   Some regions are well known – the primary motor cortex and the primary visual cortex – but “These variations in cortical architecture have long been treated purely cartographically, betraying a lack of any analytic insight into the way different applications might modulate layer structure and function,” he said, further debunking phrenology.  “This is largely because, as documented below, our appreciation of layers is still rooted rather more securely in anatomical than physiological cortical characteristics.”  The whole picture requires both.
       We know more about the visual cortex because it has received an order of magnitude more study than other regions of the brain.  The emerging picture is more of multiple layers of structure and function, with cross-communication and feedback between all of them.  The brain must be seen as an entire network of interacting systems.  Yes, areas with discrete functions tend to be collocated, but the brain as a system cannot be carved up into chunks.
       This brings us to Shipp’s tongue-in-cheek conclusion: the brain is your fiend.

   The complexities of cortical circuitry are nothing short of fiendish, and the problem of integrating genetic, morphological and physiological details from diverse cortical areas and across diverse species is a worthy challenge to the burgeoning science of neuroinformatics.  Though inconsistencies abound, the fact that some trans-areal, trans-specific generalisations are possible, and justified, is a quite remarkable observation.  Following the strategy of ‘know thine enemy’, it appears that the cortical fiend has some interesting habits, which we can usefully begin to tag with some shorthand, functional labels.

   “Neuroinformatics” – a very suggestive word.

One mystery remains: How is information in oscillatory activity encoded?  The individual spike train rate (the number of times a neuron fires each second) or spiking frequency (the rhythm at which a neuron fires) is not sufficient for coding the vast array of processes that underlie perception, memory, or decision making.  Nevertheless, the three groups have laid the groundwork for deciphering this neural code.

If you were living in the 19th century, would you have been swayed by the claims of the phrenologists?  Would they have influenced you to think they were onto something scientific?  Would you have come in for a sitting for a skilled phrenologist to feel the bumps on your head, and tell you about your abilities?  Well, you would have been misled.  One can only wonder about the mischief done to victims of this simplistic pseudoscience – students influenced toward wrong careers based on the verdict of a phrenologist that he or she was poor at art or wisdom or abstract reasoning; false pride given to fools who were told they were intellectually superior; and worst of all, whole classes of people who were deemed unfit or defective based on their skull features.  The Rwandan genocide can be traced to phrenology.  The Dutch began a racist segregation of two very similar tribes, the Hutus and Tutsis, based on alleged intellectual differences.  Those tensions grew until the genocide of 1994 that killed nearly a million people (see Touchstone Magazine).
    Yet are we immune today?  We still fall for the same old tricks.  Here’s a simple one: the brain of a stegosaurus was proportionally small for its body size, therefore stegos were stupid.  While that probably was true in some sense, do you see the hidden assumption?  The statement assumes that bigger is better.  Sometimes more power and efficiency can occupy a smaller space.  Your small laptop computer is more powerful than a bulky 1970s mainframe.  Maybe the stego had much more efficient and compact neurons than we do, or a better organized neural network.  Who knows; maybe they were actually good at philosophy but didn’t leave any written records.  We jest, but beware the logical traps of begging the question and glittering generalities.  Evolutionary paleoanthropologists are often guilty of this (e.g., 01/27/2004).
    A study of the history of science is valuable as a warning about pitfalls in reasoning that can become part of an accepted cultural mythology, sometimes for decades and centuries.  OK, so phrenology is wrong.  Don’t think that today’s neuroscientists and psychologists have it right.  The myth of progress tempts us to assume that whatever is newer is better.  Yes, we have better tools and a much more precise observational database about the details of the system, but the complexities of the mind and the brain remain vast and seemingly intractable.  Today’s evolutionary neuroscientists are trying to tell us that love, altruism and morality are due to brain mutations in our primitive ancestors.  To what mutations do they attribute that conclusion?
    Shipp advises us to know the enemy and attack the cortical fiend inside us.  In some respects, given what we know of human nature (1, 2, 3), that metaphor might generate some productive heuristics.
Next headline on:  Human Body • Intelligent Design • Amazing Facts

The theory of evolution is being attacked by religious fundamentalists who call for creationist theories to be taught in European schools alongside or even in place of it.  From a scientific view point there is absolutely no doubt that evolution is a central theory for our understanding of the Universe and of life on Earth.
    Creationism in any of its forms, such as “intelligent design”, is not based on facts, does not use any scientific reasoning and its contents are pathetically inadequate for science classes.
    The Assembly calls on education authorities in member States to promote scientific knowledge and the teaching of evolution and to oppose firmly any attempts at teaching creationism as a scientific discipline.

1.    The Parliamentary Assembly is worried about the possible ill-effects of the spread of creationist theories within our education systems and about the consequences for our democracies.  If we are not careful, creationism could become a threat to human rights, which are a key concern of the Council of Europe....
12.    The war on the theory of evolution and on its proponents most often originates in forms of religious extremism which are closely allied to extreme right-wing political movements.  The creationist movements possess real political power.  The fact of the matter, and this has been exposed on several occasions, is that the advocates of strict creationism are out to replace democracy by theocracy....
14.    The teaching of all phenomena concerning evolution as a fundamental scientific theory is therefore crucial to the future of our societies and our democracies.  For that reason it must occupy a central position in the curriculum, and especially in the science syllabus.....

89.    ....The theory of evolution constitutes a body of fundamental knowledge for the future of our democracies and cannot be arbitrarily challenged.....
94.    ....The teaching of evolution by natural selection as a fundamental scientific theory is therefore crucial to the future of our societies and our democracies....

12.    There is a considerable body of scientific evidence concerning evolution.  Scientists have shown that evolution is a fact because of

• the evidence provided by palaeontological data,
• the numerous cases of characteristics shared by organisms with a common ancestor,
• the reality of continental drift,
• direct observations of genetic changes in populations.

13.    It should be pointed out that the human being is just one of the links in the long chain of evolution.

24.    ....science is the totality of operations that produce objective knowledge.  A statement on the world can only be described as objective if it has been verified by an independent observer.  This verification depends on three factors: scepticism, rationality and logic and, finally, methodological materialism.  These three pillars ensure the objectivity of a scientific result.
25.    Scientific research on the subject of evolution has been no exception.

18.    The Parliamentary Assembly therefore urges the member states, and especially their education authorities, to:

18.1.    defend and promote scientific knowledge;
18.2.    strengthen the teaching of the foundations of science, its history, its epistemology and its methods alongside the teaching of objective scientific knowledge;
18.3.    make science more comprehensible, more attractive and closer to the realities of the contemporary world;
18.4.    firmly oppose the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline on an equal footing with the theory of evolution by natural selection and in general resist presentation of creationist theories in any discipline other than religion;
18.5.    promote the teaching of evolution by natural selection as a fundamental scientific theory in the school curriculum.

The COE’s angry tirade reads like Mein Kampf, a ridiculous rant by a madman who was only a threat when he gained power.  Similarly, this document is easily refuted on every point (mountains of rebuttals in 7 years of these pages), and is almost laughable in its shallowness.  But give the Darwin Party power to enforce these views, and this is easily the kind of policy that could produce persecution.  Talk about human rights: there are some radical Darwinists who feel so strongly about this they would put creationists in zoos (at best) and kill them for thinking unDarwinian thoughts (at worst).  How completely inverted to point to creationists as a threat to human rights and democracy, when we just endured the bloodiest century in the history of man with states dedicated to advancing Charles Darwin’s dangerous idea.  Theocracy?  Try atheocracy.
    Aware of charges like this, paragraph 87 tries to distance evolution from “social Darwinism,” calling the latter an aberration: “Social Darwinism is an ideology that claims to have been inspired by Darwin but it has nothing to do with the Darwinian theory of evolution” (italics theirs).  Darwin “is not responsible for the deviations from his theory after his death,” they shouted: “It is absolutely scandalous to present Darwin as the father of terrorism, and that may sow doubt and bewilderment in the minds of many young and inexperienced individuals.”  They point to the wars that were done in the name of religion.
    Must we repeat?  There is a direct line of reasoning from “survival of the fittest” to social Darwinism, eugenics (Francis Galton = Charlie’s cousin) and the totalitarian regimes Darwin inspired (Stalin read The Origin and became an atheist).  By contrast, there is no way anyone can get religious war and theocracy out of the teachings of Jesus (blessed are the meek, love your neighbor as yourself, pray for those who persecute you, turn the other cheek, greater love has no man than one lay down his life for his friends).  Jesus taught dying to oneself and serving others, submitting oneself to God in meekness and humility.  Past wars in the “name of Jesus” stemmed from corruptions of His teachings by power-hungry leaders of institutions.  (Most of such wars arguably stemmed from political and economic factors primarily, with religious differences as a tacked-on rationalization; e.g., the Thirty Years’ War.)  The totalitarian leaders of communism and nazism, by contrast, looked to Darwin as their hero and the one who provided a “scientific justification” for their actions.
    As an example of the shallowness of the COE document, look at their treatment of “evolutionary psychology” in paragraph 90:

90.    It is important to point out that the theory of evolution has had a profound effect on science in general, philosophy, religion and many other aspects of human society (for example, agriculture).  Evolution has also entered the field of psychology: evolutionist psychology is a field of psychology that aims to explain the mechanisms of human thought on the basis of the theory of biological evolution.  It is based on the fundamental hypothesis that the brain, like all the other organs, is the result of evolution and thus constitutes an adaptation to specific environmental constraints, to which the ancestors of the Hominidae were forced to respond.

It seems to escape the notice of dear Mr. Lengagne that he has just shot his argument in the foot.  We’ve explained this so many times here, this time let’s let Dr. Michael Egnor do it for us: see Evolution News.  Lengagne’s treatment of the Galileo Affair and the Scopes Trial are also pathetically uninformed.
    There is no part of the COE’s arsenal against creationism that has not been disarmed or turned right back against the Darwinist stronghold.  It would make a good term paper or debate topic for a reader to respond to it point by point.  He or she would find plenty of documentation right here in these pages.  While you’re at it, try to find one example among the reputable groups promoting creationism or intelligent design that wants only creationism taught in the schools.  All want both sides to be heard, as long as they are taught accurately and honestly – so did Charlie himself.  As always, it is the liberal progressives, be they stem-cell advocates, abortion advocates, homosexual advocates, open-borders advocates, global warming advocates, tolerance advocates, political correctness advocates and Darwinism advocates, who want to shut off debate and have their views imposed by political declaration or court decision.  They have a miserable track record on free speech.  Conservatives, especially creationists and intelligent design advocates, are asking for a chance to be heard – to debate the issues.  Darwinism is a huge issue.  It needs to be discussed with all the evidence and logic and reason the best minds can muster.
    Using this document as a prime example, ask yourself if there is any group in the world you know of that routinely gets more angry lambaste than creationists.  In these days of political correctness, you can advocate and practice any weird or evil belief you want and usually get away with it: any sexual deviation, pagan sun worship at solstice festivals, parades of shame and flaunting of the most irrational or weird or downright stupid idea or behavior, and people will either look the other way or actually cheer you on.  Not even teachers who have sex with their students or child pornographers are getting this much official condemnation.  But try to pass some evidence against Charlie using reason, logic and evidence, and the hate speech is unbelievable.
    And is this not hate speech?  The Council of Europe and the U.N. appear more forgiving and tolerant of suicide bombers than they are of creationists.  (Notice also how the intelligent design movement has made absolutely no headway in trying to distinguish their views from “creationism.”  To the Darwin Party, there is no difference whatsoever, despite book after book after book explaining why I.D. only is trying to answer the question if design can be inferred using scientific methods.)  To the radical Darwiniacs, any hint of trying to tarnish the reputation of Father Charlie is cause enough to bring on the full wrath of the Western World.
    But the “official ” Western World is not the “real” Western World.  Despite their power and official status, the radical Darwinists are a minority.  Most people don’t buy their line.  A recent poll reported by USA Today showed that 2/3 of Americans still trust creation more than evolution, despite decades of strict indoctrination in the public schools.
    Encouraging as that is, let history quickly remind us that fanatics with power affect the world more than silent majorities.  In each case of the worst 20th century genocidal totalitarian regimes, whether Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot or any of the others, the revolutionaries were usually more motivated, better organized and more ruthless than the majority.  Lenin’s followers called themselves “Bolsheviks” (majority) when they were actually a minority.  The Russian White Army, despite valiant efforts, was no match for the radical revolutionaries with their lies, propaganda, purges, assassinations, publicity stunts, chicanery and subversive tactics.  (For Mr. Lengagne’s education, we would like to point out that Mao was one of the very few genocidal maniacs of the 20th century who did not study in France.)
    A totalitarian regime’s strategy for gaining and holding power is to whip up the masses with hatred and fear of a perceived threat.  We see now the radical Darwinists refusing to debate, refusing to reason, and refusing to listen; instead, they are trying to whip up the nations of the world into a frenzy over a perceived threat from creationists.  If you are the target, you may have thought you were just trying to get somebody to listen to reason and look at some evidence, but no: you are a bogeyman, and bogeymen are fair game.
    As we have said before, do not think for a moment that the evils of radical Darwinism were exhausted by the atrocities of the 20th century.  In the Information Age, where your location can be tracked by GPS and there is no place to hide, where you could be implanted with mind-altering devices and coerced with new scientific tortures, the potential for abuse could make the Stalin era look like a picnic.  If the COE really means what it says that social Darwinism and communism and nazism were perverted deviations and wrong, let them (1) denounce these regimes in the strongest of terms, (2) say “never again ”will they allow such ideas to ever gain sway, and (3) explain exactly why evolutionary psychology, morals and philosophy invariably lead to peace on earth and gentle brotherhood.  It cannot be done.
    Poor Christians and Jews: the hatred comes from all sides.  The radical Muslims hate them for doubting Mohammed.  The radical Darwinists hate them for doubting Darwin.  Such irrational hatred boggles the mind.  That fact alone should cause someone to ponder that something strange is going on.  Could they be doing something right?
    Jesus predicted, “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.  If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own.” (John 15:18-19).  He noted, “They hated me without reason.”  If the radical Darwinists and Muslims had a reason for their hatred, Christians should be the ones repenting and confessing their sins.  Since they do not, we can take comfort that Jesus said, shortly before receiving the most brutal treatment man could bring on a person – death on a cross – “I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace.  In this world you will have trouble.  But take heart!  I have overcome the world” (John 16:33).
    So join the Christian Recipients of Hate Society.  You’ll be in good company.  Till that day, recall too that for years Jesus employed reason and evidence in public debate.  Those are also good footsteps to follow.
Next headline on:  Education • Evolution • Intelligent Design

1. Eukarya sans Mechanista:  “In the absence of direct evidence, science should proceed cautiously with conjecture,” wisely advised Anthony Poole and David Penny in Nature.¹  They scorned the researchers who glibly invent fables about how multicellular organisms arose when one engulfed another, saying, “The notion that eukaryotes evolved via a merger of cells from the other two domains – archaea and bacteria – overlooks known processes.”  Maybe that’s why they titled their Concepts essay, “Engulfed by speculation.”
       Poole and Penny criticized leading theories about how eukaryotes arose, comparing them with absurd medieval speculations: “The conflicting hypotheses currently on offer show a curious disregard for mechanism,” they asserted.  They agree that engulfing was part of the story – they claim that engulfing is widespread among eukarya, but unknown among archaea and bacteria – but they criticize the way some evolutionists appeal to imagination: “It is the only explanation based on a host capable of engulfing the mitochondrial ancestor by known processes,” they demanded, “rather than by mechanisms founded in unfettered imagination.”
       David Tyler on Access Research Network emphasized the damage this article portends for Darwinism.
2. Mammals sans Clocks:  “Yet again, molecules and fossils are at odds in the dating of a key event in the history of life,” wrote John Whitfield in Nature.²  The molecular clock doesn’t fit the fossil dates at all.  The most complete phylogenetic tree built on the fossil record puts mammals on the rise 65 million years ago, but the DNA studies suggest mammals originated 15 to 35 million years earlier.  “Yawning gaps between molecular and palaeontological approaches to the dating of evolutionary landmarks have appeared ever since molecular approaches based on DNA sequences first became widely used about 15 years ago,” Whitfield lamented.  John Wible added, “I don’t have a good answer as to why there’s this discrepancy.”  Researchers are trying to force two data sets together that don’t want to get married.  The article also mentioned the large discrepancy between the two data sets from the much-earlier Cambrian explosion.
       The latest controversy was spurred by Wible’s discovery, published in the same issue of Nature,³ of a Mongolian mammal he dated at 75 million years old.  He not only found a rare Cretaceous mammal but ventured a phylogenetic tree vastly at odds with molecular studies.  He puts the crown group of mammals late in the Cretaceous, nearer the time of the dinosaur extinction.
       Cifelli and Gordon, in the same issue,⁴ noted how far-reaching this controversy extends: “The conflicting results of these palaeontological and molecular studies have profound implications for understanding the evolutionary history of mammals, and for understanding the pace and nature of evolution generally.”  They noted Wible’s “eye-popping” and “ground-breaking” analysis, yet how at odds it is with DNA studies.  Paleontologists will have to fill in the gaps with more finds, they said, joking that the discovery of a “Cretaceous giraffe” might send Wible back to the drawing board.  Until then, “The ‘molecules versus morphology’ debate remains both vexing and vibrant.”

This is why you need Creation-Evolution Headlines to give you the spiel from the original sources, instead of swallowing the pre-digested Darwin truth serum from the popular outlets like National Geographic.  Real evolutionists are pulling their hair out.  You rarely see it unless you read the journals, because once they go outside their inner sanctums, they all put on their masks.  These are like the masks seen in Amadeus, with a happy face in front toward fellow evolutionists, and an angry face in back toward creationists.
    When their fights are exposed in all their fury, evolutionists like to say that vexing, vibrant controversy is an essential part of science – and so it should be.  But when it’s all fight and no conclusion for 148 years, except for undying faith in the overall “fact of evolution,” what are outsiders supposed to think?  For proof, wander through the Darwin chain links.  They can’t get the fossils right (05/21/2004), they can’t get the genetics right (06/15/2007, 05/01/2007), they can’t get the dating right (04/25/2007), they can’t get the tree right (02/01/2007), they can’t get the morals right (06/19/2007, 05/22/2007), they can’t get the mind right (07/07/2006, 07/15/2005, 05/17/2007) and they can’t get the philosophy right (04/30/2007, 02/20/2007, 06/03/2004).  They only thing they are good at is hating creationism (06/22/2007).  That debate, more than anything else, remains as vexing and vibrant as ever.
Next headline on:  Darwinian Evolution • Cell Biology • Mammals • Genetics • Fossils • Dating Methods

1. Spiders:  Don’t let the black widow scare you; it’s only a picture on Science Daily.  Scientists are amazed at how these animals produce one of the best dragline silks in spiderdom.  It is the strongest and toughest spider silk found so far.  It can absorb enormous amounts of energy.  They are just now teasing out the genes that produce the proteins that produce this ideal material.  If we can learn to copy the secret formula, you may find it on your skin some day.  It could lead to “lightweight super-strong body armor, components of medical devices and high-tech athletic attire.”  That sounds both creepy and cool.
2. Geckos:  Speaking of spiders, spiderman outfits may soon become a reality.  A team has succeeded in manufacturing “gecko tape” better than the gecko foot itself (for the physics of gecko foot adhesion, see 12/06/2006 and 08/27/2002).  Reporting in PNAS,¹ a team at University of Ohio claims their nanotube-based gecko tape is four times stronger than natural gecko feet (cf. 11/06/2006).  It can adhere to almost any surface and just peel off for immediate reuse.  The researchers envision applications in microelectronics, robotics and space applications – to which the imaginative reader can envision products for the shelves of Toys R Us.  They didn’t mention if their tape is self-cleaning like a real gecko foot (01/04/2005).  Now, if they can get the dispenser to eat flies and reproduce itself, they’ll really be onto something.
3. Starfish, Insects, :  We mammals pride ourselves on our advanced systems, but the so-called lower forms of life are not so low.  A press release from the European Science Foundation remarked that the immune systems of invertebrates are “anything but simple.”  The article gushes about how many surprising advanced technologies they have to resist disease.  Their immune systems are even fine-tuned enough to prevent autoimmune reactions.
4. Honeybees:  Scientists used to think that the queen bee controlled the hive, like an autocrat, but new findings at University of North Carolina challenge that view and make the situation more complicated.  Somehow, the experienced worker bees arrive at a consensus and signal one another when it is time to move the hive, says a report on Science Daily.  The queen, in fact, is a passive recipient of signals.  The workers tell her when to lay eggs, when to stop, and when to fly.
       Bees are the most-studied insects of all, but these findings are contrary to the received wisdom about beehive social behavior.  How does the hive organize itself and make these important decisions without central leadership?  Scientists are not sure, but know it involves additional signals apart from the familiar waggle dance they use to point to food sources.  These signals include piping (vibrating their wings rapidly in contact) and vibration signals (a kind of grab-and-shake move).  However it works, it produces group cooperation with “remarkable efficiency.”  Maybe we should try these moves in the next business meeting.  If someone isn’t cooperating, grab and shake.
5. Electric fish:  Loving couples who feel one another’s electricity should get a charge out of this.  Some electric fish in African waters court one another with “electric duets,” reported a press release from Cornell University.  The males “sing” to their mates with specialized electric pulses.  It must be lovely in a fishy way; even, shall we say, stunning?

Mention of evolution is usually rare in such stories.  When brought up, it’s usually in the form of bald assertions of dogmatism (b.a.d.), like, “scientists showed that invertebrates have evolved elaborate ways to fight disease.”  Such statements neither motivated the research nor explained it after the observations.  Just brush off such fluff and get to the amazing facts.
Next headline on:  Biomimetics • Terrestrial Zoology • Marine Biology • Amazing Facts

The Evolution of Pride: Psychology Trumps the Bible?   06/19/2007    
“The Bible got it wrong,” announced a subtitle on Science Daily: pride doesn’t come before a fall (Proverbs 16:18).  A proud look and haughty eyes may be the first two of the Bible’s seven deadly sins (Proverbs 6:16-19), but psychologist Jessica Tracy (U of British Columbia) begs to differ.  She says pride can be a good thing, as long as it is not excessive.  It evolved as a normal, healthy part of human expression.
    Tracy, “whose research is among the first to explore the different facets of this emotion,” tried to distinguish between healthy self-esteem and arrogant hubris.  And where did pride come from?  “What particularly fascinates Tracy is how this emotion has evolved through time and continues to shape human social dynamics,” the article stated.  “For example, the darker side of pride may have evolved out of the age-old human desire for status.”
    To test her theory, she interviewed natives in the rural African village of Burkina Faso, and observed their responses to pictures of body expressions Westerners associate with pride.  They all immediately recognized a proud look.  “We saw that recognition of the pride expression does cut across cultures,” she said, working with UC David psychologist Richard Robins.
    An article about their research on EurekAlert adds to the explanation of the source of pride:

Tracy and Robins argue that the primitive precursors of pride probably motivated our ancestors to act in altruistic and communitarian ways, for the good of the tribe, and the physical display of pride both reinforced such behavior and signaled to the group that this person was worthy of respect.  So individual pride, at least the good kind, contributed in important ways to the survival of the community.

These articles qualify as “dumb” on several levels.  First, they quibble about definitions.  Even the Bible distinguishes between a feeling of confidence, joy or hope that is warranted (such as confidence in God’s promises) and selfish arrogance.  So no, the Bible did not get it wrong.  Tracy and Robins acknowledge that pride is not always good.  Hubris and selfish arrogance can be harmful.
    This leads to the second flaw: she stole worldview presuppositions from Christians to make value judgments.  Evolutionary theory cannot say that anything is beneficial (even survival), or that anything is “dark” or “puffed up” or “hubristic,” because she has no standard by which to judge such things.  Evolution is what evolution does.  There is no basis on which she could claim that a prideful tribe that crushes and decimates a group of peaceful neighbors is doing a bad thing.  Her inability to restrain value judgments is a tip-off that her God-given conscience is speaking.
    To be consistent, she can only say that pride “is”.  There exists a set of biochemical processes, characterized by people who puff out their chests and force their way on others, that we call by a group of five letters, p-r-i-d-e, a word totally devoid of moral content.  Christians, by contrast do have such a standard: the character of God and His commandments.  We forbid Tracy to plagiarize the Bible.  It’s unconscionable that she should do so, then turn around and say her source got it wrong.
    Last, Tracy’s work contributes nothing.  As so often is the case in evolutionary literature, her explanation is mere storytelling.  She invented a Star Wars myth about alleged primitive people, some of whom were tempted to the Dark Side of Pride.  The tribespeople in Africa she interviewed are – guess what? – 21st century moderns.  They exist in the present, not tens of thousands of years ago in an evolutionary galaxy far, far away.  To associate them with primitives is de facto racism.  The villagers of Burkina Faso, who are every bit as modernly human as the professors at the university, should be incensed.
    Could Tracy and Robins possibly know what primitive humans (even if there were such beings) were doing when some genetic mutation invented pride?  Does her model actually contribute anything to understanding of human character?  Is it not an imaginary fable?  Does it not work to rationalize one of the deepest character flaws in the human soul, the cause of so much evil in the world?
    Evolutionary psychology is a deceptive, self-refuting, phony religion set in opposition to the Bible.  In their vain attempts to psychologize and evolutionize pride (and everything else), its practitioners exhibit the worst kind of hubris themselves: an appearance of scientific knowledge with no foundation.  The cultists cannot make bricks for their temples.  They rely on thieving from those who have the raw materials and the means of production.
    Instead of wasting government money on psychological fluff that does no one any good, Tracy needs to quit her cult and go get a real job.  Everything she needs to know about pride was written in the Word of God from the beginning.  Someone take this poor, confused lady by the hand and invite her to church – preferably, one of the Christian mission churches in the village.  Wouldn’t that be an appropriate education in humility.
Next headline on:  Early Man • Bible and Theology • Politics and Ethics • Dumb Ideas

Our eyes are constantly in motion.  Even during visual fixation, small eye movements continually jitter the location of gaze.  It is known that visual percepts tend to fade when retinal image motion is eliminated in the laboratory.  However, it has long been debated whether, during natural viewing, fixational eye movements have functions in addition to preventing the visual scene from fading.  In this study, we analysed the influence in humans of fixational eye movements on the discrimination of gratings masked by noise that has a power spectrum similar to that of natural images.  Using a new method of retinal image stabilization, we selectively eliminated the motion of the retinal image that normally occurs during the intersaccadic intervals of visual fixation.  Here we show that fixational eye movements improve discrimination of high spatial frequency stimuli, but not of low spatial frequency stimuli.  This improvement originates from the temporal modulations introduced by fixational eye movements in the visual input to the retina, which emphasize the high spatial frequency harmonics of the stimulus.  In a natural visual world dominated by low spatial frequencies, fixational eye movements appear to constitute an effective sampling strategy by which the visual system enhances the processing of spatial detail.

Thus, fixational eye movements improved discrimination of the orientation of a high-frequency grating masked by low-frequency noise but did not help with a low-frequency grating masked by high-frequency noise.  This result is surprising because it contradicts traditional views of the influence of fixational eye movements on vision.  Indeed, the pronounced reduction in contrast sensitivity at low spatial frequencies measured by previous experiments with prolonged retinal stabilization predicts a more significant drop in performance with low-frequency than with high-frequency gratings.

These results are consistent with the informational content of the modulations of luminance introduced by fixational eye movements.  These modulations only convey information about the pattern of noise during motion parallel to the grating, but provide maximal information about the grating when motion occurs on the axis orthogonal to the grating.

Our results show that vision is impaired at high spatial frequencies in the absence of fixational eye movements.  This finding is consistent with the spatial frequency dependence of the temporal modulations resulting from fixational eye movements.  Neurons in the early visual system are sensitive to these input modulations.  As with the stimuli of experiment one, natural visual environments possess substantial power at low spatial frequencies.  Our results indicate that sampling visual information by means of a jittering fixation is an effective strategy for analysing natural scenes, facilitating the processing of spatial detail in the face of otherwise overwhelming low-frequency power.

There was no mention of evolution in this paper.  We do not know their feelings about evolution, but these authors have demonstrated in deed that assuming design leads to productive science.  They saw a phenomenon; they assumed there was a reason for it.  Now we know more about the eye than we did: and it’s a wonderful thing.  There is more information and functional design behind these strange eye movements than we imagined.
    Their results make sense in hindsight, too (if you’ll pardon the expression).  Continuous eye motion allows the neurons and the brain to take numerous snapshots from slightly different angles, so as to glean the maximum amount of information from the visual field.  For widely spaced details, this does not add much information, but it adds a lot in low contrast and high-detail situations.  Think about that the next time you are reading fine print in low light, like the small black lettering on black plastic that manufacturers are fond of embossing on the backs of TV sets to frustrate consumers when they need to plug in the cable in dim light.  Your eyes are subconsciously helping you out.  This could have been vital for our primitive ancestors.  How could they have plugged in the cable before the flashlight was invented?
    Compare this finding with the one about birds that bobble their heads when they walk (04/12/2004).  When you see something in nature you don’t understand, try the approach that there must be a reason for it.  Science is supposed to be an organized method for finding out the reasons for things.  Now, ask yourself the meta-question: what is the reason for reason?
Next headline on:  Human Body • Amazing Facts

More Reasons to Enjoy Creation Outdoors   06/17/2007    
Evidence keeps mounting that exercise is good for almost every body.  It can prevent and alleviate many ailments.  But isn’t that only natural?

• Low back pain:  Laziness increases the risk of back pain, reported EurekAlert on work from Australia.  Staying in bed shrinks muscles needed to support the back.  So does prolonged inactivity at a desk job.  Conclusion?  “If you sit around too much long-term, such as a desk job with no sport in your spare time, the muscles can slowly change in a bad way, giving you a bigger risk of hurting your back.”  Sporting suggestion: go take a hike.
• Diabetes:  Exercise does twice as much good as diet and medicine for diabetics, says a report from U of Missouri-Columbia.  A change of lifestyle to include exercise brings strong benefits: “In studies that focused on exercise only, blood glucose improved twice as much as in studies that focused on exercise, diet and medication adherence.”  See also Science Daily.
• High blood pressure:  “Obesity, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and inactivity: they’re not just your father’s problems any more,” said a press release from University of new Hampshire.  College students had their diets and lifestyle habits measured and found that they were worse off than they thought.  Many admitted they get less than 30 minutes of activity a day.  Some students were shocked to find out how unfit they were, while researchers warned that “if they continue on this trajectory, are going to be much more of a health burden at age 50 than their parents are.”
• Thirst and Water Intoxication:  Now that you have decided to exercise more, you need to hydrate the body properly.  Remember when they told us to drink more water?  Too much can be as bad as too little.  Instead, advises Georgetown Medical Center, let thirst be your guide.
• Better Little than None:  Now, some good news.  Science Daily reported dramatic health benefits after just one exercise session, even for diabetics and the obese.  Doctors at University of Michigan found that the improved metabolism from exercise can forestall a primary symptom of type 2 diabetes.

The epidemic of obesity these days is a crying shame.  A walk around any shopping mall or public place reveals a high percentage of people who are overweight – some morbidly so.  These people (except for the very few who cannot help it), should realize that they are advertising their irresponsibility, like someone walking around with a sandwich board reading, “I lack self control.”  (This is NOT to say that skinniness is a virtue – it can often be just as unhealthy and dangerous.)  We all have a normal weight for our body type that we should strive to maintain.
    If you find yourself weighing more than you should (let’s face it, that’s a lot of us), don’t beat yourself up and get depressed about it, and don’t spend money on fad diets, books and programs.  Just make some adjustments to your lifestyle habits little by little.  Remember two things: (1) you need to pour fewer calories down the gullet, and (2) you need to burn more calories through exercise.  Build these simple reminders into your daily routine as a way of life, and give it time to work.

Calories and diet: You can still eat things you enjoy, but try these tips.  Eat smaller portions.  Eat slower; savor each bite.  Mom, bless her heart, was wrong: you don’t have to finish your plate.  Eat what you need of the burger or fries and throw the rest out.  Don’t do what the fast-food joints tempt, either: don’t supersize; downsize.  Get the double whopper instead of the Texas triple, or the whopper junior instead of the regular.  Put less salt and sauce on the meat.  Put less butter on the potato, less salad dressing on the salad.  Never gorge yourself at a meal.  Balance out the things you enjoy with healthy fruits, vegetables and lean meats.  In time, you will learn to like the healthy stuff, and the rich food will begin to seem unnatural.  Gradual lifestyle changes will be more likely to stick.  A registered dietician should be consulted for hard cases.

Exercise is the more effective of the two factors, because it not only burns the calories, it helps your body handle the energy budget more efficiently, and is self-reinforcing: the more you exercise, the better you feel, and the more you want to exercise.  Throughout history some very strong and fit individuals have gotten by with a far less optimum diet than we have available today, because they lived active, vigorous lives; think of soldiers from ancient times who performed mighty feats of strength and endurance.  A good diet, therefore, is not enough alone, and exercise can compensate for some dietary deficiencies.
    Like a savings account, the accrued interest of a regular exercise program will grow.  Think of it as an investment.  We all have plenty of excuses – too busy, too tired, too overcommitted – but exercise will give you more strength and joy for all your other work, and will allow you to get more done in less time – and a longer life to achieve more.  In other words, you can’t afford not to exercise.
    Even the infirm or disabled can often do something.  Under a doctor’s supervision, squeeze a ball, bend your forearms with small weights, do deep breathing and abdominal isostatic exercises, bicycle your legs in bed, but try to take your body to a higher level than it is right now.  Think you have problems?  Look at Nick Vujicic, born without arms and legs, who swims and dresses himself and operates his own business, typing with his one working toe (watch the amazing video clip on the site).  Look what Bob Wieland did after losing his legs in Vietnam.  Take whatever faculties you have left and maximize them.  If your body isn’t working, use your mind.  (Actually, as long as you are alive, there are far more body parts that are working just fine than are disabled – like trillions of cells.)
    The able-bodied commuter with a desk job has many options.  Park and walk farther.  Take stairs instead of the elevator.  Stretch at the desk.  Take breaks to walk around.  Get out of the cubicle and go outside once in awhile.  “Light is sweet, and it pleases the eye to see the sun,” said an otherwise-cynical elderly king (Ecclesiastes 11:7).  If you still think you don’t have time, try multitasking.  Listen to sermons, books on tape or training programs in your MP3 player while you walk.
    For those in the southern California area, a new book by Steve Sears can motivate you to get the exercise you need without the boredom of treadmills and gyms.  God, Growth and Great Adventure tells you where to go, what to take, how to prepare, and what to see on dozens of great hikes in the mountains and deserts of California.  With this book (or one like it for your locale) and a Bible in hand, get out and enjoy the world God made – it will do your heart, soul and spirit a world of good.  Check our photo gallery for more inspiration.
    What does all this have to do with creation and evolution?  Read this, point 1, and also this.
Next headline on:  Human Body • Health

This compounds the mystery of why these icy moons, so distant from the sun (and assumed to be so very, very old), should be active today when we can observe them up close.  Cassini has been worth every penny just to see the surprised look on the scientists’ faces.
    Stay tuned for the super-closeup flyby of Iapetus (03/01/2006, 01/07/2005) on September 10.  More wonders are sure to be in the wings of the rings.
Next headline on:  Solar System • Geology • Physics

Another seed that enjoys ocean cruises is the mangrove.  The Moody film Journey of Life details how the long seed pods of this plant glide like submarines across the salty sea.  Upon reaching shallow water, one end becomes waterlogged and sinks, planting the pod upright in the sandy soil, ready to start a new mangrove forest.  The coconut is another world cruiser.
    We should not feel sorry for plants, stuck as they are in one place.  They move and socialize and travel more than we imagine.  Would that science reporters would appreciate the design in plants instead of spinning their reports around the latest scare fads, like global warming.  Mars and Venus have global warming but nothing like kapok trees, mangroves and coconuts.
Next headline on:  Plants • Evolution • Amazing Facts

Could this imply that a world with different atmospheric or soil conditions could have been less prone to disease?  Could the bacteria we fear most have been placid or even beneficial in such an environment?
    One instance doesn’t make the case, but this surprising finding is food for thought.  Pasteurize before consuming.
Next headline on:  Health • Cell Biology

1. Function Junk-tion:  Nature¹ published results from a consortium named ENCODE (Encyclopedia of DNA Elements).  Its pilot phase consisted of 35 groups examining 30mb of the human genome (about 1%) in unprecedented detail.  See EurekAlert for a summary of the consortium’s findings.
       Team members found, first of all, that most of the “junk” sections are “pervasively transcribed” despite lacking genes.  Surprisingly, some distant portions are linked into one transcript.  Second, they found a lot of overlap in the transcribed areas; some non-gene transcripts overlap those of genes.  Third, the structure of chromatin (protein around which DNA is wrapped) has been shown to interact with the ways DNA is transcribed and regulated.  Finally, only a few genes appear constrained by natural selection; many others vary widely between mammals.
       These initial results are starting to revolutionize our picture of the “functional landscape of the human genome,” the paper said.  They will undoubtedly reverberate through speculations about genome evolution as well.  For instance, the presence of wide variation in the non-coding transcripts between mammals suggested to the authors that a vast pool of neutral segments (of no immediate benefit to the organism) exists.  “This pool may serve as a ‘warehouse’ for natural selection,” they speculated, “potentially acting as the source of lineage-specific elements and functionally conserved but non-orthologous elements between species.” 
2. Comments One:  This interpretation, however, is disputed by others, Erika Check reported in a separate news article summarizing the results.².  Her analysis agrees with the sense of wonder over all the new-found complexity.  She mentioned one geneticist who feels we have been “vastly underestimating how much of the genome is functional.” 
3. Comments Two:  And that’s with just 1% of it analyzed in this detail.  John Greally, in another news report in the same issue,³, reminded his readers: “So although the glimpse we are provided by the ENCODE consortium into the ordered complexity of 1% of the human genome is tantalizing, the insights only confirm the challenges that lie ahead.”  He expressed the reversal in attitudes about these Cinderellas of the genome:

   We should have guessed that this was merely prima-donna behaviour on the part of narcissist genes when the sequencing of the human genome revealed that they comprise only a small percentage of the DNA.  And our confidence should have been shaken when some sequences located far from any genes were found to be strikingly conserved, indicating that they have some important function.  Now, on page 799 of this issue,¹ the ENCODE Project Consortium shows through the analysis of 1% of the human genome that the humble, unpretentious non-gene sequences have essential regulatory roles (Fig. 1).
       We are increasingly being forced to pay attention to our non-gene DNA sequences.

4. Comments Three:  Elizabeth Pennisi also commented on ENCODE’s findings in Science.⁴  She said it’s forcing us to rethink what it means to be a gene.  If genes only make up 2% of the genome, why is 80% of the DNA expressed?  This is upsetting our gene-centric perspective.  She quoted Francis Collins of the Human Genome Project, who appeared optimistic that “we’re beginning to understand the ground rules by which the genome functions.”  That implies we are not far beyond square one.  He said the gene concept is not going out of fashion; “It’s just that we have to be more thoughtful about it.”
5. Drosophila phenomena:  An article from Berkeley Lab indicated that fruit fly heterochromatin (large regions of chromosomes devoid of genes) is “far from junk” as earlier thought.  “Not so long ago, the difficult-to-sequence, highly repetitive, gene-poor DNA found in regions of chromosomes known as heterochromatin was called ‘junk.’  Like dark matter in the universe, the true nature of heterochromatin was unknown.”  It appears now that heterochromatin is essential for numerous functions, such as neutralizing transposons.  Some of it also codes for genes that were missed because they are separated by large, repetitive introns.  These and other functions were uncovered when the team decided to question the “junk DNA” paradigm: “We set out to see if there was any information in that junk,” one team member said.
6. Genetic Clockwork:  Of all things, a clock mechanism has been discovered for regulating genes.  Dr. Bert O’Malley at Baylor College of Medicine (see EurekAlert) found that 25,000 genes follow a clock controlled by master switches that turn gene expression on and off.  Ubiquitin molecules are added each time a gene is expressed.  When the number reaches five, the protein transcribed is destroyed.  This prevents too much of a good thing.
       Dave Scot wrote about this from an I.D. perspective on Uncommon Descent.  He likened the mechanism to a shift register in digital electronic devices.
7. Teeming with Significant Life:  Another article appeared on Science Daily about the ENCODE results.  It says that the human genetic deserts, once thought to be junk regions without function, are “teeming with significant life.”  Professor Alexandre Reymond said, “Our work has shown that the human genome is far more complex than anyone could have imagined, even ten years ago. Understanding these complexities is essential to the development of effective and safe genetic medicine in the future.”

Let us all, therefore, with solemnity and humility, lay to rest the dead theory of junk DNA.  “We should have guessed,” Greally said.  Indeed.  If they had just listened to creationists and intelligent design people saying for years that it isn’t junk, that there must be a reason for it, then the Darwinists wouldn’t have held back good science for so long.  Now it would be honorable if they would give credit to the ones who were headed in the right direction from the beginning.
Next headline on:  Genetics • Evolution • Intelligent Design

Evolution suggests that the human moral faculty – the psychological systems that make judgements about right and wrong, what’s permissible and what isn’t – was cobbled together from pre-existing brain systems over millions of years of biological and cultural evolution.  Along the way, it latched onto disgust as a useful tool.  “The experimental data point to the possibility that our disgust system might have been adapted by evolution to allow us to reject or disapprove of abstract concepts such as ideologies and political views that are deeply influenced by culture, as well social groups associated with ‘disgusting’ concepts,” says [Jorge] Moll [a Brazilian cognitive neuroscientist].

Oh barf, we already awarded Stupid Evolution Quote of the Week to Leslie Mullen (06/11/2007).  Nothing could be more disgusting than to see an evolutionist evolutionizing disgust.  Why?  Because it is self-refuting.  Jones claimed (with the support of other evolutionists) that our value judgments, morals and ideologies are evolutionary artifacts of natural and social evolution.  If so, they have no basis in truth, and truth itself becomes an evolutionary artifact.
    Yet throughout the article, Jones hinted that propaganda (e.g., Hitler comparing Jews to rats to co-opt the disgust response), racial prejudice, sexual stereotyping, religious persecution, and aversion to stem cell research are not good things.  By what standard could he make such judgments?  According to his own presuppositions, his disgust response is an evolutionary artifact just as much as Hitler’s was about Jews.  Moral relativism is inescapable in this view (re-read 05/22/2007 commentary on why this is self-refuting).
    This article also gets the Dumb award for its Tinker Bell Theology (01/13/2006, 09/22/2005 commentaries).  Our moral sense was “cobbled together from pre-existing brain systems over millions of years of biological and cultural evolution,” he says (maybe this can win Stupid Evolution Quote of Next Week).  With one swoop, he just tossed out the Bible, Shakespeare and every great work on moral philosophy.  We don’t need to read and think deeply about moral issues any more, use logical arguments about the nature of right and wrong, or good or evil, because Charlie’s little fairy renders all such reasonings obsolete.  Tinker Bell zapped some brain cells with mutations, such that old parts came together in new ways for natural selection to work on.  Presto: morality.
    The arrogance of these people.  Disgusting.  It’s enough to make you want to up Chuck.
Next headline on:  Darwin • Politics and Ethics • Dumb Ideas

Huge Forest Fossilized Suddenly   06/14/2007    
Nature¹ had some interesting comments about the fossil forest found in a coal mine a few months ago (see 04/23/2007).  Kirk Johnson of the Denver Museum of Natural History said that a vast area (over 3.8 square miles) must have been inundated quickly for this fossil graveyard to be preserved.

Rapid burial can result from various mechanisms.  In the case of the Illinois forest, which grew in a coastal mire, local tectonic subsidence dropped the forest floor to sea level quickly enough for the plants to be preserved in place.  The rate of this type of subsidence is difficult to measure, but DiMichele et al. argue that it must have occurred within two months to provide the quality of preservation seen in the mine.

Two months; that’s about right.  Can any uniformitarian point to a place on earth where nearly 4 square miles of forest sunk intact into an ocean in two months or less?  If not, let’s try a new maxim: “The past is the key to the present.”  It’s interesting that any kind of exotic catastrophe is OK to geologists and evolutionary paleontologists these days – as long it was not a global flood.  The worldwide instance of bizarre fossil graveyards (e.g., 02/02/2004) should re-open old questions long abandoned by the disciples of Lawyer Lyell (see 05/22/2003).
    This amazing fossilized forest provides an opportunity for creationists to do independent research.  Perhaps the fossil bed is even larger than 3.8 square miles.  Someone should try to access the raw data, or even observe the site directly, to learn more about an intact ecology that was rapidly submerged, and to study the means of inundation.  Access to uncontaminated samples to look for evidence of remnant carbon-14 would also be interesting.  That’s the kind of evidence an evolutionary geologist would not even pursue because he or she already “knows” the forest is 300 million years old and all carbon-14 would have long ago decayed.  Let’s ask some original questions.
Next headline on:  Plants • Fossils • Geology • Dating Methods

Gigantoraptor is an exception to some general patterns seen during the gigantism of non-avian theropods.  Contrary to the evolutionary trend of size decrease in coelurosaurian evolution, which plays a key part in the origin of birds, most non-avian coelurosaurian subgroups display a trend of size increase and their large-sized members tend to reverse to more primitive conditions in many bird-like characters.  The discovery of Gigantoraptor complicates this pattern, however.  Although much larger than its close relatives, Gigantoraptor has proportionally the longest forelimb among oviraptorosaurs, a manus resembling basal eumaniraptorans, bird-like hind limbs, and many other advanced features.  These features are close to the conditions in birds but absent in other smaller oviraptorosaurs, indicating an unusual pattern for the Oviraptorosauria among the non-avian coelurosaurian subgroups.

This is more fodder to store up for the day when the whole Darwinian house of cards collapses.  We will need to show students of the future how strong beliefs blinded the eyes of certain scientists and made them imagine a vain thing (see 01/17/2007 commentary).
    For a different take on what happened to birds and dinosaurs, consider this other news item.  Astrobiology Magazine pondered why so many dinosaur fossils, including all specimens of Archaeopteryx, show the creatures had died with heads tilted backward, apparently gasping in agony.  Kevin Padian and Cynthia Fox are not satisfied with the usual explanation that the bones came into this position drifting in water before burial.  Padian also noted many of these specimens show evidence of rapid burial because they are exquisitely preserved.
    Though Padian and Faux favor the alternative idea that some poison or environmental factor choked the animals, another possibility fits the evidence perfectly well.
Next headline on:  Dinosaurs • Birds • Evolution

Loss of function is not evolution.  Natural selection is able to remove useless organs, but no one has observed it evolve a new organ.  That would require the acquisition of new genetic instructions.  Think of the difficulty of adding a new blue cone, for instance, where one did not exist before.  Having all the parts of a blue cone come together by chance would be just the first improbability.  The brain would have to understand the signal, and the bat would have to know how to differentiate and use the new color.  Fruit bats are not blind as a bat, the title said – but some evolutionists are.
Next headline on:  Mammals • Evolutionary Theory.

If the parents actually have this kind of control over the outward looks of the young, then developmental factors may have more to do with variation than mutation and natural selection.  What’s Darwin got to do with it?  Very little, apparently.  The researchers said nothing about it, even though one was listed as an evolutionary biologist.  If these lizards can vary their appearance substantially in one generation, they should have evolved into birds by now.  But no one is claiming they have been anything other than side-blotched lizards since antiquity.
Next headline on:  Terrestrial Zoology • Evolutionary Theory

• Was the extinction of one kind of life related to the emergence of another?  If so, what role did the environment play in tipping the scales?
• Could phosphorus be the key to unlocking the mystery behind the Ediacaran extinction and the sudden emergence of animal life on Earth?
• The emergence of hard parts in animals by phosphate deposition could account for the “explosion” of fossils in the Cambrian rock record, since hard parts are better preserved over long time scales than soft body parts.
  

The cause of the Cambrian explosion and the mass extinction that preceded it is made complicated by the seemingly infinite pieces that make up the whole puzzle.  Figuring out how the different environmental elements may have interacted is difficult, in part, because the world back then was such a different place than the one we now experience.  Whether phosphate is a key piece in that puzzle, merely a contributing factor, or simply a side effect of other events remains a mystery.  What is certain is that the development of such biomineralization made nature the bloody battlefield of tooth and claw versus protective body armor that continues to this day.

NASA’s Astrobiology program: your tax dollars berserk.
Next headline on:  Darwinian evolution • Fossils • Dumb Ideas

You recall that suspicions loomed large in 2003 that Damadian was denied the Nobel Prize because of his creationist views (02/09/2004).  It’s good to see his epochal work continue to get recognized.  46 years from now, when the Nobel Committee’s 2003 records are opened, the truth may come out about their anti-creationist bias.  By then, the Nobel Prize itself may be a relic of the 20th century.  Historians, though, will continue to honor Damadian as the man who pioneered inventions that have helped millions.
Next headline on:  Politics and Ethics

Origin of Life Made Simple: Stochastic Innovation Answers I.D.   06/08/2007    
A press release from UC San Francisco teases,

Before life emerged on earth, either a primitive kind of metabolism or an RNA-like duplicating machinery must have set the stage – so experts believe.  But what preceded these pre-life steps?
    A pair of UCSF scientists has developed a model explaining how simple chemical and physical processes may have laid the foundation for life.  Like all useful models, theirs can be tested, and they describe how this can be done.  Their model is based on simple, well-known chemical and physical laws.

The basic idea is that simple principles of chemical interactions allow for a kind of natural selection on a micro scale: enzymes can cooperate and compete with each other in simple ways, leading to arrangements that can become stable, or “locked in,” says Ken Dill, PhD, senior author of the paper and professor of pharmaceutical chemistry at UCSF.

In its simplest form, the model shows how two catalysts in a solution, A and B, each acting to catalyze a different reaction, could end up forming what the scientists call a complex, AB.  The deciding factor is the relative concentration of their desired partners.  The process could go like this: Catalyst A produces a chemical that catalyst B uses.  Now, since B normally seeks out this chemical, sometimes B will be attracted to A — if its desired chemical is not otherwise available nearby.  As a result, A and B will come into proximity, forming a complex.
    The word “complex” is key because it shows how simple chemical interactions, with few players, and following basic chemical laws, can lead to a novel combination of molecules of greater complexity.

There are several examples of what might be called “stochastic innovation,” whereby a biological, physical, or sociological system: (i) searches among viable options, then (ii) selects one or more of those options that is “best” by some metric, then (iii) locks in that selection for the future.  In biology, the best-known example is Darwinian evolution, where variation is the term that describes the search step, and natural selection is the term that describes steps (i) and (ii).

Our interest here is in whether stochastic innovation might also be achievable in chemistry and biochemistry.  Can chemical and biochemical reactions be chained together in complex and innovative ways, driven only by simple physicochemical search and selection processes?  If so, it may be useful, not only as a tool in chemistry and biochemistry, but also for giving insights into the processes of chemical organization that may have occurred during prebiotic evolution.

Our goal is not to explain some existing body of data, because we know of none that pertains.  Rather, our goal here is to propose a type of organizing principle that has not been explored before, as far as we know, but that is based on well established physicochemical principles and that can be tested by experiments.  Our initial motivation for this work was to understand some puzzles of prebiotic chemistry, where, it could be argued, the field is just as limited by a lack of specific testable models at the moment as it is by a lack of experiments.

These results bear on an idea that has been called “irreducible complexity.”  It has been argued that complex biological and prebiotic chemical systems could not have arisen by simple physicochemical processes, because there would have been no selective advantage for each of the putative incremental changes along the way.  In that view, what good is half an eye?  An organism would not be served by anything less than a full eye, so intermediate structures would not have imparted enough value to survive natural selection.  In that view, “irreducible” refers to a system that would fail to function if any one component is removed, and irreducible complexity refers to the idea that such systems require design and could not be developed by stochastic innovation.  The counterargument, seen in computer simulations, for example, has been that stochastic innovation works differently: evolution doesn’t “know” the final end-goal in advance, but finds it through a random search in indirect, incremental steps.

In short, the intermediate states are unstable.  The steps are downhill.  One evolutionary step leads to the next, quickly followed by the next, and so on, without pausing.  In the evolutionary metaphor, half an eye never appears as a stable state because such a state is quickly driven by even stronger evolutionary forces to form a complete eye, maybe for a different purpose than the half-eye.  Such two-state transitions are also common in protein folding, for example, where the denatured state is followed in time by a partly structured state that is immediately followed by an even more structured state, etc., until the molecule becomes fully folded into the native structure.  At the earliest stages of folding, the protein does not know that it is headed toward the native state; it is just seeking a situation that is marginally better than its previous state.

A key distinction between stochastic innovation, explored here, and design-based innovation, in which a complex system is engineered and constructed by a designer, is that stochastic innovation involves no implicit “goals” and no guidance toward a particular purpose.  The Darwinian paradigm shows how increasing complexity and order can arise from processes that do not involve guidance through intelligence or design.

A well known process in chemistry is the binding and association of molecules, driven by thermodynamic forces.  Here, we consider whether catalyst molecules might be driven to associate with each other, through typical binding forces, but based on their molecular functions.  Functional driving forces are well-known in biology, through the principles of evolution, but are not yet much studied in chemistry.  We propose a model for how different Michaelis-Menten enzymes or catalysts might tend to associate, driven by the production or depletion of common resources.  The agents do not associate if the common resource is plentiful.  We call this the shielding principle.  In this way, agents organize adaptively, and complexity can form from simpler systems.  In our model, “function dictates structure,” a reversal of the paradigm in which “structure dictates function.”

If you took the time to labor through their tortured thought processes, you found the same old dirty tricks the Darwin Party uses every time: personification, begging the question, analogy, glittering generalities and bluffing.  It was seasoned with the usual wishful-thinking words might, may, perhaps, coulda-woulda-shoulda.  Michael Behe could make quick confetti of this paper were he provided a chance to respond.  He just released a new book, by the way: The Edge of Evolution (Free Press, 2007).  You know it must be good: the Darwinists quickly trashed it the day it went into print.
    We took the time to explore this paper because it was important.  It was a direct attempt to defend Darwinism from three of the most damaging attacks: irreducible complexity, gaps, and the failures of chemical evolution (e.g., 02/15/2007).  Were you impressed?
    Like the evolution-via-computer charlatans, these guys only got their lab hands dirty with a keyboard.  Chemicals are less forgiving.  So let’s call their bluff and ask them to perform their proposed test with real molecules.  Ask them to throw some unselected chemicals off the shelf into a tub with some blocks of clay, sit back two billion years and watch what happens.  No interference allowed.  The chemicals must find their own “function” without half an eye to see it, and without any intelligent lab assistant to tell them what this handy word “function” means.
Next headline on:  Origin of Life • Intelligent Design • Darwinian Evolution

Speaks for itself.  Incredible and fun.  Thankfully, David omitted any of his incessant Darwin-talk in the narration.  Maybe he couldn’t think of anything to say that would sound sensible.
    Teachers should use this clip as an example of animal intelligence.  Think of all the brain power and vocal hardware required for the bird to perform these feats.  This is no hoax or sound-editing trick.  Even Rich Little would be amazed.
    For extra fun, visit Fred Newman’s website on MouthSounds and consider the breadth of audio capabilities inherent in the human vocal apparatus (for a hilarious sampler, watch “A Rumination” on his videos page).  Wouldn’t it be a racket to stage a contest between Fred and the lyre bird?
Encore:  Now to really freak out, watch the talking cats.
Next headline on:  Birds • Media • Amazing Facts

A mechanism that requires a discerning human agent cannot be Darwinian.  The Darwinian mechanism neither anticipates nor remembers.  It gives no direction and makes no choices.  What is unacceptable in evolutionary theory, what is strictly forbidden, is the appearance of a force with the power to survey time, a force that conserves a force or a property because it will be useful.  Such a force is no longer Darwinian.  How would a blind force know such a thing?  And by what means could future usefulness be transmitted to the present?
    If life is, as evolutionary biologists so often say, a matter merely of blind thrusting and throbbing, any definition of natural selection must plainly meet what I have elsewhere called a rule against deferred success.
    It is a rule that cannot be violated with impunity; if evolutionary theory is to retain its intellectual integrity, it cannot be violated at all.  But the rule is widely violated, the violations so frequent as to amount to a formal fallacy.

We must force the Darwinists to use consistent language.  Occasionally they engage in poetic license and personify evolution, thinking (in their minds) that since evolution is a “fact” of history, it appears in hindsight as if there were goals had been foreseen by bacteria and sponges, as if they saw through the years that their experiments would someday yield nerves, muscles and brains.  If pressed, the Darwinist storytellers might argue that they don’t really mean the teleological language.  They could probably recite the blind Darwinian mechanism more accurately if they had to.
    All fine and good; so tell them they have to.  We’re onto the semantic tricks they play.  The teleological talk is outlawed within their world view.  Force them to restate the claim in consistent Darwinian terms.  That’s fair, isn’t it?  Sure.  Then just sit back and watch the whole story unravel as they hum and haw and try to say it correctly.  Be ready with the ruler to slap their knuckles with each infraction.

“Evolution can take these components [SLAP] er, something happened that was able to put them together [SLAP] I mean, rather, that parts that had proved useful to sponges [SLAP] ouch!  All right already!  A mutation occurred....”

Evolutionists foul out whenever an umpire is present.  Why?  Because fouls are the only plays in their game book.
Next headline on:  Marine Biology • Darwinian Evolution

Color-Blind Cephalopods Perform Colorful Camouflage Tricks   06/06/2007    
Roger Hanlon has studied octopi, squid and cuttlefish for decades.  He stands in awe of their ability to camouflage themselves.  In a Primer article for Current Biology,¹ he detailed some of their sleight-of-skin magic tricks.
    His article has frames from a movie clip that show an octopus changing its skin from plain to mottled in milliseconds, then to almost pure white in two seconds.  It’s not just the color that changes.  Cephalopods also have the ability to change the texture of their skin from smooth to dimpled.  They can also change the pattern from plain to mottled to what Hanlon calls “disruptive” – bold patterns that would include stripes and “light and dark patches of varying shapes, scales and orientations, and some patches [that] are usually of high contrast.”
    For such mechanisms to work, the octopus or cuttlefish has to have (1) eyes that can sense what kind of background they’re against, (2) brains that can process the information and send the appropriate signals to the skin, and (3) skin cells tied to neurons that can respond quickly and draw from a large suite of possible patterns.  These cells include chromatophores (color cells), iridophores (reflecting cells) and papillae (skin cells that produce bumps).  Putting it all together,

Rapidity of visual change is accomplished by direct neural control of chromatophore organs, which are cytoelastic sacs of pigment with radial muscles attached around the periphery.  Each muscle is innervated by motoneurons that originate in the lower motor centers of the brain, and they travel without any synapse to each chromatophore organ.  Third, camouflage benefits from both optical and physical three-dimensional effects, the latter being due chiefly to the changeable skin papillae.  Note in Figure 2 how the three-dimensionality of the skin is also under fine motor control.  Curiously, although papillae expression is regulated by visual input, neither this nor the biomechanics of how the papillae operate as a muscular hydrostat in the skin has been studied in any detail.

Other features of the cephalopod dynamic camouflage system have yet to be studied in detail.  The skin, for example, is a marvelous example of rapid, highly coordinated optical malleability: pigmentary and structural coloration are combined in many ways to achieve vastly different appearances, both from close-up and distant viewing.  The directional structural reflectors known as iridophores (which in most animals are passive reflectors) are not only under active control by cephalopods, but they produce polarized signals that pass unaffected through the overlying pigmented chromatophores.  This raises the possibility that a dynamically camouflaged cephalopod could be simultaneously sending a ‘hidden’ signal to a conspecific, because cephalopods can perceive polarized light while most of their predators cannot, while remaining well camouflaged using pigmented chromatophores.

Sadly, we now have to switch from the Amazing Facts thought pattern to the Dumb Ideas thought pattern.  Roger’s excellent article was marred by repeated references to evolution having accomplished these things.  Nowhere did he explain how a blind process could achieve them, just that they did.  Notice how he puts have evolved in past tense as a matter of assumed fact, right alongside incredible wonders of design:

• Cephalopods have evolved a different life history tactic: with their keen vision and sophisticated skin – with direct neural control for rapid change and fine-tuned optical diversity – they move where they wish and can adapt their body pattern for appropriate camouflage against a staggering array of visual backgrounds....
• How many camouflage patterns are there, and how many visual tricks have evolved to deceive visual predators?
• While evolution has produced body colorations and patterns of bewildering diversity, we may be observing a trend in which certain effective pattern types are conserved across phyla and ecological habitat.
• We do not yet understand the type of mimicry involved (for example, Batesian or Mullerian), the evolution of this form of camouflage, or the visual stimulation that may evoke it.
• Future studies on fish vision would help us understand not only the anatomical organization of cephalopod pigments and structural reflectors, but the details of the whole-animal patterns that have evolved in response to the wide array of predator visual systems.

The worst example is right at the end of the article.  Evolutionists are the worst offenders at question-begging among educated people.  Read the following paragraph and ask yourself how any intelligent person could say such a thing, linking art, science, high technology and system-wide complexity to Darwin’s theory of blind chance – unless he had been brainwashed aforethought that miracles are possible in Charlie’s web of belief:

The subtle ways in which edges, shadows, outlines, patterns, colors, contrast and papillae are used by animals for camouflage or communication also seem to have much in common with art, photography, landscape architecture and related fields, because light and dimensionality are being manipulated in similar fashion.  When watching the video from Figure 1, the aphorism “truth is stranger than fiction” comes to mind, especially when compared to the ‘invisibility cloaks’ that have recently received so much attention in the popular media.  The speed and fluidity with which cephalopods simultaneously maintain predator awareness, search for prey, and coordinate a camouflage body pattern with each microhabitat offers insight into how a complex biological organism works as an intact system.  There are great challenges yet to confront in understanding the sensory and behavioral interactions between visual predators and prey, and it is humbling yet intriguing to think that such an ancient lineage as the mollusks has evolved such a sophisticated system with which to test camouflage.

Thus an otherwise stimulating paragraph was deflated by those two little words, “has evolved.”  For extreme intellectual schizophrenia and the worst case of begging the question in recent memory, this paragraph easily wins Stupid Evolution Quote of the Week.
Next headline on:  Marine Biology • Evolution • Amazing Facts • Dumb Ideas

Keep an eye on this story and on the pro-ES advocates.  The article quoted one who said that research on embryonic stem cells remains “absolutely essential.”  Why?  It is still too early to tell, but if all barriers are removed for use of iPS instead of ES, the reaction of the embryonic stem cell advocates will be instructive.  Will the Hollywood celebrities still seek air time for tear-jerking commercials, when no law will be required to overcome ethical barriers that no longer exist?  Will the $3 billion California stem cell institute switch to the newer, safer, ethical iPS?  Will Big Science lobbyists cease their rhetoric about how ethical objections to ES will leave America scientifically behind the rest of the world?  Stay tuned.
Next headline on:  Cell Biology • Politics and Ethics

The concept that resources are essentially finite may have originated with Thomas Malthus.  He concluded in 1798 that the exponential growth of Earth’s human population was unsustainable because agricultural production could only increase arithmetically.  Since then, mechanized farming, irrigation, refrigeration, chemical fertilizers (from petroleum and other mineral deposits), hybrid grains, genetic modification, and improved transportation systems have blossomed.  Now, famine is only caused by political events and by the inability to deliver emergency supplies following natural disasters.

This entry is partially off topic, as our focus is creation vs. evolution, not the eco-politics of oil production.  We are also not here to argue the merits of the case made by these two, or to suggest that complacency about the future of oil is an acceptable posture.  Conservation is still virtuous and necessary.  Note, however, that these ideas were printed in a publication of the Geological Society of America, a very pro-Darwinist organization, and one of the authors is from the University of Washington, not known for its political conservatism or skepticism of evolutionary theory.
    The tie-in to Malthus, however, is important, since the Malthusian principle had a profound impact on Darwin.  It was arguably the key insight Darwin claimed led to his theory of natural selection.  The rest of the story – social Darwinism, Marxism and today’s oil-crisis mentality – shows the power of an idea to affect the lives of billions of people.  “Now, famines are only caused by political events” is an understatement.  The worst famines in the history of the world were attributable to Stalin and Mao, whose ideologies were built squarely on Darwin, whose main idea was built on Malthus.  Another horrific famine in modern times is the fault of North Korea’s communist leader, Kim Jong Il, who lives in opulent luxury building nuclear weapons and entertaining himself with fine wines and the world’s largest collection of Daffy Duck cartoons, while his people scrape bark off trees to keep from starving.  Solomon stated a principle almost 3,000 years ago that is the antithesis of Malthus: “Abundant food is in the fallow ground of the poor, but it is swept away by injustice” (Proverbs 13:23).
    Malthus came up with not so much an empirical discovery as a mental picture of the way the world worked.  Yes, he could point to some empirical facts that seemed to support his concept that population vastly outstrips resources, but it was a naive generality that ignored (or did not know about) important mitigating factors – chiefly, the power of human creativity to solve problems.  Today’s scientific farming technologies can produce bumper crops out of desert sand.  And Malthus knew nothing about genetic engineering.
    Even in the natural world, we have seen that there are natural feedback mechanisms that can moderate the production of offspring so that it is not exponentially out of control (e.g., 05/28/2007).  Recall from 03/17/2003 how Jason Wolf showed that indirect genetic effects can also act as governors on the engine of change, or slippage on the treadmill.  The vision of “nature red in tooth and claw” has changed dramatically since 1798 and 1859.  Many evolutionists today envision a friendlier world of cooperation, symbiosis and sustainable ecosystems.  Malthus, clearly, was not the last word.
    The lessons here are many.  Ideas have consequences.  Complex problems have simple, easy-to-understand wrong answers.  Intuitively obvious principles can represent false visions of the world.  And scientific or political ideologies built on them can be disastrous.  Before jumping on any political or economic bandwagon, remember the lesson of Malthus and his ideological offspring.  They did grow exponentially – and led to an economic and political world Soviet-red in tooth and claw.
Next headline on:  Politics and Ethics • Geology • Darwinism

It has been argued that large linear dunes are relics of a cooler, drier, and windier climate during the Last Glacial Maximum, a hypothesis supported by luminescence dating of linear dunes in many areas (Lancaster, 2007) and by the considerable inertia of large dunes, which require thousands of years to respond to changes in wind regime (Warren and Allison, 1998).  In addition, the large number of endemic species within the Namib Sand Sea has been given as evidence for a long and continuous period of hyperarid conditions within Namibia (Ward et al., 1983) and therefore potentially very old dunes.  These ideas gave rise to the hypothesis that, although the linear dunes of the Namib Sand Sea are currently active, they should have some older, Pleistocene core.

    Our studies show that large, complex, linear dunes in the northern Namib Sand Sea are younger than expected and are Holocene in age.  The relative youth of the dune indicates complete turnover of sand during the Holocene, leaving no relic of older Pleistocene dunes, if indeed they existed in this area.  It is possible that there are older dune deposits preserved within the Namib Sand Sea farther to the south, but we have no evidence for this.
    The lack of a preserved late Pleistocene core to the dune shows that large linear dunes can be entirely reworked during the Holocene in hyper-arid environments such as the Namib Desert. 

Our studies therefore provide firm evidence for lateral migration of linear dunes and indicate that the deposits of many dunes preserved in the rock record previously interpreted to be transverse to the mean transport direction may in fact be those of dunes of linear form that combine the deposits of flow-parallel and flow-transverse elements.  This has important implications for interpretation of ancient eolian sandstones, past wind regimes, and resulting paleoclimatic and paleogeographic reconstructions.

Let’s add this interesting discovery to our growing list of geological processes being revised drastically downward in age (e.g., 05/07/2007, 01/12/2007).  The questions they are not asking are as interesting as the ones they are answering.  We can think of three: (1) Why are there so few linear sand dunes in the rock record?  (cf. 06/27/2003, 07/11/2001).  (2) Will geologists now be willing to drastically revise downward the formation times for alleged fossilized dunes, like the Coconino Sandstone?  (3) If a wetter period lasted almost 3000 years between earlier stages of Namib dune formation, long before civilization began using oil and gas, how can we be sure humans today are causing significant climate change?  Try your hand.  What other questions does this paper raise in your perceptive, logical mind?  Tip: you can include Titan.
Next headline on:  Geology • Dating Methods • Solar System.

Did Walking Evolve in the Trees?   06/04/2007    
The news media are all echoing a report from Science¹ that orangutan behavior in trees tells us something about the evolution of human bipedalism (see National Geographic, Fox News, and MSNBC News).  If this new view gains acceptance, it means the old iconic image of man emerging upright from a stooped-over ape posture (05/03/2007) is wrong.  A new icon will have to show a descent from the trees.  Paul O’Higgins and Sarah Elton said in scientese, “This raises the possibility that preadaptations for hominin bipedalism arose in arboreal settings rather than in terrestrial environments.”
    The original paper by Thorpe, Holder and Crompton says, “Orangutans react to branch flexibility like humans running on springy tracks, by increasing knee and hip extension, whereas all other primates do the reverse.  Human bipedalism is thus less an innovation than an exploitation of a locomotor behavior retained from the common great ape ancestor.”²  But is it fair to make an inference about humans from observations of living orangutans?  That is the question.
    O’Higgins and Elton noted that this “reopens the debate” about the origins of our own “peculiar” habit of walking on two feet.  “To date,” they confessed, “there is no consensus about the adaptive scenario that could have led to the adoption of terrestrial bipedalism.”  They listed four competing theories.  “A similar lack of agreement is also evident in discussions about the locomotor behavior of the hominin ancestor.”  While admitting that Thorpe et al have “invigorated the debate” by presenting a “plausible and elegant argument” for the tree-down theory, they said, it also causes new problems: “We must now question whether morphologies that indicate bipedalism can be used to identify hominins at the base of their radiation.”  Not only that, “This then raises the issue of whether we can unequivocally identify any traits that are truly diagnostic of early hominins.”
    The MSNBC report mentioned another cause for doubt.  “Why would chimps lose that bipedal ability while whatever became human retained it, asked Will Harcourt-Smith of the American Museum of Natural History in New York.”  He favors a view that our ancestor was multi-talented: “Another view of this might be that actually, our ancestor was rather good at doing a number of things.”  Orangutans are able to “stand straight-legged, like a person” when manipulating their stance to reach food high overhead.  The Associated Press story includes this quizzical statement: “Evolution requires a reason for such a special skill.”

Who is Evolution?  Why does she require a reason?  We have just unmasked the idolatry of evolutionists again.  They cannot make any tale fit without invoking their goddess, a mythical person who works miracles with a goal in mind.
    You never hear them talking about all the anatomical adjustments that would be required to have an ape walk upright like a man, and how these adjustments would have taken place by chance mutations.  Arched feet, reshaped skeleton, a new neck and head, readjusted internal organs, changes to musculature (including buttocks and shoulder girdle), adjustments to skin and hair and thermoregulation, new brain software – how many other major changes would have to occur simultaneously to make human bipedal motion possible?  And people can run!  Recall the impressive list of anatomical specializations required for endurance running (re-read 11/18/2004).
    Do you know of any functional activity with requirements that operates by an unguided process?  We must call foul when evolutionists reason from requirements to Darwinian theory.  We must hold them to Darwin’s own requirements that evolution must proceed without guidance or direction.  No long-term goals can be envisioned, and no personalities can direct the process.  To this we add that assuming evolution did it anyway is a bad case of begging the question.
    Let’s ask the Darwinists why the orangutans haven’t caught onto our superior means of locomotion if it is so good.  And let’s further ask why the orangutans are not observing humans and publishing papers about how primitive humans evolved into tree climbers like themselves.  Better yet, let’s have these researchers role-play the orangutans in trees, barefoot and wearing minimal clothing, so we can sneak some video of them onto YouTube.
Next headline on:  Mammals • Early Man • Evolution • Dumb Ideas

• The discovery, made independently by two labs, dismantles the popular theory that the regulatory role of microRNAs in gene expression is tied to the evolution of multicellularity.
• The finding is as startling as the discovery ten years ago that the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans has 19,000 genes, just 1,000 short of the human count...
• “People were shocked that the complexity of the genomes in these simpler creatures was similar to our own,” he [Gregory Hannon, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory] says.  Now it seems that the RNA in simple unicellular organisms could be as complex as that in higher creatures.
• This [lack of microRNA in algae], combined with the fact that RNA sequences differ between plants and animals, helped give rise to the idea that microRNAs evolved independently in plant and animal lineages as parts of complex regulatory mechanisms associated with multicellularity.  Now it seems that these molecules may predate that evolutionary development.
• “It shows how basing conclusions on studies of just one or two model organisms can really lead you astray in terms of how you think about evolutionary processes,” says Jim Umen from the Salk Institute in La Jolla, California.
• Nobody knows why such a simple organism needs microRNAs, nor how or when they first appeared.

See it again?  The incorrigibility of Darwinists (e.g., 05/10/2007 commentary).  No amount of contrary evidence has the power to release the vice-like grip of evolutionary thinking on their minds.  To shield the audience from these embarrassments, they just turn up the fogma machines (05/14/2007 commentary) and the show goes on.
Next headline on:  Evolution • Genetics