More than half a billion years ago most of the major animal groups appeared abruptly in what is known as the Cambrian Explosion. It initiated virtually all the major designs of multicellular life with barely a trace of evolutionary history. In a geological moment, the fossil species went from small worm-like creatures and the like to a tremendous diversity of complex life forms.

Evolutionists have had little success explaining this onetime event. Thomas H. Huxley likened it to a barrel that is filled rapidly with apples. Then it takes longer to fill the remaining spaces with pebbles, sand and finally water. Today’s explanations are more technical-sounding but no less reliant on speculation as opposed to direct description. Steven Stanley compared it to the introduction of bacteria croppers which prey on dominant species which previously had suppressed diversity. J. J. Sepkoski compared it to rapid growth of bacterial populations in a virgin petry dish. Were the Precambrian oceans a virgin ecosystem with the raw materials of oxygen and food supplied by ancient bacteria? Steve Jones wondered if the Cambrian explosion reflects some crucial change in DNA—life’s genetic material. "Might a great burst of genetic creativity," asks Jones, "have driven a Cambrian Genesis and given birth to the modern world?"

Now, thanks to new research, we have yet another explanation: calcium. Evolutionists are now saying that a rise in ocean calcium levels may have triggered the assembly of unicellular organisms into multicellular organisms and the rest, as evolutionists say, is history. As one report explained:

the question of what was the trigger for the single cell microorganisms to assemble and organize into multicellular organisms has remained unanswered until now.

What is astonishing is that there is anyone left out there who questions evolution. Can't they see that these guys are doing the heavy lifting? This is just rock solid investigative research, the kind we've come to expect from evolutionists.

Evolutionist Richard Lenski explains that evolution is both a fact and a theory. Lenski's reasoning is typical of evolutionary thinking and therefore useful in understanding this genre of thought. Lenski begins by defining evolution as biological change over time. Since such change is not controversial, it follows that evolution is a fact:

It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth.

Readers who first encounter such passages in the evolution literature may be surprised. Is this not a radical broadening of the very definition of evolution? How can mere change over time, which even the Genesis account calls for, be counted as evolution? This may seem to be a concession. Have evolutionists dropped the claim that strictly naturalistic explanations are sufficient to account for the origin of species?

No, evolutionists have made no such concession. It is typical to find in the evolution genre apparent logical disconnects such as this. In his article, Lenski explains evolution as the usual unguided biological variation coupled with natural selection (along with dozens of other occasional mechanisms, as needed).

So how should the reader understand and interpret the apparent disconnect. How can Lenski define evolution as mere change over time, but then swap back to the traditional understanding of evolution as strict naturalism? Is this an equivocation—a cheap ploy to prove evolution while bypassing its massive scientific problems?

No, this is not an equivocation. To understand the evolution genre one must understand the history of thought behind it. Even evolutionists are often not completely aware of this history, but the equating of evolution with mere change over time is shorthand for a centuries old metaphysical claim that underwrites evolution. The claim is that if God created the species they would be fixed. Indeed, divine creation would produce a static, unchanging world.

This thinking is often associated with the great eighteenth century Swedish botanist Carl Von Linne, or Linnaeus. At one time he advocated the fixity of species concept and later was troubled when he discovered hybrids—species that are produced by the crossing of two related species.

Linnaeus softened his doctrine of fixity of species, but this was inconsequential. His system with its conception of species became deeply rooted, and the nineteenth century began with the notion of species as immutable still strongly in place. This notion was increasingly being challenged but it was nonetheless a major obstacle for Darwin to overcome.

It was therefore highly significant when Darwin became persuaded that related populations of birds he saw at the Galapagos were actually different species. If there was the slightest foundation for this idea, Darwin had anticipated in a famous notebook entry, it "would undermine the stability of species."

Today's readers often fail to understand the significance. After all, what can be so important about some different birds on some islands? Certainly the birds did not suddenly reveal to Darwin how fishes could change to amphibians, or how amphibians could change to reptiles, or how reptiles could change to mammals. Rather, the revelation was that the idea of divine creation was suddenly becoming untenable. The crucible for Darwin was not an abundance of positive evidence for evolution but rather negative evidence against creation.

Evolutionist Ernst Mayr has pointed out that Darwin's conversion from creationist to materialist was due to three key scientific findings and later reinforced by several additional findings. These scientific findings were all findings against creation. In other words, the key evidence that swayed Darwin was not direct evidence for evolution but rather evidence against creation that indirectly argued for evolution.

And as Mayr further points out, the doctrine of fixity of species was a key barrier to overcome in order if the concept of evolution was to flourish:

Darwin called his great work On the Origin of Species, for he was fully conscious of the fact that the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution. The fixed, essentialistic species was the fortress to be stormed and destroyed; once this had been accomplished, evolutionary thinking rushed through the breach like a flood through a break in a dike.

The pre-Darwinian metaphysic was that species were fixed and essentialistic. Evidence for small-scale change argued against the old view and in so doing became an important proof text for evolution.

This is the story between the lines when evolutionists casually associate their theory with change over time. It is shorthand for a long-held tradition in the history of thought. If there is change, then divine creation is false, and if creation is false then evolution, in one form or another, is true.

Metaphysical claims such as these mandate evolution. They underwrite the fact of evolution. The rest is just research problems on how evolution occurred—the theory of evolution. As Lenski explains, evolution is both fact and theory. Religion drives science, and it matters.

You have probably heard of polaroid sunglasses which reduce glare. You may also know that if you rotate the glasses (or your head while you're wearing the glasses) the glare becomes stronger. This is because the sunglasses reduce glare in only one dimension. Light waves can have any orientation. Like waves in a pond, light waves can move upward and downward as the light travels forward. But unlike waves in a pond, light waves can also move from left to right and back, as the light travels forward. These two orientations are referred to as vertically and horizontally polarized light, respectively. But light is not restricted to one or the other--in general a light wave consists of both a vertical and a horizontal component. Purely vertical and horizontal light waves are special cases. And if you combine the vertical and horizontal components you obtain a wave that rotates as it travels forward. For example, the wave can rotate in a circle. But again, this is special case. In general, a light wave maps out an ellipse as it travels forward.

If all of this is confusing, don't worry. All you need to understand is the general idea that light waves can be polarized in different, complicated ways. These concepts are important to engineers and physicists who, for example, work in communications. Television and radio station transmitters and antennae, cell phones and transmitters, and the many other conveniences we enjoy are all carefully designed incorporating these concepts. For instance, CD and DVD players need to convert the vertically or horizontally polarized light to circular polarization.

But once again, after we understand and develop a new technology we find it was present all along in nature. In this case, mantis shrimps not only control the polarization of light waves, but they do it better than our best devices. The CD and DVD players, for instance, use a quarter-wave retarder that converts the polarization but only at a single color of light. The mantis shrimp makes the conversion across a broad spectrum of colors. Here is the abstract of a recent paper on the exploits of the mantis shrimp:

Animals make use of a wealth of optical physics to control and manipulate light, for example, in creating reflective animal colouration and polarized light signals. Their precise optics often surpass equivalent man-made optical devices in both sophistication and efficiency. Here, we report a biophysical mechanism that creates a natural full-visible-range achromatic quarter-wave retarder in the eye of a stomatopod crustacean. Analogous, man-made retardation devices are important optical components, used in both scientific research and commercial applications for controlling polarized light. Typical synthetic retarders are not achromatic, and more elaborate designs, such as, multilayer subwavelength gratings or bicrystalline constructions, only achieve partial wavelength independence. In this work, we use both experimental measurements and theoretical modelling of the photoreceptor structure to illustrate how a novel interplay of intrinsic and form birefringence results in a natural achromatic optic that significantly outperforms current man-made optical devices.

You can go here for a good description of the amazing mantis shrimp (optics is not its only speciality) and its most advanced vision system.

And what does evolution have to say about this? Only that it all evolved, somehow. Some mutations happened to occur, fantastic new designs emerged, and they stuck.

As silly as that sounds, it gets worse. As we have discussed before, the amazing optics hardware is only one of the essential components of the design. Without the processing logic and hardware, and behavior algorithms that use the processed signals, the upfront optics hardware, as fantastic as it is, is as useless as a jet engine is without the jet.

Can death ever be a good thing from an evolutionary perspective? Even though natural selection is all about survival and reproduction, the death of individual cells within a multicellular organism can be beneficial. For example, as the organism grows or when in stressful environments, some cells are no longer needed. Without the ability to kill off such cells organisms suffer. Indeed, such an inability leads to cancer. And so it is not surprising that plants and animals regularly kill off unneeded cells. In fact, their cells have an elaborate and sophisticated programmed cell death (PCD) apparatus. When the signal is given an amazing process of dis assembly begins where the cell's molecular structures are chopped up in an orderly manner. Like the engineers who know just where to dynamite a bridge, the PCD apparatus destroys the cell with remarkable efficiency.

PCD is yet another example of biology's elaborate and sophisticated designs that evolution struggles to explain. But new research has added yet more trouble for evolution. It turns out that PCD in plants and in animals have some similarities that further indicate, from an evolutionary perspective, that PCD was present in the common ancestor of plants and animals.

But the common ancestor of plants and animals was not a multicellular organism--it was a unicellular organism. Why would evolution design a cell that can kill itself?

It is yet another example of an evolutionary expectation gone wrong. And, in turn, evolutionists will react with another silly just-so story. Perhaps it will go something like this:

Competition for resources was fierce even in the early phases of evolutionary history. Before cells aggregated to form multicellular life, they existed in tightly knit communities, which provided various benefits including easier defense against predators, reduced susceptibility to environmental threats, and the facilitation of resource sharing as an insurance against the spatial or temporal resource famines that cells going it alone might face.

The cost of such cellular communities was that particular cells may need to be sacrificed occasionally for the good of overall community. For instance, perimeter cells facing environmental threats would have an increased chance of death and so their resource consumption would be inefficient. Better for them to cease consumption and conserve resources needed by the remainder of the community. Also, cells in the crowded interior of the community may occasionally face resource deficits and, again, cell death would improve the fitness of the remainder of the community.

These scenarios parallel the altruism that has been observed in insect communities, and there is no reason such evolutionary dynamics were not present in the unicellular world. This is an instance where evolutionary theory sheds light on itself, as what we learn about the evolution of observable extant species may apply to the evolution of unobservable, deep-time, species.

Of course the evolution of unicellular PCD relied on environmental signals to initiate the PCD. Such signals could not be too predominant or community wide, for they would have the potential to kill off the entire community. Nor could the PCD signaling be too rare. Most importantly, of course, the selected PCD signals would need to correlate with threats and stresses that could be countered with PCD. Resource concentration reduction is an obvious candidate PCD signal, but our research investigates several other, more subtle and more discriminating, environmental signals which could have led to the evolution of PCD in early life.

See how easy bad science is? One could get used to it.

Penguins have always been a problem for evolution. Their flippers, for instance, are supposed to be the vestiges of wings. "Say again ...?" you say? That's right, according to evolution penguins are supposed to have evolved from an earlier bird with wings. The bird morphed into a penguin and the wings morphed into the penguin's flippers. Anyone who has seen a penguin swim knows its flippers are not just a happenstance design. The penguin is an incredible swimmer and the last thing that comes to mind is that its flippers somehow evolved from a wing. Of course for evolutionists this transition is a fact, even though they don't know how it happened.

Now penguins have been discovered to defy the much touted molecular clock. The molecular clock is simply a measure of the time that two species diverged from their common ancestor, as determined by their genetic differences. In other words, like the ticking of a clock, the steady stream of mutations, which help drive evolutionary change, accumulate and can be measured. Sometimes evolutionists have an idea of the supposed time since divergence from the fossil record. They use such cases to compute the rate at which the mutations accumulate, and once they know the rate they can use it in cases in which only the genetic data are available.

Evolutionists have been using this concept of the molecular clock for almost fifty years. But the clock is consistently wrong and the concept is becoming increasingly suspect. As with the steady ticking of a clock, problems with the molecular clock concept have slowly but surely continued to mount. Indeed, molecular clock predictions have been falsified many times over. Here's one example of many.

Early on it was found that the molecular clock varies dramatically depending on context. It would be like the clock in the kitchen running twice as fast as the clock in the living room. For instance, if evolution is true then we must believe that this molecular clock varies dramatically for different types of proteins. The histone IV protein, for example, shows only a few changes

Evolutionists concluded that histone IV must have a highly constrained design. Histone IV is involved in DNA packing, and surely that role is too important to monkey with. As evolutionist Thomas Jukes wrote:

... the histones are a class of proteins that are bound to DNA in cells that possess a nucleus. They take part in the formation of nucleosomes. Any change in histones could therefore have a destructive effect on the integrity of the cell.

Jukes had no empirical evidence for this claim. It was based solely on the assumption that evolution is true. It is one example of many of how evolution corrupts science. In this case, laboratory research showed that cells sustain histone IV changes with fewer problems than expected. And the other histones sustain changes even more readily.

It was yet another example of evolution interfering with scientific progress in general, and of a molecular clock failure in particular. Now we are learning of dramatic failures of the molecular clock in penguins. These data are interesting because they are from penguin remains as old as 44,000 years. These remains allow for empirical comparison of old and current genomes (mitochondrial in this case), and the differences are several times off the molecular clock prediction.

Religion drives science and it matters.

Evolutionists often say design theory does not qualify as legitimate science because it is not strictly naturalistic. Science, they say, must rigidly adhere to methodological naturalism, and restrict all explanations and causes to natural processes. This naturalism mandate renders evolutionists vulnerable to charges of (i) atheism and (ii) stacking the deck. Is not the naturalism-only mandate an obvious sign of atheists at work and, furthermore, is it not simply a ploy to define competing theories as unacceptable to begin with? Actually, no. Certainly some evolutionists are atheists, and perhaps some evolutionists stack the deck when they argue, but neither of these are entailed in arguments for evolution--the problems with the naturalism-only mandate are far more severe.

To understand the problems with the naturalism-only mandate, one must understand just what is being mandated. Some evolutionists appear to make the bare assertion that only rigidly naturalistic explanations can qualify as genuine science. As wiith most bare assertions this one doesn't work very well. For instance, it is easily countered by the bare assertion that rigidly naturalistic explanations are not required for genuine science (so there!). Some design critics, such as Taner Edis, warn evolutionists against making such an assertion for it does not allow for design theory to be rejected by according to the evidence.

But more thoughtful evolutionists, such as Joe Felsenstein, provide an underlying reason for the mandate. Felsenstein explains:

what he has just done is to admit that the hypothesis of a Designer is not science, as it predicts every possible result. If you predict every possible outcome, the ones that are seen and the ones that are not, then you have not predicted anything! ...

If there are none, then the Design he speaks of is an infinitely flexible hypothesis that predicts nothing, and thus is really not a scientific hypothesis at all … which is what I originally said.

In other words, in order to qualify as legitimate science a theory must distinguish between different outcomes. Naturalism is needed because otherwise each outcome is equally probable and the theory is not true science.

Deciding what does and does not qualify as legitimate science is notoriously difficult. There seem to be exceptions to every rule. But perhaps Felsenstein's criterion is reasonable. Shouldn't a scientific theory say at least something about the probabilities of what we might observe in the data?

Evolutionists say this test shows their theory to be the perfect model of true science. Consider, for example, the recurrent laryngeal nerve. As evolutionist Jerry Coyne explains:

The reason why the recurrent laryngeal nerve, for example, makes a big detour around the aorta before attaching to the larynx is perfectly understandable by evolution (the nerve and artery used to line up, but the artery evolved backwards, constraining the nerve to move with it)

In other words, historical contingencies and constraints play an important role in evolutionary explanations. Today's designs are not independent of their history. When we see obvious similarities between species evolutionists make the historical connections.

But special creation and design theory have no such basis from which to draw. Designs are independent. God could have created the species in any fashion, so there is no way to distinguish outcomes. Are not all designs equiprobable? As Coyne explains, the recurrent laryngeal nerve

makes no sense under the idea of special creation ... No form of creationism/intelligent design can explain these imperfections

Evolutionists use such examples to argue that their theory is scientific whereas creation and design are not. Now let's look at the facts.

These claims of evolutionists are false and hypocritical. Evolution does not distinguish different outcomes for the recurrent laryngeal nerve. When incredibly fantastic, mind boggling designs are found, they ascribe the wonder to natural selection. When similarities between species are found, they ascribe them to historical contingencies.

And evolutionists have a seemingly never ending list of mechanisms they use to explain everything in between. Whatever we find in biology, evolutionists say it must have evolved. Their predictions and expectations are often falsified and they have to patch their theory repeatedly. And there is no distinction between a new, fantastic design and a repeated design--both are equiprobable under evolution.

If a new, fantastic design appears such as the trilobite eye, then evolutionists ascribe it to natural selection. If similar designs are found in different species, then it is ascribed to common descent. If later cousin species are found to lack the design, then common descent can be dropped as an explanation and the design can be said to have evolved independently. The evolutionary explanation is extremely flexible.

If distinguishing between outcomes is the hallmark of true science, then evolution is the theory that doesn't qualify.

As for design theory, while it does not rule out historical contingency as a possible explanation it, in any case, looks for a rationale for what we find in nature. The more probable outcomes are functional designs that require planning, foresight, mechanisms, and so forth. Design theory tries to figure out how nature works rather than viewing it as a fluke and accident of history. And the history of science is squarely on its side. Over and over evolutionary expectations that nature is a fluke are overruled by the evidence. Over and over we find function and fantastic designs which make no sense under evolution.

How do you want to do science? Do you want to constrain every explanation to an improbable theory, or do you want to figure out how nature works without a priori theoretical constraint?

Published January, 2010 in the Post Register.

It’s just a restaurant; do not be afraid.

As one of the handful of eastern Idaho’s truly fine dining restaurants, Collage produces some exotic dishes. Chef and co-owner Dave Shipley wants you to know, however, that he’s also capable of making dishes that everyone’s heard of.

“We need to appeal to everybody,” Shipley says. He and partner, Luciana Schmitz, are juggling the menu at Collage, looking for the right balance between gourmet and recognizable, a range that’s particularly important during tight economic times.

They’ve recently introduced an expanded pasta menu to go with signature dishes like lobster bisque and buffalo ribeye, with an accompanying lower price range.

Collage opened in a tiny space on First Street in Idaho Falls seven years ago and moved to its current location across from the Colonial Theater on A Street in 2007 after Shipley and Schmitz bought out the restaurant’s other partners.

Shipley grew up in Aspen Valley, Colorado, learning the art of cooking under the tutelage of his chef father. He worked at a number of restaurants in Salt Lake City as a sous-chef and chef before coming to Idaho Falls.

He worries now that Collage’s early success and reputation for a high-end experience is scaring some potential customers off. “Just having a special-occasion restaurant isn’t going to keep us open.”

Schmitz, a native of northern Italy, makes her own tiramisu that has developed its own following, but call ahead if that’s what you’re coming in for – it’s a special item that’s not always on the menu – “I make it every couple of months,” she says. The equally popular mocha ganache is reliably available. Even the sorbet and ice cream are homemade.

Of course, if you’re looking for an entrée that’s a little special, Shipley’s got you covered, from lobster-stuffed ravioli to his specialty, local buffalo ribeye that spends the night before it’s served marinating in wine and herbs.

Like most chefs, Shipley prefers the cooking to running a business, but understands that the two go hand in hand.

“I just want to come in and cook,” he says.

Published January, 2010 in the Post Register.
At The Cellar, it’s all about the s-l-o-w.

That doesn’t mean you can’t get a quick meal, but the whole idea behind dining at The Cellar is that it’s intended to be a leisurely experience.

“I’m more into dining than filling a gas tank,” says founder and owner Scott Hinschberger. “Most of the world’s decisions that have shaped history have been made at the dining table.”

Despite its name, The Cellar isn’t necessarily about wine, either.

“We get a lot of non-drinkers. I don’t emphasize wine so much unless you happen to like wine. I emphasize the slow dining experience. We have quite a few people who come in who enjoy the food and the music and the ambience who don’t need to enjoy the wine.”

The name, in fact, is more out of respect for a restaurant of the same name that Hinschberger frequented as a youth.

If you are a wine drinker, however, the Cellar is your kind of place. It’s the only restaurant in eastern Idaho to win Wine Spectator magazine’s Award of Excellence two years running. Hinschberger’s two sons, Bryan and Paul, are both certified sommeliers, as is the restaurant’s operations manager, Bart Day. The Cellar has a vast selection of beverages, from wine to cocktails to non-alcoholic sparkling drinks.

He likes to keep the menu diverse and changing, emphasizing local produce as much as possible. He also likes to throw in a little wild game as much as possible, from ostrich and alligator to wild boar and kangaroo.

The venue is a house originally built in 1906 and updated in 1956 and 1965. There’s live music most weekends, including Hinschberger and his son, Bryan, who play monthly. Bryan Hinschberger is the Cellar’s general manager. His brother, Paul, helps at the restaurant and conducts wine classes with Bryan when he’s not actually at a winery in Washington, California or elsewhere learning the craft of winemaking.

Scott Hinschberger has a degree in geology and spent the early part of his career in New England looking for a possible nuclear waste repository site. His current day job is personnel specialist with the Department of Energy. He and his wife, Michelle, are at the restaurant most evenings.

Despite the challenges of running a restaurant in dicey economic times, Hinschberger has no regrets.

“I would say that this has been the finest experience I’ve ever had in my life. It’s also been one of the most trying things I’ve ever had in my life. I’ve met people and gotten to know people that are so much fun to be around.”

Some books are difficult to read because they are not well written while others are difficult to read because the ideas don't make sense. There is turgid prose and then there is turgid logic. I have finally finished Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True which, if Coyne was not a leading evolutionist of international repute, I would have dismissed after the first chapter. Coyne is an excellent writer but Why Evolution is True is a laborious read because it doesn't make much sense. Thumbing through my copy, I see page after page with margin notes indicating various fallacies and inconsistencies. More later on this, but for now here are some aggregate statistics.

By my count Coyne affirms the consequent 21 times throughout Why Evolution is True. He begs the question 33 times and makes 35 theological claims. Coyne fails to mention important scientific problems that bear on his points 31 times.

I finally tired of counting but the volume is a veritable treasure trove of evolutionary thought. There are the usual just-so stories, unfalsifiable claims, presumptuous statements, ad hominem criticisms and so forth. In the evolution genre you can hope for quality writing but it seems there is no escaping problems with the content of that writing.

Published in the Post Register in January, 2010.

One of the iconic experiences of summer in eastern Idaho is dinner on the deck at the Sandpiper Restaurant, live music in the background, Snake River in the foreground and good food on the way.

On most nights, manager Ron Obendorf will be in the mix as well, schmoozing the guests and making sure things run smoothly. Obendorf has been a part of the Sandpiper for most of its 35-year history, both in Boise and Idaho Falls, eventually bringing together more than 30 investors to buy the Idaho Falls and Pocatello restaurants in 1995.

He’s tried other things. In 1979 he was running a restaurant in Newport Beach, California and goofing on a sailboat, but by 1980 he was back in Boise.

He says the artificiality of southern California brought him back to Idaho.

“Down there they were all pretend people, they weren’t real people."

He taught school in Boise for a couple of years (supplementing his income waiting tables), but he kept coming back to the restaurant business, taking a break when he’d burn out. By 1995 he was working for Nonpareil Potatoes.

“I would sit there all day and think about how I ought to get some people together” and buy the Sandpipers in Idaho Falls and Pocatello, which is precisely what he did. The list of owners is a who’s who of eastern Idaho business people.

It would be safe to say that the Sandpiper is eastern Idaho’s highest profile restaurant, boasting 35 years anchoring motel row on the west bank of the Snake River. The Sandpiper has stayed successful by serving good food in a pleasant atmosphere and keeping customers happy.

“We’ve had a history of ups and downs, like everybody,” Obendorf says. “We try to be consistent and we try to be fair. If your meal’s no good you don’t have to pay for it.”

Years ago, fried catfish was the favorite dish on the Sandpiper menu, but tastes have changed. Prime rib is still a big draw, but Obendorf’s personal favorite is the Hawaiian crunch halibut, a recipe brought to the Sandpiper from New Orleans by local chef Dave Musgrave, who ran the Hawg Smoke Café until health problems forced him to close it. Ahi tuna, which used to be an occasional special, now has a permanent place on the menu.

If you scramble about 90% of a protein sequence—randomly replacing amino acids with different ones—would the protein still work? That is what evolutionists are implying in order to make sense of their theory. The problem is that evolution’s explanations for de novo genes are unlikely and very unlikely. In the case of the T-urf13 de novo gene, the two choices seem to be (i) a one in ten million shot that protein coding sequences just happened to be lying around waiting for use or (ii) only about 10% of the T-urf13 sequence really matters and you can scramble the rest with no effect.

Background

An obvious problem with evolution is that it calls for vast banks of biological programs to arise on their own. One example of this is the protein coding genes within DNA. Evolutionists usually say that these resulted from the reuse of existing protein coding genes. For instance, we are able to see in color because the photocells in our retina contain different proteins that are sensitive to different colors of light.

And how did the genes for these different proteins arise? Easy, take one such gene, duplicate it and throw in a few mutations to modify the color sensitivity. Of course there are massive problems with this narrative which evolutionists fail to recognize, but that’s another story.

Also, there is the question of from where did the first such gene come? If new genes come from pre existing genes, then from where did the first gene come? Ever since David Hume, evolutionists have argued against an infinite regress of causation so they have to have a starting point. But they have no explanation for such massive complexity beyond vague speculation which amounts to “See, poof, it happened.”

In an effort to bridge this enormous gap, evolutionists have constructed a new narrative based on de novo genes. These are genes that were not predicted but now, amazingly, evolutionists are using them as proof that evolution can indeed create new protein coding genes.

That is the argument evolutionists use for the de novo gene T-urf13 which was found in the mitochondrial genome of certain varieties of corn. The problem is that T-urf13 provides no such evidence. Indeed, if anything, it is yet another de novo gene that contradicts evolutionary theory. Let’s have a look.

Two choices: Unlikely and very unlikely

The T-urf13 gene sequence appears to come from two separate sequences already residing in the mitochondrial genome. The two sequences are in, and flanking, an RNA gene. In other words, it appears that two sequences came together, along with a short unidentified segment, to form this new gene.

But the story is more complicated than the mere reuse of pre existing coding sequences. Under the theory of evolution, the RNA and flanking sequences are not designed to have a role in coding for proteins. Evolution does not have the foresight, for instance, to imbed secondary functions for future use in the DNA information.

Evolutionists therefore cannot say the T-urf13 gene arose from the duplication of an existing protein gene. They could say that T-urf13 is a lucky strike—that the RNA and flanking sequences just happened to have protein coding properties even though they were not designed or used as such. As explained elsewhere this is unlikely (probably far worse than a one in ten million shot).

Or evolutionists can agree that, yes, the RNA and flanking sequences were not originally protein-coding like segments, but mutations evolved them into a protein coding sequence. The problem here is that we don’t find very many mutations at work. This is a difficult argument for evolutionists to make because there is so little sequence information added to the sequence. What we find is a couple dozen point mutations out of about 340 nucleotides (about 93% of the nucleotides are conserved), along with several insertions and deletions.

This second option is probably worse than the first option. For evolutionists would have to say that a sequence that has no protein-coding properties—that was not designed or selected for such information and therefore is no better than a random sequence insofar as protein-coding is concerned—can be converted into a protein-coding gene by swapping only a relatively few nucleotides. The resulting protein would have only a few percent of the amino acids modified, along with some insertions and deletions.

One way to test this evolutionary hypothesis would be to introduce mutations at those T-urf13 nucleotide sites that share identity with the original RNA and flanking sequences. In other words, scramble the majority of the T-urf13 gene. While we cannot know for sure, certainly our current knowledge suggests the resulting gene would be junk. You cannot scramble ninety percent of a gene and reasonably expect a folding, functioning, fitness-adding protein.

And if the mutated gene is junk, then we would conclude that T-urf13 owes its protein-coding abilities, probably in large part, to those original RNA and flanking sequences and that the evolutionary hypothesis makes little sense.

Summary

Evolution is not well supported by the scientific evidence. Yet evolutionists continue to reinterpret the evidence in creative ways to prop up the theory. In the case of the T-urf13 gene evolutionists have claimed that, in spite of the science, the gene is a result of a routine evolutionary capability to produce new genes.

Published in the Post Register December, 2009.

In 1957, Jesus Sanchez brought his wife and seven children from Michoacan, Mexico to southern California, where he picked strawberries and beets, worked in restaurants and otherwise did what he had to do to support his family.

By 1991 that had included moving to eastern Idaho, where the family began operating a catering truck. By the following year, Sanchez’ daughter, Bertha Morena, had opened Morenita’s on Whittier Street in Idaho Falls, and that’s where they’ve been dishing up home-cooked Mexican food ever since.

“You know, they call it the American dream because you’re always dreaming because you’re so tired," says Morena, acknowledging that running a restaurant doesn’t leave time for much else.

It’s a family operation that includes Morena’s brothers, sisters, father and daughter (and a son when he’s home from school), and the recipes have the same family roots, evolving over the years. They’re always looking to introduce something new.

Don’t go looking for a lot of ground beef mixed with packet spices or tortillas from a box. Nope, the beans start in a big pot and the tortillas are hand-pressed and grilled right before serving.

“One thing my dad always told me was the taste in the food is in the salt – not too much, not too little. We don’t take anything from the can.

“I remember when we started a lot people expected ground beef,” She continues. “A lot of them have learned about real Mexican food.”

Caucasians tend to order burritos, while the sizable Latino clientele leans toward tacos, Morena says. On weekdays the crowds are mostly Caucasian, while Latinos tend to come in on weekends.

It comes as a surprise to some that 10 percent of Bonneville County’s population is Latino, and some of the surrounding counties have higher populations still. Look around – Mexican may be the single most popular type of restaurant in eastern Idaho nowadays.

Jesus Sanchez, now 81, still works at the restaurant, clearing and cleaning dishes and keeping an eye on things. When asked, he offers that his favorite Mexican beer is Superior – it figures, you can’t get it in this part of the U.S.

It’s a small matter to Morena and her family, as the second lunch rush starts coming through the door – mostly high school students.

“I’m just grateful that I’m here and I have a job,” she says. The smile that never goes away makes it clear that she means it.

New research has found that very short RNA strands, as small as 15 nucleotides, are not junk as evolutionists had expected but instead perform regulatory roles. As one writer explained:

Tiny strands of RNA previously dismissed as cellular junk are actually very stable molecules that may play significant roles in cellular processes, according to researchers at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute.

Many of these so-called usRNA molecules interact with proteins that in turn interact with other RNA molecules that regulate cellular processes.

All of this was a big surprise to evolutionists but since evolution is a fact they know that it blindly arose, one way or another. The only remaining question is how it evolved, but that is less important than knowing that it did evolve. That's what scientific progress is all about.

Conservative estimates are that the chances that the de novo gene T-urf13 blindly evolved are one in ten million. For all we know they are probably far worse. But are the estimates valid? Evolutionists have rejected them as flawed. One evolutionist called them "ridiculous" and another called them "unsupported," promising to reveal all at some later time. Many other evolutionists have ridiculed the entire idea as obviously in error while making all manner of ad hominem attacks.

But none have shared their wisdom on exactly why the estimates are so wrong. As usual, evolutionists attack the messenger rather then address the message.

The problem seems to be straightforward. Evolutionists have claimed T-urf13 as evidence that evolution creates new genes with ease. But it seems to be another unlikely just-so story that fills the evolutionary narrative. What are we missing? The silence is deafening.

As a follow-up to his earlier comments that design is not a legitimate scientific hypothesis, evolutionist Joe Felsenstein adds this comment:

Thanks to Cornelius Hunter for quoting my comment at Panda's Thumb in its entirety, without emendation (he did add some emphasis, in color, but not in a way that changed my meaning).

My comment was not responsive to the origin of T-urf13 but was intended as a response to many other comments Hunter has made on this blog (and at Uncommon Descent) in which he argues that one cannot predict what a Designer would do, and thus that arguments that she would not make bad design are invalid.

As should be clear from my statement, I was pointing out that this makes the hypothesis of a Designer not a scientific theory, and thus not a credible alternative to naturalist explanations.

Oh, and it should be clear that naturalism does *not* create an "intellectual necessity" of evolution. There are explanations that might be advanced that are not evolutionary but are natural. It is the evidence, not simply naturalism itself, that is the basis for concluding that life has evolved.

Unfortunately these misrepresentations are typical of evolutionists. Not only are evolution's metaphysical arguments from dysteleology, or bad design, perfectly valid, they can also be quite powerful. Felsenstein's strawman that we say otherwise would be bizarre if it wasn't so common.

Next Felsenstein explains that his message is that he thinks that the hypothesis of a Designer is "not a scientific theory, and thus not a credible alternative to naturalist explanations."

Yes, that is precisely the point. The intellectual necessity is a metaphysical argument for naturalistic explanations. As with all the dozen or more metaphysical mandates for evolution, the argument attacks design or creation using non scientific premises that a design or creation advocate would not recognize.

Felsenstein next writes that "naturalism does *not* create an "intellectual necessity" of evolution." Of course it doesn't and it is a wonder that Felsenstein arrived at such a backward reading. The mandates for naturalism and evolution come from religious and philosophical traditions entailing non scientific premises.

Evolutionists consistently mischaracterize criticism to convert serious problems into so many strawmen to knockdown.

Finally Felsenstein appeals to the evidence. Evolutionists are notorious for their claims that the science proves evolution to be a fact. But such proofs always rely on metaphysics. The number of evolutionists who have explained how the science proves evolution is precisely zero.

And, to forestall the usual response, no one is misunderstanding what "fact" means. Evolutionists say their theory is a fact as much as is gravity or the round shape of the earth. That is an absurd claim which, not surprisingly, has never been justified scientifically.

I have tremendous respect for Felsenstein's smarts as a scientist and the quality of his work. But so often we see world-class scientists appear foolish propping up evolution. Religion drives science and it matters.

Published in December 2009 in the Post Register.

It’s 1975 and the Captain and Tennille are burning up the pop charts, Jaws is the blockbuster movie and a recession, complete with unemployment nearing 10 percent, is in full bloom.

In the aftermath of Watergate and the middle of a grim economy, Jake Jones opens restaurants in Pocatello and Idaho Falls. More than three decades later, the Pocatello “Jake’s” is long gone, but Jaker’s in Idaho Falls, its name changed after a tiny legal wrangle with someone else apparently named Jake, is still bringing us in. Jaker’s also has expanded to Twin Falls and Meridian in Idaho and Missoula and Great Falls in Montana, with plans to open a new restaurant in Elko, Nevada.

On a snowy, cold Sunday evening in Idaho Falls, Jaker’s is bustling despite the slippery roads.

“Don’t get me doing salad,” pleads Adrian Frausto as I prepare to take pictures while he does salad prep. He moves over to the grill later, but not before Mayo McCrady steals the limelight, flipping the contents a skillet in each hand. He gets a solid ribbing when some of the contents end up on the grill.

Jaker’s is a steak and seafood place with a basic wine and beer list, enough liquor and TV sets on the bar side to provide a reasonable happy hour, and a reliable menu that eaters have been depending on for 34 years.

Assistant Manager Cassie Miller believes communication, as much as food, has given Jaker’s its longevity.

“It’s been a very good crew, good management. They’ve made the customers very important. Working here is very easy. People actually care about their jobs.”

Regulars of Jaker’s know to expect the ubiquitous scones – made at a Twin Falls bakery but finished fresh at each restaurant, plus a few other standards like the prime rib, clam chowder and, of course, the chicken a la Jaker’s, which is the restaurants version of chicken Oscar.

Recent innovations include the introduction of a soup and salad bar (which Miller says has tripled lunch traffic) and a new, small plates menu to take a little of the edge off the recession. Of course, this is the fifth recession Jaker’s has been around for, so getting through this one ought to be a piece of cake.

New research out this week has resolved a long-standing, and important, quandary about the causes of global warming. While several models point to anthropogenic CO2 and other greenhouse gases as the leading cause of global warming, the warming trends do not quite match the history of anthropogenic CO2. In fact, shrinking glaciers and other undeniable evidences of warming trace back to about the mid seventeenth century. But this predates the significant rise in anthropogenic CO2 that came in later centuries. Now environmental researchers have solved the puzzle. While CO2 is undoubtedly an important factor in certain warming events, by far the most significant cause is the hot air emitted by evolutionists. In other words, anthropogenic theory rather than anthropogenic industry is the root cause of global warming.

What is particularly convincing about the new research is how precisely the earth's temperature correlates with major discharges of evolutionary hot air. As the figure illustrates, temperature spikes over the past three and a half centuries align perfectly with the history of thought. The correlation is simply too uncannny to doubt. Only the "flat-earth" warming deniers will find a way to explain this away.



In fact just today Canadian researchers recorded a significant warming event, which they were able to localize to a region over central Canada and the northern midwest of the USA. The timing (and location) correlate perfectly with a blog published by evolutionist PZ Myers entitled "The Ubiquity of Exaptation" where Myers pollutes science with a particularly acute hot gaseous emission. In fact one of the researchers, using a new experimental localization algorithm, believes he has traced the emission to a city block where, as it turns out, Myers resides. The researcher believes Myers wrote the blog from his home office.

In that blog Myers made several asanine statements about the evolution myth. In particular Myers emitted seemingly hilarious, but in fact environmentally dangerous, statements about the evolution of the nervous system. These included:

We use variations in these voltages to send electrical signals down the length of our nerves, but they initially evolved as a mechanism to cope with maintaining our salt balance.

I concluded this section by trying to reassure everyone that their brain is something more than just a collection of paramecia swimming about. Although the general properties of the membrane are the same, evolution has also refined and expanded the capabilities of the neuronal membrane: there are many different kinds of ion channels, which we can see by their homology to one another are also products of evolution, and each one is specialized in unique ways to add flexibility to the behavioral repertoire of the cell. The origins of the electrical properties are a byproduct of salt homeostasis, but once that little bit of function is available, selection can amplify and hone the response of the system to get some remarkably sophisticated results.

Once again, the cell simply reuses machinery that evolved for other purposes to carry out these functions.

The Trichoplax genome has been sequenced, and found to contain a surprising number of the proteins used in synaptic signaling…but it doesn't have a brain or any kind of nervous system, and none of its four cell types are neurons. What a mindless slug like Trichoplax uses these proteins for is secretion: it makes digestive enzymes, not neurotransmitters, and sprays them out onto the substrate to dissolve its food. Again, in more derived organisms with nervous systems, they have simply coopted this machinery to use in signaling between neurons.

We also contain a great many possible signals: long- and short-range cues, signals that attract or repel, and also signals that can change gene expression inside the neuron and change its behavior in even more complicated ways. It's still at its core an elaboration of behaviors found in protists and even bacteria; we are looking at amazingly powerful emergent behaviors that arise from simple mechanisms.

You can see how extreme was this incident of evolutionary story telling. But what we once thought were merely hilarious and asanine mythological narratives are now clearly very, very dangerous environmental toxins. The bad news is that evolutionary theory far exceeds anthropogenic CO2 as the leading cause of global warming. The good news is that we now understand the cause.

Evolutionist Joe Felsenstein sounded a familiar note recently when he appealed to evolution's intellectual necessity in response to scientific criticism. I pointed out here that the blind evolution of the de novo gene T-urf13 is highly unlikely. In typical fashion, the evolutionist completely ignored the scientific issue at hand and skipped straight to the metaphysics. There are about a dozen metaphysical arguments mandating evolution. They fall into the two categories of theology and philosophy and provide the foundation of evolutionary thought going back several centuries. You can see my reconstruction of the evolution of evolutionary thought here. There is much cross fertilization between these traditions which form a sort of tapestry in the history of thought. Of course these arguments are not scientific, but they are extremely powerful. They are why evolutionists confidently know their theory must be true. Therefore empirical evidence is not an epistemological problem, but merely a scientific problem. No observation can harm our knowledge that evolution is a fact. Hence Felsenstein goes straight to the underlying philosophy:

A simple way to state the problem with Cornelius Hunter’s argument is that he is arguing that a Designer could do anything, so a Designer cannot be refuted by any observation. He is happy to have thereby refuted all the people who point out bad design.

But he doesn’t get it that what he has just done is to admit that the hypothesis of a Designer is not science, as it predicts every possible result. If you predict every possible outcome, the ones that are seen and the ones that are not, then you have not predicted anything!

Unless you have some information about the Designer’s intentions, her powers, how frequently she acts, and where, and on which organisms and which phenotypes, you ain’t got nothin’, no scientific hypothesis at all.

In other words, not only is evolution true, it also is necessary for proper science. That's convenient.

This argument that strictly naturalistic explanations are mandated in the historical sciences traces back to the nineteenth century before Darwin though, as with several of evolution's metaphysical planks, it gained momentum from Darwin's theory as much as it fueled Darwin's theory in the first place.

Darwin's main concern was that people accept evolution. Which subhypothesis of evolution one accepts, explained Darwin, "signifies extremely little in comparison with the admission that species have descended from other species, and have not been created immutable: for he who admits this as a great truth has a wide field open to him for further inquiry."

Evolution was needed for scientific research as that was yet another spot where creation failed. As he wrote in Origins:

On the ordinary view of the independent creation of each being, we can only say that so it is;—that it has pleased the Creator to construct all the animals and plants in each great class on a uniform plan; but this is not a scientific explanation.

As Darwin’s friend J. D. Hooker put it, if theories of divine creation are "admitted as truths, why there is an end of the whole matter, and it is no use hoping ever to get any rational explanation of origin or dispersion of species—so I hate them."

Thirty years later evolutionist Joseph Le Conte argued that the origins of new species, though obscure and even inexplicable, must have a natural cause. To doubt this, he warned, is to doubt "the validity of reason, and the rational constitution of organic Nature." For Le Conte divine creation was not rational. Evolution, he triumphantly concluded, "is as certain as the law of gravitation. Nay, it is far more certain."

Needless to say this metaphysical sentiment only grew stronger in the twentieth century. Evolutionists, under the guise of science, continued to issue this non scientific mandate for evolution. As Niles Eldredge wrote more recently:

But the Creator obviously could have fashioned each species in any way imaginable. There is no basis for us to make predictions about what we should find when we study animals and plants if we accept the basic creationist position. … the creator could have fashioned each organ system or physiological process (such as digestion) in whatever fashion the Creator pleased.

Felsenstein's metaphysic is nothing new. It falls into well defined clade in the history of evolutionary thought. Of course there is nothing wrong with metaphysics, per se. But let's not pretend we're doing science.

Published in December 2009 in the Post Register.
ROBERTS – Kathleen ate alligator meat.

Bold in many things, Kathleen is an epicurean coward, preferring to stick to what she knows. But inspired by the moss hanging from the trees and the sound of live Zydeco playing in the background, my wife took a bite of deep-fried alligator tail and pronounced that it tasted like chicken.

OK, there’s no moss in the trees in Roberts and there’s no live Zydeco for hundreds, maybe thousands, of miles. But the rest is true – Kathleen overcame her fear and had a taste of reptile. Then she ordered a steak.

I, on the other hand, ordered the Creole-style tomato-and-rice dish featuring crawfish tail meat. My special kind of cowardice was evidenced in my choice of heat – I requested a two on a scale of one to 10.

We are, of course, at BJ’s Bayou, the only place within a day’s drive to get authentic Louisiana-style cuisine created illogically out of a 117-year-old former brothel in a tiny town 15 minutes north of Idaho Falls. BJ Berlin and his wife, Cheril, are our hosts and cooks on a cold late-autumn evening.

They’ve been perfecting Cajun and Creole dishes inspired by Chef Paul Prudhomme since 1998. BJ Berlin moved to Idaho Falls from New Orleans with his family when he was high school and settled in Roberts after he married Cheril. They fell in love with the old two-story building on Roberts’ main drag and eventually made a home out of the top floor while opening a bar and restaurant downstairs.

“We had a kitchen in the bar, and we started serving Po Boys,” says BJ. Po Boys are a New Orleans-style sandwich. “Friday nights were Louisiana night. People started coming from all over the place, so by 1998 we became BJ’s Bayou.”

The Berlins pride themselves on fixing authentic southern Louisiana-style food, but they’ve made one concession – they ask diners the heat level they prefer, on a scale of one to 10. Five, Cheril says, is the average heat level for New Orleans. I’ve ordered the level five before and it exceeded my comfort level. So I asked for a two this time, and it was about right.

“Most of what we do is Creole,” says BJ. “Creole cooking is more sophisticated than Cajun.”

BJ started cooking in the Boy Scouts – “My patrol always won the cook-offs,” he says. He and Cheril will cook you a nice steak and baked potato, but it’s the Creole food that will bring you back. He tells of the story of a nice lady who once asked Cheril for some ketchup with her etouffe.

“Cheril told her she should order something else,” BJ says.

In the kitchen, BJ works on my crawfish tail meat Creole. He starts by sautéing the vegetable trinity of onions, celery and peppers; then comes the crawfish meat and a combination of black, white and cayenne pepper. Finally, he adds his own tomato concoction and simmers it before pouring it over rice.

There’s a fire crackling in the corner wood stove as we chat with the Berlins and their three kids and Cheril brings in some fresh hush puppies. Outside, it’s 12 degrees, but we swear we can see the moss swaying in the trees.

On a day when President Obama once again called for civility and unity I am reminded how difficult this is to achieve in the origins debate. Intellectual discussions with evolutionists are about as likely as intellectual discussions with the Wizard of Oz. Rarely have I been able to cajole an evolutionist into reasoned discussion of the scientific evidence. Instead the evolutionist mischaracterizes science and deploys metaphysical justifications while accusing the skeptic of all manner of misdeeds. This infinite loop was replayed again last week on an evolutionary blog when Nick Matzke criticized recent posts here, here and here on T-urf13. I explained that the de novo gene T-urf13 is unlikely to have blindly evolved. I concluded the chances of that occurring are substantially worse than one in ten million. In return I received several pages of bizarre and irrelevant vitriol which managed to avoid the science at hand.

This is a genre that evolutionists seemed to have honed, and I was quickly reminded of it in Matzke's opening where he labelled me as a "young-earth creationist." Not only am I not a young-earth creationist, I have never even written about the topic. But accuracy and truth are not prominent in this genre.

For evolutionists the "young-earth creationist" label carries immense rhetorical value which outweighs any loss of credibility that may result. After all, the evolutionist can always respond to correction with taunts of secrecy, denial, and so forth. Indeed, I am routinely labelled as a "closet young-earth creationist."

And if I am hiding a secret religious belief then, of course, whatever I have to say in response to such charges is nothing more than a tired cover-up to which no one should pay heed. The verdict has been rendered: The evolution skeptic is an unscientific, religious zealot and therefore evolution remains a scientific fact. As Matzke pronounces:

as with many creationists, Hunter thinks his ridiculous little trope is actually a silver bullet that can be used to effortlessly kill any evolutionary evidence, thus saving his tender innocent brain the trauma of actually having to come up with a better explanation than the evolutionary one.

So much for truth and accuracy. And of course the fact of evolution stands firm:

Well, how does Hunter react to this empirical evidence on the origin of a new gene? He simply ignores the overwhelming sequence evidence right in front of him, and instead claims, based on typical creationist “it must have come together all at once from completely random sequence” assumptions, that the natural origin of T-urf13 is too improbable to be believed.

Matzke misrepresents both the science and my points. Far from ignoring the sequence evidence, it is precisely that evidence that is problematic for evolution. Protein coding sequences are extremely unlikely but here we find a significant part of one in a non-coding region.

And Matzke's quote is a silly and fictitious strawman. Of course the de novo gene arose from the pre existing sequences rather than "all at once from completely random sequence." The problem is that evolutionists are now claiming from unclear evidence that evolution is clearly capable of producing de novo genes.

Yes, some sequences came together to form a new gene. But that does not automatically demonstrate evolution any more than would a population responding to an environmental shift. Sure we can imagine how these sequences came together, but the elephant in the room is "how do lengthy protein coding sequences arise in non coding regions?"

Evolution predicts this should not happen and does not explain it. We may find an answer to this question, but for now it is not immediately obvious. At best it appears that evolution will be left with the usual "new proteins arise from the cutting, copying and pasting of pre existing proteins, with a few mutations thrown in here or there." But that hardly makes a de novo gene, such as T-urf13, evidence that evolution creates new proteins.

Published in December 2009 in the Post Register.
ARCHER – The original Big Jud’s was the brainchild of a 23-year-old Ricks College student who now admits that he really had no clue what he was doing.

More than 16 years and many, many hamburgers later, Jud Niederer has figured out the details of the restaurant business and, despite the odds, has kept the doors of Big Jud’s open in a tiny town five miles from the nearest highway.

“I just wanted to do something, be my own guy,” says Niederer (prounounced “Needer”). An Archer native, Niederer converted a former gas station into a small eatery and eventually managed even to secure his own 15 minutes of fame.

The Boise version of Big Jud’s, owned by Niederer’s brother, Chris, was recently featured on the Travel Channel show, Man Vs. Food, and Food Network magazine has named the one-pound Big Jud’s the best burger in Idaho. All that may be worth more than 15 minutes, particularly since the reruns are still showing.

Niederer is the first to admit that the restaurant business is tough, even if you don’t choose to renovate a former gas station in a small town well off the beaten path.

“You can really burn out pretty easily. Back when we first opened the only way we’d get a vacation was to close.”

But while dozens, maybe hundreds, of restaurants have come and gone in eastern Idaho since 1993, Big Jud’s has not only stuck around but bred two other eateries – his brother’s place in Boise and a Big Jud’s in Ashton owned by Todd Bossard, who is married to Niederer’s cousin. With some minor distinctions, each Big Jud’s has essentially the same menu.

At the Archer location, however, there is one unique item: The yak burger. The guy who provides Niederer with his locally grown (naturally) Idaho spuds for french fries also runs a yak farm just up the road, so the yak burger is on the menu. Jud's sells about one of those a day, so I ordered one up -- it's so lean that it's a little light on flavor and not terribly tender. Stick with the ground beef, I say.

After getting a nice deal on rent for the building in his first year, Niederer was successful enough to buy the building in 1994 and it’s since become something of a landmark.

“I’d never cooked for other people,” says Niederer. “Fortunately, my wife (Irene) brought her restaurant experience to the table.”

Of course, the legendary menu item at Big Jud’s is the three-pounder (three patties each weighing 18 ounces before cooking). The whole thing actually weighs in at more than six pounds when the bacon, ham, cheese, lettuce, tomato and bun are brought together. Finish it and you get your photo on Jud’s wall of fame.

Niederer says parents who bring their kids to Rexburg for school have made Big Jud’s a ritual stop, starting a tradition. On a recent Monday night, groups of students from Brigham Young University-Idaho regularly came through the door, keeping the place busy on a chilly night. It’s been that way for 16 years.

Biology's sophisticated adaptation machine has now been discovered to be even more sophisticated. In recent years the types of adaptation often claimed to be examples of evolution in action have been found to be driven by complex mechanisms that respond to environmental pressures. It was yet another falsification of evolutionary expectations. Organisms responded far more quickly than neo Darwinism predicted, and this was because the responses were not the result of evolution's blind variation, but rather of directed mechanisms. Gene regulation and even gene modification mechanisms have been discovered which not only implement helpful adaptations, but they implement adaptations that are heritable.

Now we can add another chapter to the adaptation story. New research has found that proteins are modified as they are being constructed to help them fend off a virus, bacteria or toxic chemical. Proteins are constructed by glueing amino acids together in a string. The type of amino acid to use at each position is specified by a gene, as interpreted according to the DNA code.

The new research found that during this construction stage proteins may be modified if the cell is under stress. Specifically, the amino acid methionine is used at certain points in the sequence of amino acids even though it is not called for. Methionine can help provide protective armor due to the sulfur atom it carries in its side chain. It seems that some mechanism is intentionally inserting methionine in spite of what the genetic blueprint for the protein says. As was reported this week:

These "regulated errors" comprise a novel non-genetic mechanism by which cells can rapidly make important proteins more resistant to attack when stressed.

It is yet another finding that not only was not expected by evolution, but is difficult for evolution to explain with anything more than just-so stories.