Ever wonder what it would be like to go up against religious forces? Don McLeroy, who wanted evolution to be exposed to scientific scrutiny now knows. He was ousted this week from his post as the Texas chairman of the State Board of Education. This is the first step of a new religious offensive against science. And this offensive will of course require a righteous mandate. For that, McLeroy is reportedly being blamed for a host of evils, including recklessly disregarding the advice of education experts (i.e., evolutionists), causing the board to be “extremely dysfunctional,” fueling endless culture wars, and putting ideology and partisanship ahead of the schoolchildren of Texas. It is apparently OK to promote religion in science, but to ask for scientific scrutiny is to be reckless, ideological, partisan and dysfunctional.
If you are a journalist, law maker, educator, administrator, policy maker or scientist who thinks that evolution should be exposed to scientific scrutiny, then beware. You will be going up against religious forces. In this case, the inquisition was divided along party lines, with one of our great political parties aligning itself with enforced religion. It is ironic that these same politicians claim to support the separation between church and state.
Archive for May 2009
But scientists and engineers are producing ever improved robots to study animal design and even evolution. Ignoring the fact that evolution did not have the benefit of a robotics industry, microprocessors, and centuries of supporting fundamental science, evolutionists are claiming that their robotics experiments are simulating evolution. The key is all the new, advanced technology that makes for more advanced robots. As one report explained:
Microprocessors are now tinier and more sophisticated. Building materials are more pliable. The same technology driving the use of electronic prosthetic limbs and vacuuming robots also is giving scientists a sophisticated tool to study biology. "In the past, if you think about it, robots wouldn't work because we could only make these big metal things with rotating joints that were really stiff ... and that's not how nature is," said Robert J. Full, professor of integrative biology at the University of California, Berkeley.
With enough investment, research and determination perhaps someday we can catch up to evolution—a truly brilliant designer.
But speculation on steroids is not the only problem with today’s version of evolution. As is often the case, though evolutionists are convinced their theory is a fact they can’t quite figure out how it works. This leads to competing hypotheses which, in this case, deal with the different levels at which natural selection may work. Is natural selection more important at the level of the individual and family or the group and society?
The theory is in disarray, but evolutionists remain as confident as ever. Here is what one evolution said this week about new research supporting one hypothesis:
Inclusive fitness is the thing. It's a powerful way to think about the world and a powerful way to model the world.
It is true these hypotheses can model a variety or behaviors, but such explanations also raise profound problems for evolution.
One of the problems with evolution is its elevation of genes. Because genes are so central to the evolutionary narrative, they have taken on an unrealistically important role in evolutionary theory. Here's an example from an article about research comparing mice and humans:
"In the last decade or so, we've come to realized that the mouse is really similar to humans," said co-author of the new study, Wolfgang Enard of the Max-Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthrophology. "The genes are essentially the same and they also work similarly."
Only in evolutiondom do we find otherwise smart people making such bizarre, non scientific conclusions.
Natural selection never created anything, at least not in the colloquial sense of that verb. This is not a criticism of evolutionary theory--this is evolutionary theory. According to evolution, biological designs just happen to occur, and the better designs (i.e., those that leave more progeny) tend to persist into the future whereas the worse designs (i.e., those that leave fewer or no progeny) tend to disappear. This winnowing process is called natural selection, and you can see that it doesn't create anything. Natural selection in no way induces or entices the improved mutations to occur.
The human body, for instance, must have arisen from a very long sequence of small, unguided modifications, with no outside help. The ill-suited modifications died off and the successful modifications pushed on, via natural selection, but those modifications just happened to occur. And those modifications were incredible. How did those mind-boggling designs arise in the first place? One problem here is that the biological design space is enormous and filled mostly with useless, non functional designs. How did evolution create the rare gems—the functional and successful designs that then could be selected for? Evolutionary history must have been one long, seemingly unending, sequence of miracles.
It is not surprising, therefore, that the evolution genre is so euphemistic. The absurdity of mutations and such creating mind-boggling designs over and over is avoided with such euphemisms as "selective pressure" and "environmental pressure." In evolutionary theory, such pressure does not act to produce new designs, as the euphemism implies. It only acts after the new design has already been created. Evolutionists explain that they use these euphemisms merely as convenient shorthand, but such teleological language also helps to mask the underlying absurdity.
Hello everyone.
Due to technical difficulties I've had to move my blog to Wordpress, so you can now find me at:
http://godlessmonkey.wordpress.com
Evolution isn't even wrong. The religiously driven idea has its followers tossing and turning. Like a ship that throws its occupants from one side of the galley to the other, evolution has its loyalists flying from one absurdity to the next. To say that evolution is wrong would be to grant a certain level of objective, consistent thought. In fact, evolution is loaded with subjective truth claims and internal contradictions. Consider this new research adding to the rags-to-riches story of so-called junk DNA.
Tandem repeats are short stretches of DNA that are repeated head-to-tail. "At first sight," explains evolutionist Marcelo Vinces, "it may seem unlikely that this stutter-DNA has any biological function." This is an example of how evolutionary thinking harms science. Since life is an accident, biology must be straightforward. If we do not immediately perceive how something works, then it must be non functional junk. Over and over this evolutionary expectation has turned out wrong. And now again with tandem repeats:
unstable junk DNA allows fast shifts in gene activity, which may allow organisms to tune the activity of genes to match changing environments--a vital principle for survival in the endless evolutionary race.
The tandem repeats allow for swift adaptation to environmental demands, so cells with more repeats stand a better chance. As the evolutionists explain, "Their junk DNA saved their lives." We are now to believe that evolution created this sophisticated system of adaptation so that evolution could occur. Evolutionists are flipping between absurdities in what is increasingly looking like a parody. The evolution literature looks more and more like a spoof. As if sensing the problem, the science writer reporting on the new research hastened to add that it is to be published in a reputable journal.
Dan Clawson has an article in Science about academic tenure and the future of the university. Clawson notes that:
The fundamental rationale for the tenure system has been to promote the long-term development of new ideas and to challenge students' thinking. Proponents argued more than 60 years ago that tenure is needed to provide faculty the freedom to pursue long-term risky research agendas and to challenge conventional wisdom. Those arguments are still being made today and are still valid.
While tenure may occasionally support such lofty goals as protecting intellectual freedom and the right to challenge conventional wisdom, in fact it routinely serves as one of several powerful mechanisms used to enforce conformity. The undergraduate, graduate, post graduate and untenured academic experiences all serve as purefying filters that narrow, rather than broaden, intellectual curiosity. The tenure process, the granting of research funds, publication peer review and social pressure all serve as further enforcers of right thought.
At the point of tenure application, candidates are usually fully conforming. The right answers and right thought have long since been abundantly clear and candidates who think otherwise would have been filtered out at earlier stages. The selection process is protracted and thorough. Far from promoting diversity and intellectualism, the tenure system often works against such virtues.
But too often academia has nothing but high praise for itself and denial of its own political correctness. This became painfully obvious in Iowa State University's shameful denial of tenure to astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez--an affair that exposed a profound thread of anti intellectualism that now runs through academia.
As the bells pealed loud and clear one crisp autumn Sunday the faithful came quickly, filling the stadium for the weekly gathering. In their brightly colored regalia, holding icons and banners, they took to the stands in an orderly fashion. It was once again time to worship at the alter of the Team Spirit.
It was a particularly joyous day. A buzz had gone through the town that there would be a guest speaker this day. Everyone hoped it would be the one they had waited for these many months, but no one dared utter the name for fear of jinxing it. As the stands quickly filled, a wave of excitement raced through the crowd in anticipation of the rousing strains of the band striking up the opening chords of the call to worship.
As the cheerleaders took to the field, their uniforms spelling out the name of the saviour in capital letters the worshippers rose to their feet in reverent praise of the blessing about to be bestowed upon them.
Striding purposefully onto the field and mounting the podium, Pastor Montana cut a dashing figure, his slight limp reminding the crowd of his selfless dedication to the holiness of The Game. He raised his hands to the heavens and all could see his lips moving in silent supplication and thanks. Many were moved to tears.
As the buzz faded he looked about and smiled. "I am so very grateful to have you all here today once again," he intoned into the microphone, "Praise be and glory in the highest. Another touchdown for Jesus!"
The crowd went wild, hooting and shouting praise. He motioned for calm. "My friends, it is a special day today. I am honored to announce that we have a very special guest today who has graciously made time to be here to deliver today's sermon."
Again the crowd was on their feet, their excitement more than they could contain. The word on the street was true, the one they had hoped for, indeed prayed for was here. Their prayers had been answered.
Pastor Montana continued. "We will open the service with a hymn. You all know the words. Sing along, please."
The organ began, and the band on the field responded as the worshippers rose and broke into song.
"Glory be, glory be, a Hail Mary pass, then a touchdown please. The game and the quest, we toil for the best, the blood will be rife, drop kick us Jesus through the goal posts of life..."
As the hymn wound down there was a resounding amen and everyone sat down again. Pastor Montana bowed his head for a moment in reflection and then spoke into the microphone.
"My friends, without further adieu, I give you the man you've all been waiting for. The great, the only, John the Maddening!"
The roar that filled the crowd as the adored one trotted onto the field and up to the podium was deafening. The crowd were beside themselves. Without a word, John raised his arms, fingers extended, indicating a touchdown. Again the crowd went wild. He grinned broadly and leaned into the microphone. "Praise be! Glory in the highest!"
When the roar had died down he put on a serious look and began. "My fellow worshippers, I am so very proud to be here today to share your joy and to join you in praise of Jesus and the divine game."
Murmurs of assent ran through the stands. "For what are we, if not followers of the Way?" He looked meaningfully at the crowd. "My friends, we are the ball, Jesus is the wide receiver and God is the quarterback. Amen!"
Erupting in enthusiast applause, the crowd shouted his name, interspersed with calls for sainthood and tributes of everlasting love and adoration. John led them in another hymn, the marching band doing an elaborate routine that ended with them in a cross formation, drawing yet more applause from the stands.
The remainder of the service proved a big hit, and Pastor Montana and John thanked the attendees and prepared them for the game to follow.
"Thank you all again for being here, my fellow travellers," Pastor Montana intoned. "As soon as we clear the field the game will begin. As you know, we will be playing Satan's Army today, may the best team win!"
The crowd erupted into enthusiastic chanting. "Death to evil, doomed to fail. Satan's Army, back to hell!" It was yet another Sunday in the Church of the One True Religion.
Imagine if, back in 1859, Charles Darwin explained that evolution proceeds in fits and starts. Species rapidly appear as if planted there, and then go unchanged for eons. There would have been, as we say today, no bounce. In fact Darwin would have been laughed off the stage, and he knew it. Darwin had to present a narrative of gradualism. Funny thing is, the fits-and-starts narrative is today precisely what evolutionists tell us. The difference is that today evolution is a fact. You'd have to be a real crackpot to doubt it.
So evolution is a fact, but nonetheless it seems strange that this absent minded process would leave a trail of contradictory evidence. For instance, we know that evolution has not squared very well with the fits-and-starts pattern of the fossil record. Why should biology's evidence make evolution appear to be a ludicrous idea? Is evolution trying to deceive us? Or perhaps it is merely testing our faith. Well now we know. Enter junk DNA.
A few years back evolutionists began to think that retroviruses could play important roles in evolution. This idea has now taken hold in a much bigger way, with the discovery of Genomic Drive. Amazing new research found that transposable elements, comprising about half of our genome and once thought to be so much junk, are the drivers behind evolution itself.
Of course species suddenly appear and then don't change for eons. It is because those transposable elements occasionally awaken to action. The once junk DNA has gone from the dog house to the starting lineup. It turns out that transposable elements supply the genomic drive behind biology's wonders. Mutations are out, jumping genes are in.
In fact, this junk DNA is now thought to have a critical role in ensuring the survival of biological lineages. And how do they work their magic? The answer is easy. Transposable elements, they say, "do their survival work by reformatting and rearranging DNA genomes to sometimes create significant adaptive mutations that undergo natural selection." It is amazing that evolution so cleverly created its own Genomic Drive. Now, evolution is even more of a fact.
The evolutionary expectation was that species, including bacteria, adapt by unguided variation. Sometimes, it was thought, this blind process happens to stumble upon an improved design which has a reproductive advantage, and so becomes more prevalent in future generations. This evolutionary model could hardly be more wrong. We now have glimpsed the profound complexity of biology adaptation mechanisms. They are anything but a blind process and new research adds yet more insight into this fascinating aspect of biology.
The new research explores the ability of bacteria to acquire resistance to multiple antibiotics using a genetic "copying and pasting" of resistance genes. Apparently unaware of the theory of evolution, this sophisticated design, as one writer put it, uses the antibiotics themselves to "trigger the synthesis of the bacterial enzyme that captures the resistance genes and enables their expression in the integron."
Unbelievable. Adaptation was always claimed as the no-brainer, empirical evidence for evolution. How can anyone doubt evolution when we can observe it right before our eyes? This claim has always been an absurd equivocation on evolution, for such adaptation has very little in common with the macro evolution narrative. The absurdity is reinforced by this growing body of knowledge revealing the deep complexity of adaptation. Evolutionists are left scratching their heads, wondering how their know-nothing process was able to devise such a clever adaptation machine. They are left with the silly idea that evolution created the intelligent adaptation machine that then allowed for evolution.
Evolution has to be true, and yet it is not well supported scientifically. If you ask how evolution occurred, you will be told there are various theories grappling with the problem. But if you ask if evolution occurred, you will be told that, without a doubt, it is an unequivocal fact. Evolutionists have metaphysical certainty about the truth of evolution, in spite of the empirical evidence. This is a consistent theme in the evolution genre. Here, for example, is the opening paragraph from a recent journal paper on the evolution of vision:
The evolution of the eye has focused research interest ever since Darwin identified the eye with its ‘‘inimitable contrivances’’ as a vexing problem for evolutionary theory (1859). Gradual evolution seemed implausible because ‘‘intermediate’’ forms of the eye seemed unlikely to be adaptive and selectable (1). Since Darwin’s original challenge, however, a surprisingly large number of cases of independent evolution of image-forming eyes have been documented (2, 3).
Translation: Contrary to evolutionary expectations, biology presents us with a wide variety of vision systems. They are too different to have evolved from a common ancestor. The evolutionary spin on this surprise is that vision must have independently evolved many times (after all, the fact that vision must have evolved, somehow, is not in question).
Furthermore, various living species with completely functional forms of eye organization are now known, which could be viewed as ‘‘intermediate’’ between a simple photoreceptive patch and the complex image-forming eye seen in cephalopods and most vertebrates (2, 3).
On the other hand, they could not be viewed as intermediate. It all depends on whether we are following the evidence. In fact, the biochemistry of even simple, non image forming, eyes is profoundly complex.
Although the fact of repeated evolution of image-forming eyes, as well as the capacity for functional intermediates, is thus firmly established, the mechanism of the evolutionary process is still speculative.
Translation: We may have to contrive just-so stories to explain evolution, but we will continue repeating that it is a fact.
I always knew it was just a matter of time. Eventually the "missing link" would be found, and now it's believed that the day has come. If it really is the holy grail of evolutionary science, it's going to have profound implications.
I can just hear the howls of protest now from the creationists. They will insist it's a hoax, or worse, a conspiracy. The absence of the link has been their slim hope that Darwin was wrong, and now it looks like that's finally being taken away from them. In case you don't know the facts behind all this yet, it's like this:
An almost perfectly intact specimen of an unknown creature was discovered in 1983(!) by a team of amateur fossil hunters inside a mile-wide crater outside of Frankfurt, Germany. The crater it was discovered in is believed to be a volcanic caldera where scores of animals from the Eocene epoch were killed and their remains were kept remarkably well preserved.
The pit has been a major source of fossils over the years, but the inexperienced archaeologists didn't realize the value of their find. Years after it was found it was bought by the University of Oslo and studied in secret for two years. The researchers who studied the fossil, led by Jørn Hurum of the University of Oslo's Natural History Museum, nicknamed her "Ida." It is apparently the remains of a roughly 9-month-old female that probably looked a lot like modern lemurs.
Apes, monkeys and humans all belong to a group called anthropoids. Debate has raged for decades about the origins of this group. It is believed by most that anthropoids likely sprung from either the extinct omomyids or the tarsiers (large-eyed primates with living relatives in Southeast Asia).
Jørn Hurum and his team advocate the minority hypothesis that in fact a third group, adapids, eventually gave rise to monkeys, apes and humans. They argue that Ida, whose scientific name is Darwinius masillae, is an adapid, and has features more closely aligned with anthropoids than with lemurs, which are thought to be adapid descendants.
Already the drums of dissent are being beaten. Fox News couldn't wait to jump in to the fray, running out to find "experts" willing to deny this is the missing link, even though they haven't been anywhere near the find. There will be more of the same in the months to come from the superstitious who would love to drag us all kicking and screaming back in to the dark ages of fear and acrimony before reason took hold.
I have no idea if this thing will prove to be what the member of the team in Oslo claim it is, but I for one am willing to keep an open mind and watch this thing unfold. This could be the greatest scientific discovery of the 21st century. Let's just hope the forces of darkness can't keep that from being recognized if it is, in fact, true.
Nicholas Kristof is back at it. This normally sharp-shooter journalist seems to lose all critical thinking skills when it comes to evolution. Today he informs his readers that “Some evolutionary psychologists believe that disgust emerged as a protective mechanism against health risks, like feces, spoiled food or corpses.” “Emerged” is an interesting way to put it. I guess it sounds better than “randomly arose somehow via unguided mutations, along with a thousand other assorted behaviors for selection to choose from.” Kristof seems to be unaware how silly this is.
We also learn, courtesy of psychology professor Jonathan Haidt, that “Our minds were not designed by evolution to discover the truth; they were designed to play social games.” Is that true? If so, it makes one wonder how pundits such as Kristof and Haidt can be so sure of things (including evolution). Perhaps the social games evolution designed include making up truth claims that we cannot be sure of. Well in any case, one thing we can be sure of (I think) is that if evolution is true then evolutionists don't know what they're talking about.
Evolutionist Nick Lane claims DNA as one of evolution's ten great inventions. Evolutionists think nothing of such a claim. After all evolution, if true, invented pretty much everything. And if evolution did invent DNA, it was quite a feat for the know-nothing mechanic. The double helix, for instance, is delicately held together by hydrogen bonds which are precisely placed and aimed.
The double helix can be opened up so the information inside can be accessed, or conversely it is often tightly compacted for storage. In fact, if all the DNA in your body was stretched out it would reach to the moon and back many thousands of times. Nice job.
Billions of years ago, before there were mammals, amphibians, plants, fish or any multi cellular life forms, phenomenal genome compaction mechanisms must have evolved into place, and then persisted unchanged ever after. Evolution, somehow and for some reason, luckily produced these incredibly elaborate and complex compaction mechanisms for unicellular life forms, and it turned out they were just the thing for millions of far more complex species. Quite a feat.
Then there is the replication of DNA, a fascinating and complex process performed by amazing molecular machines that, in spite of evolutionary theory, are not consistent across the species. Evolution must have decided to create the same Rube Goldberg machine several times over. Very creative.
There is also the DNA code which is cleverly designed at several levels, including minimizing the effects of errors and maximizing information content (such as in supporting overlapping messages).
And when errors do arise, DNA has an amazing error correction capability. As one researcher put it, "it’s almost as if cells have something akin to a computer program that becomes activated by DNA damage, and that program enables the cells to respond very quickly."
If evolution wasn't a fact, the evidence might make one to begin to ask questions.
Evolution has a high view of itself. Not only is it supposed to be as believable as gravity, but the narratives it generates are uncritically swallowed. For instance, origin of life stories are routinely reported with, frankly, laughable proclamations such as this one:
Mystery of how life on Earth began solved by British scientists: Scientists in Britain have solved the mystery of how life on Earth evolved from molecules when the planet was devoid of life four billion years ago.
Such non scientific reporting of science is by no means restricted to journalists. If they have exaggerated further it is only because they have stood on the shoulders of giants. Consider biochemist Nick Lane's new book, Life Ascending: The Ten Great Inventions of Evolution. A compendium of such extreme overstatement one would think it a parody. But alas, never underestimate the evolution genre. Evolutionists seem to be ever raising the ante of hyperbole at this high table. Consider, for example, how Lane describes the evolutionary tales of the origin of life:
The origin of life is one of biology's biggest conundrums. How prebiotic chemistry gave rise to biochemistry, how the first cells formed, what kind of energy first powered metabolism and replication -- all these questions are serious challenges. Remarkably, all are answered in broad brush stroke by the amazing properties of alkaline hydrothermal vents, which form naturally chemiosmotic, self-replicating mineral cells with catalytic walls. They concentrate organics, including nucleotides, in impressive quantities, making them the ideal hatcheries for life.
I guess we should thank our lucky alkaline hydrothermal vents. (Which, by the way, were not needed by the British scientists extolled above who also, remarkably, solved all the problems). Lane lists nine other "inventions" of evolution which, believe it or not, are as absurd as this one. I have no doubt Lane is a smart fellow. That is why evolution is all the more amazing--and all the more dangerous. Religion drives science, and it matters.
One problem with evolution is its strong bias toward viewing everything in biology as a kludge. When a newly discovered structure is examined, evolutionists take one look and conclude it is leftover junk. After all, blind, unguided mutations and other processes just happened to produce everything we see. The evolutionist’s going in position is that biology is a fluke. We’re lucky anything works.
This expectation pervades evolutionary thinking, and shows up again and again to be wrong. This week, instead of the usual junk-DNA-turned-marvel, it is junk protein. Here is what the evolutionist had to say:
Here we have a molecule that serves an important role in how cells function and survive, but it contains these puzzling 'junk' sequences that don't seem to have any apparent purpose. Our work suggests that this disorder is really a way of creating flexibility, allowing the protein to function as a molecular switch, a process that is thought to go wrong in certain diseases.
Evolution has provided researchers with convenient modular structures, areas that are repeated over and over again to make up proteins, and so we tend to dismiss the interspersed disordered sequences that don't seem to have any definable structure. Here we show that the weak molecular interactions in a disorganized protein equence are essential in giving this protein its unique attributes.
Well it is good to see that evolution has been helping researchers by providing convenient modular structures. At least evolution does something right.
While Eric and Sam unloaded the car, Dave took Alan down to the lake to show him around. Dave had bought the cabin a year ago and was proud of it.
"Isn't this fantastic? We picked a great weekend for this getaway, are you digging this weather, or what?" Dave was grinning away.
"It's awesome, man. How's that water for swimming?"
"That's the best part, man. Nothing like a night swim here. The water is plenty warm after a hot day like this. We should take a swim later tonight."
"That sounds great."
They went back to help with the rest of the unloading and getting the cabin set up for the weekend. Taking Eric aside, Dave made sure Alan was out of earshot.
"So you brought your snorkel, right? I've baited the hook; he's keen to have a swim after dark. This is gonna be a great prank. I'm glad you thought of it."
Eric was smiling. "Oh yeah, I've got it. He's gonna get the fright of his life. Hope he's got a good sense of humour."
They spent the rest of the afternoon relaxing and telling stories. After awhile Dave drove into town to get some steaks for the grill and to stock up on beer. Eric and Sam decided to make sure Alan was still keen.
"Hey Alan, Did Dave mention how nice the lake is for swimming? You brought your trunks with you, didn't you?"
"Yeah, sure did. Should we go now?"
"No, let's wait till after dark, it's great out there in the moonlight."
The rest of the day was round after round of male bonding, great food and copious quantities of beer. After sundown Dave gave a sign to the others to put the prank in play and the game was on. Eric got up and stretched.
"Hey guys, I'm gonna make a quick run into town, I'll meet you guys in the lake. I think it's time for that swim."
He left the cabin and the others changed and headed for the lake. Dave and Sam could barely contain themselves. They all dived in, and as promised the water was warm and inviting. They swam around for a while and then stood waist deep and just basked in the warm evening moonlight and talked.
Alan was looking around. "Hey, shouldn't Eric be back by now?"
Dave brushed it off. "Hell, he's probably chatting up some chicks in town, trying to get them to come out to the cabin. He'll be here soon."
Alan was about to respond when his eyes went wide and he screamed and fell into the water. He was kicking frantically and yelling for help. Dave and Sam did their best not to bust out laughing and waded over to where Alan was thrashing around.
"Hey, man, what's up? What's all the screaming about?" Dave did his best to sound concerned.
"Oh my god! Something grabbed my ankle. I was being pulled down. I kicked it with my other foot and it let go! We gotta get outta here!"
Scrambling for the shore, Alan didn't see his friends high-fiving each other before they got out of the water. They all headed back to the cabin. When they got there Alan was white as a sheet.
"Man, that was insane! What the hell could it have been? I could feel fingers around my ankle, and when I kicked it, it was slimy. Glad I wasn't alone."
Dave put on a concerned face. "This is weird man. Nothing like that has ever happened. Wonder what it could have been?" He smirked at Sam when Alan wasn't looking.
Alan was shaking. "I don't know, but I'm glad it's over. I'm gonna go take a shower."
When he left the room Dave looked at Sam.
"Wonder where Eric is? He should have had time to dry off and come in by now."
The door opened and in walked Eric with blood running down his face from a cut on his forehead.
Dave ran to his friend. "What happened man? Did he kick you in the head?"
Eric shook his head. "What are you talking about? I went out around the back way to sneak into the lake through the woods and I tripped over a root and hit my head on a rock. I've been out cold for I don't know how long. I just came to a minute ago. Where's Alan?"
Dave and Sam stared at each other, each feeling icy fingers stealing up their spines, Dave wondering how much he could get for the cabin.
Earlier this year Don McLeroy and the Texas Board of Education had the courage to stand up to the religious hegemony known as evolution. But the evolutionists have only begun to fight. They are bringing their lies and vitriol from all directions. Josh Rosenau of the National Center for Science Education writes that the new Texas science standards "authorize teachers to omit evolution or include creationism at their whim." That is, of course, false and Rosenau, or whoever is feeding him, knows better. Rosenau also writes of creationist pseudoscience and creationist attacks, and warns that "Watchdogs worry that some publishers may satisfy the board by outright larding books with creationism." He alerts his readers that the new Texas standards contain "creationist amendments," "promote creationism’s mantra," and "echo creationist beliefs."
Lies such as this are fueling a furious response to the standards. The standards actually state that evolution should be taught from a theory-neutral perspective. That is, students should actually understand the scientific evidence. But that is a death knell for evolution and so the fury has been unleashed. They want McLeroy out, textbook publishers not to go along with the spirit of the standards or else face a boycott at the university level, religious leaders to voice their support for evolution, and entrepreneurs to explain why evolution is necessary.
If ever there was an example of the importance of religious influence, this is it. Religion drives science, and it matters.
Well it's not really true, then, is it. I can think of many good people who lived to a ripe old age just off the top of my head. Have you ever wondered where the expression originated though? No, no, It did not spring fully formed from the head of Billy Joel. It's a little older than that. Actually, it's a lot older than that.
It goes back to Greek mythology. In the Homeric hymn to Apollo, Trophonius, a mythological hero, built Apollo's temple at the oracle at Delphi with his brother, Agamedes. Once finished, the oracle told the brothers to do whatsoever they wished for six days and, on the seventh, their greatest wish would be granted. They did and were found dead on the seventh day. The saying "those whom the gods love die young" comes from this story. An alternative version of the story has it that they built a treasure chamber (with secret entrance only they knew about) for King Hyprieus of Boeotia. Using the secret entrance, they stole Hyprieus' fortune. He was aware but did not know who the thief was; he laid a snare. Agamedes was trapped in it; Trophonius cut off his head so that Hyprieus would not know who the body in the snare was. He then fled into the cavern at Lebadaea, and disappeared forever. Man, those Greeks could sure spin a good yarn.
Down through the years it came to be "only the good die young". So why do we choose to say something along these lines when we outlive someone younger that ourselves? I never have, but I've heard it said many times. I suppose the obvious reason is to honour them in death. Really though, isn't their "goodness" relative? How many times have you heard someone refer to a mutual acquaintance or co-worker as good when you hold the opposite view?
But we're not supposed to speak ill of the dead. Unless it's pretty much universally agreed that the subject was evil as could be. Still, it makes me wonder. I've never had any problem speaking my mind about someone who's died it I really do feel the world is a better place without them. I'm not so crass as to speak my mind in front of anyone who would take offence, but neither will I say anything good about him or her if I really can't think of a good word to say, and yes, there have been such individuals passing through my life. Let's face it; some people really do leave the world a slightly better place with their passing. There are many historical figures that could be named in this regard.
Evil bastards die young too, though. We recently had a paranoid gun-nut here in New Zealand who killed an unarmed cop and passer-by in cold blood simply because the police had come to do a search on his house. He shot the cop in the back as he was leaving to defuse the situation. He critically wounded two other cops, then barricaded himself in his house and spent two days taking pot shots at his neighbour's houses and the police until he finally turned a gun on himself. He was young. Not real young, but young. Good riddance.
There are plenty of other instances that come up in the news all the time. So the saying is patently untrue, and yet it continues to be a popular saying. Human nature, I guess. Me, I expect I'll live to be 203. :-)
When trying to prove their theory, evolutionists often use circular reasoning. Here's a simple example. In his book The Making of the Fittest, Sean Carroll writes "the degree of similarity in DNA is an index of the [evolutionary] relatedness of species." [98] This can only make sense if we first assume evolution is true. But Carroll's book is a defense of evolution, intended to demonstrate to skeptics that the theory is true. He seeks to prove evolution is true, but he begins with evolutionary reasoning and interpretations. That is circular reasoning. Unfortunately such circular reasoning is a common motif in the evolution genre.
In recent years the genomes of various species have been decoded. It is an avalanche of disparate data, as genomes can contain a variety of types of messages. For evolutionists, these messages hold many secrets of evolutionary history. If the species share common ancestors, then the contents of their genomes should help decipher that evolutionary history.
For instance, mobile genetic elements are genome segments that can move about, inserting themselves at various locations within the genome. These insertions, according to evolutionists, are a random affair. After all, evolutionists assume that life is a fluke, and biology is one big kludge.
A few years back evolutionists claimed that retroviruses found in primate genomes proved common descent. The retroviruses, it was said, were the perfect evolutionary sign post. They were assumed to insert randomly into the genome and once inserted to stay put. Therefore, if two cousin species shared a similar pattern of retroviruses, then those retroviruses must have been inherited from a common ancestor. It would be too great of a coincidence for the retroviruses to have independently inserted into the two genomes (notice the circular reasoning).
These assumptions are routinely revised. Retroviruses patterns were found that cannot be explained by common descent (e.g., same pattern in only two of three cousin species). Apparently the retroviruses were not such perfect evolutionary sign posts as had been assumed. But evolutionists viewed such cases as anomalies, and rationalized them using ad hoc explanations. In fact I recently received a challenge to find a retrovirus that violates the evolutionary expectation. That's easy. Such falsifiers have long since been discovered. They are just not advertised.
This dynamic has repeated itself with other types of genetic messages, such as pseudogenes and interspersed elements. Here is what Carroll had to say about the latter:
These landmarks are produced by accidental insertions of junk DNA sequences near genes. ... Once [an interspersed element] is inserted, there is no active mechanism for removing it. The insertion of these elements marks a gene in a species, and is then inherited by all species descended from it. They are really perfect tracers of genealogy. [99]
Except, that is, when they aren't. Like retroviruses, and pseudogenes, interspersed elements occasionally violate the evolutionary pattern. Apparently they are not quite such "perfect tracers of genealogy." To be sure, such outliers are unusual, but if they can be explained by mechanism (rather than inheritance), then so can the others. Carroll concludes that the interspersed elements:
can be explained only by the species sharing a common ancestor. ... biologists have sufficient forensic evidence to determine species' kinship beyond any doubt. [99]
This is, of course, false. In fact, interspersed elements patterns are explained without resorting to a common ancestor and the tremendous problems with such an explanation.
Pulling up in front of the meeting place, Artie revved the engine a couple of times to make sure they'd look out the window and see him. They did. Satisfied, he got out and went inside.
Carlos was leaning on a desk giving him the hairy eyeball and Artie knew how things were going to go down, but he had no choice. If he hadn't shown for the meet they'd have come for him, and kept on coming. There was nowhere to hide. This had to play out here and now. He walked to the middle of the room and looked at each of them in turn.
Ben wouldn't return his gaze. Harry was smirking at him, the bastard. That was Harry through and through. He'd really enjoy the evening. For a while, anyway. Artie smiled and didn't say a word.
Carlos gave him the evils for a minute longer, then spoke.
"Still got that nice ride, I see. Did you put the 350 Holley in it like you said you were gonna do?"
Artie smiled. "Sure did. Runs like a bandit. Maybe I'll let you spin it some time."
Carlos cocked his head. "Damn white of you, Artie. You know why you're here?"
"You called because you missed me?"
Carlos lost his grin. "Listen, asshole, this ain't no party. Me and the boys ain't happy about that last batch you cooked up for us. Word on the street is that it isn't up to standard. What's up with that?"
"That's bullshit, is what that is, Carlos. My guess is its Frankie putting the bad word in people's ears. He's got a problem with me, that's all."
Carlos moved around the table and put his arm around Artie's shoulder. "Artie, Artie, Artie. You wouldn't be trying to blow smoke up my ass, now would you?" He shifted and put both hands on Artie's shoulders and looked him the eyes.
"No, Carlos, I..."
Carlos head-butted him with all his might. Artie hit the floor like a 200-pound barbell. Walking around him in circles, Carlos went on. "You see Artie, I can't have my reputation getting all dirtied up, now can I?"
Artie groaned and rubbed his forehead. "Damn, Carlos, what the hell!"
Carlos reached down and pulled him to his feet. Harry came from behind and pinned him as Carlos rabbit punched him in the breadbasket hard and fast a couple of times. Artie could feel something tear, but he didn't make a sound. Ben stood to the side awaiting instructions.
"You see, Artie, you're costing me here. It's not like you're the only cook around. You've got a reputation, sure, but I can't help thinking you screwed me here. I don't like thinking somebody's screwed me, Artie.
Seeing the next punch coming, Artie rolled with it, feeling a couple of teeth loosening. He spit out blood.
"Ouch. That don't look so good, Artie. How you feelin'?" Artie smiled at Ben as best he could.
"Like a million dollars, Ben. Your girlfriend was real good to me last night."
Ben was faster than Artie had ever seen him. His fists were a blur. When he was done Artie was barely conscious. Carlos went to the desk for a glass of water and threw it in his face.
"Stay with me, sunshine. We're not through here. I want to know where the stuff is you made the last batch with. I need to see this with my own eyes."
Artie shook his head and looked up. "Sure, Carlos. It's all at my place. You remember how to get there?"
Carlos nodded. "Harry, Ben, tie him to that chair. We're gonna go for a ride."
Artie reached in his pocket and threw his keys to Carlos. "There's my house key, right next to the ignition key."
Carlos looked the keys over. "You know, I think we'll take that spin you offered, Artie. You won't be needing the car now, will you?"
Artie didn't say a word as they tied him up, he just glared at Carlos. They were laughing as they left, locking the door behind them, so they didn't see or hear Artie doing the same.
Five seconds later as Carlos turned the key in the ignition the blast blew out the windows and knocked the chair Artie was tied to across the room, smashing it and loosening the rope.
Artie got up painfully and headed for the back door. It was going to be a long walk back to town.
Evolution, the theory that natural processes created all life, is mandated by the religious belief that God would not have created our world. Ironically, a belief about God underwrites a theory that helped fuel the rejection of God. But atheists today remain as dependent on religion as ever.
Here is a simple example. Atheists argue that the world is not as we would expect if God had created it. Therefore the world must have evolved and God is superfluous. Notice that this makes evolution a fact, not merely a theory. Sound familiar?
And notice that this is a religious argument. It depends on assumptions about what God would and would not create. It doesn't matter whether the science supports evolution (it doesn't), one way or another evolution must be true. Here is an example from PZ Myers, writing in the LA Times about how he analyzes religion:
We go right to the central issue of whether there is a god or not. We're pretty certain that if there were an all-powerful being pulling the strings and shaping history for the benefit of human beings, the universe would look rather different than it does.
That is a religious argument. Myers' conclusion depends on what he believes about God. God wouldn't make life difficult. God wouldn't create patterns in the fossil species. God wouldn't create similarities between species. It makes no difference that evolution does not explain how life, in all its incredible forms, actually arose. It does not matter that evolution is consistently wrong--it must be right. Our religion depends on it.
Evolutionists such as Myers have been duped by religion. They use it and they depend on it, but they imagine they are free of it.
I have been fascinated by Papua New Guinea for several years now. It's a place I would very much like to visit, and a few years ago I did quite a bit of research into doing exactly that, only to find it was horrendously expensive. To really do it right, and that means flying into the interior, to the Sepik River region and cruising the river in order to reach the villages and really get the full experience runs in excess of $1000 a day per person.
Someday I'm going to go. In the mean time I continue to learn more about the place. I collect artefacts from there, including storyboards, masks and ancestor carvings. It is truly one of the last unspoiled, primitive places on earth.
Papua occupies the eastern half of the island of New Guinea in the south-western Pacific. It is part of the area known as Melanesia. Its capital, and one of its few major cities, is Port Moresby. Truly one of the most diverse countries in the world, with over 850 indigenous languages and at least as many traditional societies, out of a population of just under 6 million.
Papua is also one of the world's least explored regions, culturally and geographically, and many undiscovered species of plants and animals are thought to exist in the interior of Papua New Guinea. It wouldn't surprise me if future breakthroughs in cures for diseases ends up coming from there.
It has a very rugged geography. A range of mountains runs the length of the island of New Guinea, forming a populous highlands region. Dense rainforests can be found in the lowland and coastal areas. Papua New Guinea gained its independence from Australia in 1975. It remains a Commonwealth realm.
PNG is an ancient place. Human remains have been found which have been dated to about 50,000 years ago. The inhabitants probably had their origins in Southeast Asia. A major migration of Austronesian speaking peoples came to coastal regions roughly 2,500 years ago, and this is correlated with the introduction of pottery, pigs, and certain fishing techniques. Little was known in the West about the island until the nineteenth century. There are hundreds of ethnic groups indigenous to Papua New Guinea, the majority being from the group known as Papuans, whose ancestors arrived in the New Guinea region tens of thousands of years ago. The others are Austronesians, their ancestors having arrived in the region less than four thousand years ago.
There are three official languages for Papua New Guinea. English is an official language, and is the language of government and the education system, but it is not widely spoken. The primary spoken language is Tok Pisin (commonly known in English as New Guinea Pidgin or Melanesian Pidgin). The only area where Tok Pisin is not prevalent is the southern region of Papua, where people often use the third official language, Hiri Motu.
The culture of Papua New Guinea is very complex. It is believed that more than a thousand different cultural groups exist in PNG. Because of this diversity, many different styles of cultural expression have emerged; each group has created its own expressive forms in art, dance, weaponry, costumes, singing, music and architecture.
What inspired me to write about Papua today was a newspaper article from Port Moresby, the capital. Police in Kerema, on the south-western coast arrested four people, members of a cult, who had murdered and eaten a woman. Ironically, the killers were enticed to act by being bribed with foodstuffs. Cannibalism, though, has a long history in PNG, as it does in most of Melanesia, especially Fiji. Stories are told of it being the women who first enticed the men to kill other people for food, as they had grown bored with the usual fare. The odd thing about the news story is that the events took place in a city. Usually it's confined to the mountainous interior.
PNG is indeed a wild place with a culture that is still very primitive despite continual contact with the western world. I will go there one day. I must. There is no other place like it on earth.
Another week, another "junk DNA" claim disproven. And this time in rather dramatic fashion. The headline reads "Research team finds important role for junk DNA." That's putting mildly. The "junk" DNA genes "spur an almost acrobatic rearrangement of the entire genome" of the humble protozoan, Oxytricha.
Early discoveries of "junk" DNA function were a bit more mundane. For instance, some segments were found to have a structural role. To be sure, structural roles actually are complex, and it is not good science to think mutations constructed such a marvel. Later, the "junk" DNA was found to be responsible for massive, sophisticated gene regulation. Pretty amazing. But now we have the rearranging of the entire genome. Biology doesn't seem to understand evolution. But evolutionists don't give up easily--after all, it's a fact.
Taking another sip of beer, Jeff eyed his buddy over the glass and tried to find the right words, but as usual they just wouldn't come. Meanwhile, Jerry continued to wax lyrical.
"...So last night she says to me, hey, you know what? You're the sexiest man I've ever met. Can you believe that?"
Jeff nearly choked on his beer. "No, Jerry, I sure can't." Wiping his mouth, he added under his breath, "Are you sure she wasn't laughing when she said it?"
"What was that?"
"Oh, nothing. Just thinking out loud. So, you wanna go fishing tomorrow? I hear they're really biting out at the lake."
"Oh, man, that would be great, but I'll have to see if Sheila has anything planned first."
"What? Now look, Jerry, this is..."
"It'll probably be fine, just let me check, all right? Sheesh."
Jeff bit his tongue and changed the subject. "I wonder what the score is in the game. I'm gonna ask the bartender to turn on the set." He wandered off to the bar shaking his head. When he got back Jerry was sitting there staring off into space with a dreamy look on his face.
"You know, Jerry..."
"Did I tell you what she said the other day about my car? She said it really suited me. That only a macho guys like me look good driving cars like that. She always knows just the right thing to say. I wonder how she does it."
Jeff couldn't believe what he was hearing. "Yeah, that's some spooky talent all right. You'd think she was psychic or something." I've got to say something soon, he thought to himself.
"Anyway, I can't believe how lucky I am, you know? I mean, she could have any guy she wanted, she's so hot."
Jeff couldn't resist rolling his eyes. "Yeah, well, I guess she's just got really good taste. Or something."
"Aw, thanks, man. I'm really lucky to have you for a best friend, you know that?"
Feeling like a jerk, Jeff tried to work up his courage. "Listen, Jerry, I think you should..."
"You know what really amazes me though? The way she's always so happy. She never complains about anything. Maybe I shouldn't be telling you this, it's really personal, but she's also, you know, always ready." Jerry winked at his friend.
Excusing himself to go to the bathroom, Jeff simply had to get away for a minute. Washing his hands, he gave himself a good talking to in the mirror. He's your best friend. He needs to hear the truth. But what if he can't handle the truth? He's so happy. But he's also delusional. How could he...no, it had to be done. I'm his friend; I should be looking out for him. Even if it's hard. Gotta do the right thing.
He headed back to the table and there was Jerry again with that dopey look on his face. Man, this was bad.
"Listen, Jerry, we need to talk. I..."
"You having some sort of trouble, Jeff? I'm here for you man. You can talk to me about anything. Really. What is it?"
"Well, it's just...it's about Sheila. You see..."
"Oh, wait a minute! Don't tell me you're falling for my woman! Oh man, how could you Jeff? You're my best friend, I thought I could trust you!"
"What? No. No, that's not it!" Jeff drained his beer. This wasn't going well. "Look, Jerry, I know you're really happy with her, but you need to come back down to earth man, she's..."
"She's what? You better watch what you say, man! She's my girl. Don't you start talking crap about her."
Picking up Jerry's beer and draining that one too, Jeff looked his friend in the eye. "Listen Jerry, I think you need to get yourself in to therapy. This thing has gone too far. You're in love with a..."
"With a what? A slut? Is that what you're trying to say? She's not a slut! I mean, yeah, she's always willing, but..."
"Damn it, Jerry, listen to me! If I stuck a pin in her she'd deflate! You need help, man!"
Jerry jumped up and put his hands on his hips. "You know what, Jeff? You're just jealous because we're in love. You're a cruel man, Jeff!" With that, he turned and left.
What was the worst example of evolutionary exaggeration this week? The contrived mega hoopla surrounding the primate fossil, Darwinius massillae, right? Wrong. True, the hoopla is so extreme it would seem to be a parody. Years from now, when scholars sift through the mountains of evolutionary nonsense, trying to figure out how it could have happened, the Darwinius massillae episode will probably rank as a spectacular icon. Like a vacant mansion from the gilded age, this episode will serve as the ultimate example of the unsustainable and vacuous non science we are witnessing.
But amazingly the silly evidential claims of Darwinius massillae are standard fare for the evolution genre. Evolutionists routinely top this example, and they did this week with the headline that announced:
Mystery of how life on Earth began solved by British scientists: Scientists in Britain have solved the mystery of how life on Earth evolved from molecules when the planet was devoid of life four billion years ago.
Granted this was a merely a headline, but the article did not help much. How could it? The headline is nothing short of outrageous (the scientists did nothing of the sort). But it is not particularly unusual. Evolutionists, and the subservient media, have a long history of such reporting. It makes the Darwinius massillae affair look downright sober.
How much do you use search engines to find information? If you do it quite a bit there's research that shows that's a good thing indeed. That is, if you're middle-aged or older. If you're young, maybe not so much.
Scientists at University of California Los Angeles have found that for those of us who are over the hill Web searching triggers activates key brain centers that control decision-making and complex reasoning skills. It may, in fact, improve and stimulate brain functioning overall. The study is the first to assess the impact of Web searching on brain functions. Given how long the Internet has been around, it's surprising that it's taken so long for such a study to be conducted, but the results are surprising.
The head researcher on the project, Dr. Gary Small, a professor at the Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior at UCLA had this to say: "The study results are encouraging, that emerging computerized technologies may have physiological effects and potential benefits for middle-aged and older adults. Internet searching engages complicated brain activity, which may help exercise and improve brain function."
Apparently, as we age the brain undergoes structural and functional changes. There is reduction in cell activity, increases in deposits of amyloid plaques and tau tangles, which can impact cognitive function, and even outright atrophy. Pursuing activities that keep the mind engaged may help preserve brain health and cognitive ability. That much has been known for quite some time now. I recall a study awhile back that recommended crossword puzzles and such as a way to stave off Alzheimer's disease.
In conducting the study, the team at UCLA used 24 research volunteers between the ages of 55 and 76, all with normal, healthy brains. Half of them had experience in Internet searching, the other half had no experience. All of the participants were of similar age and background.
Web searches and book reading tasks were performed by the participants while undergoing magnetic resonance imaging scans, which recorded the subtle brain-circuitry changes experienced during these activities. The scans were used to track the intensity of cell responses in the brain. This is accomplished by measuring the level of cerebral blood flow during the cognitive tasks.
There was major brain activity recorded in the appropriate centers during the book reading task, but there was a difference when it came to the Internet searches. The participants with Internet search experience also registered activity in the frontal, temporal and cingulate areas of the brain, which control decision-making and complex reasoning.
Dr. Gary Small again: "Our most striking finding was that Internet searching appears to engage a greater extent of neural circuitry that is not activated during reading — but only in those with prior Internet experience."
During Web searching, volunteers with prior experience registered a twofold increase in brain activation when compared with those with little Internet experience. Apparently the decisions required in order to pursue more information stimulate the brain more than simply reading a book. Dr. Small theorized that spending more time doing searches might well catch up the inexperienced group relative to the others. He added that the minimal brain activation found in the less experienced Internet group may be due to participants not quite grasping the strategies needed to successfully engage in an Internet search, which is common while learning a new activity.
So by all means, start searching! It's good for your brain, and it may keep you from forgetting where you left the car keys.
Evolution always predicts simplicity, and it always seems to be wrong. If all life arose from muddy water then it probably isn’t very cleverly designed. Evolutionists always seem to assume that biological designs are crude, if even functional. And biology, apparently unaware of evolution, continues to reveal sophistication and complexity. Here’s an everyday example.
In genes that code for proteins, some nucleotides in the DNA sequence can be switched without altering the protein sequence. This is because the DNA code is degenerate: there are 64 codons (i.e., 4^3 DNA nucleotide triplets) but only 20 amino acids, so different codons often code for the same amino acid. In other words, certain nucleotides can be switched without altering the encoded amino acid. Such nucleotide changes are referred to as silent or synonymous replacements.
Evolutionists figured this code, and its degeneracy, was a big fluke. The DNA code arose from muddy water, so what would you expect? No wonder it is degenerate. And a consequence of this evolutionary thinking was that the silent replacements don’t matter. After all, they don’t alter the protein sequence, and since biology is nothing more than one big kludge, there can’t be any other significant function for the gene sequence.
It is yet another example where evolutionary thinking has set back science. Not only is the DNA code profoundly subtle and complex, but silent replacements do matter, for a variety of reasons. One of those reasons that has been understood for decades is that although a silent replacement does not alter the protein sequence, it does alter the intermediate, mRNA, transcript, and mRNA stability (or should I say instability) is important. Like a blueprint folding up on itself in the wind, if the mRNA transcript is too stable it will fold up. Then it is difficult to translate into a sequence of amino acids. In other words, mRNA needs to be somewhat unstable.
In spite of the importance of even silent replacements in DNA, evolutionists routinely view them as practically neutral, having little effect one way or another. A recent paper reinforced the importance of these silent replacements. This research showed that protein production can vary substantially (by up to two orders of magnitude) when silent replacements are inserted, because the mRNA stability is altered.
Another surprise for evolutionists. As one science writer explained, for evolutionists, “these results fundamentally change the understanding of the role of synonymous mutations, which were previously considered evolutionarily neutral.”
How do ants know where they are going? As the Discovery Channel reports, they have their own built-in GPS system.* It seems that tiny magnets in the ant antennae provide a "biological compass needle." And the system has a low carbon-footprint. Ants are not responsible for global warming.
The presence of magnetic material, as part of a navigational system, is nothing new in biology. It has been observed in a wide array of organisms including, of course, homing pigeons. Nonetheless, we still do not fully understand the inner workings. Figuring out how these magnetic marvels work is a worthy challenge, as the Discovery Channel article explains:
Nanotechnologists have their eye on such ant, bird and other nature-made GPS systems, as they could in future lead to more accurate drug targeting in humans, and might even serve as tiny data storage devices. While insects and animals seem to either get their magnetic materials from dirt or otherwise produce them, the crystals apparently aren't so easy to recreate in a lab. According to Fleissner and her team, "Even though birds have been producing these particles for millions of years, the main problem for scientists who want to find benefits from their use will be the technical production of these particles."
Biology is full of these high-tech devices which leave evolution in the dust. Sadly, evolutionists have no choice but insist on the non-scientific mutation-to-marvels creation story.
* This navigational system in ants actually bears little resemblance to the Global Positioning System, aside from the fact that both systems fall under the broad category of Navigation.
Trent opened his eyes and was alert instantly. The mission that had been on his mind for days took hold of him as never before. It was time. The hour was right, he just knew it. He got up and stretched and looked about. The light was beginning to fade. The shadows were lengthening and the air was still. The perfect conditions for his mission. He moved quickly outdoors and scanned the woods. Yes. This was the day. He could sense it. He would make the kill. All would be well.
It had been awhile since he had made a decent offering to the tribe. No one made a big deal of it, but his pride was at stake. He must prove himself. He was a mighty hunter, he would show them. One was only as good as one's last kill. They knew he was loyal, of course. They would never shun him; still it was the right thing to do, to make obeisance. It was ingrained in his nature, and he knew without doubt it was expected of him.
He moved along the path, his every sense on full alert. He hadn't seen his prey for days, but he knew exactly where to look. He reached the area quickly and looked about for a good vantage point. He found some heavy growth with a clear view of the place he believed the target would appear. He had run it to ground twice, and this was where it had disappeared both times. It had to live near by.
Sitting down to keep watch, he was occasionally distracted by sudden sounds all around him, but he would not take his eye off the patch of ground he was intent on. After awhile he decided to sharpen his weapons and took up position by a nearby tree.
He waited for over an hour but it was no use. There should have been a sighting, but nothing. A breeze was rising, and he was upwind of the site, and that was no good. The prey would be aware of him. He was growing hungry anyway, so he gave up the hunt and headed back home. He would return at dawn. He had much luck at that hour in the past. He would prevail, he knew he would.
He slept fitfully that night, waking when the small mysterious noises that so often come in the dark came to him. His night vision was excellent and he knew nothing could sneak up on him, so he simply drifted off to sleep each time.
Finally he sensed the first light coming through the window. He got up quietly, drank some water and did his morning ablutions. At last it was time to set out once more. He moved smoothly down the path once more, he knew it so well now that he could sense even the smallest change. Everything was as it should be. There had been no activity here.
He couldn't understand why he hadn't seen his prey for days. Usually they were plentiful, but now it was as if the were gone. Yet he knew this couldn't be true. Here and there he had seen evidence that they still lived in these woods. He would find them. He would make the kill and he would prove himself yet again, as he had done so many times before. His pride swelled as he thought of previous conquests.
He reached his hiding place with a renewed sense of determination. This time it would happen. If they had not been out all night then surely they must come out to forage now, at the crack of dawn. He hoped their defences would be down since they had not been hunted for days. It would make his job easier. As he crouched in readiness he caught a blur of movement out of the corner of his eye. He stared intently, and suddenly, there it was! It ran quickly a short ways along the path, stopped and looked about, listening intently.
He didn't move a muscle. He waited patiently for the right moment. He would only get one chance. He needed to wait until it's back was to him to make his move. His prey sat still for what seemed like a very long time, then, just as he had hoped it turned directly away from him. Before it could make another move took aim and made his move.
George sat up and stretched. Looking out the window he smiled at the beautiful sunrise that was lighting up the morning sky. A cup of tea was in order, he decided. He would relax with his newspaper and enjoy the quiet before Martha awoke. He put on his slippers and headed for the kitchen. Before he could reach the light switch he felt something soft and squishy under foot.
Oh good God, no, he thought to himself. Please don't let it be what I think it is. He looked down and before he could stop himself he cursed a blue streak that brought a grumpy enquire from his wife, whom he had roused from her sleep.
"George, what's going on down there?"
Muttering to himself under his breath he went to get something to clean up the mess with. "It's Trent. That damned cat has killed another rat. Why the hell does he have to bring them in the house?"
Insect flight is fascinating. It seems to defy engineering principles and the old joke is that it is impossible. (As body size reduces the lift force becomes weaker than the body weight, and viscosity effects also cause problems). Now we understand better how it can be possible, and we're continuing to learn more of the details. A recent paper reporting on creative new research on insect flight control reveals some interesting aspects of the visual flight speed response in fruit flies. Insects, like subatomic particles, are difficult to measure without disturbing. Past experiments often relied on tethering the flies–hardly a natural environment. This new paper reports on research using a wind tunnel with controlled light patterns to better understand how the fly's visual system controls flight. The researchers found that:
To control flight speed, the visual system of the fruit fly extracts linear pattern velocity robustly over a broad range of spatio–temporal frequencies. The speed signal is used for a proportional control of flight speed within locomotor limits. The extraction of pattern velocity over a broad spatio–temporal frequency range may require more sophisticated motion processing mechanisms than those identified in flies so far. ... Finally, the high-level control principles identified in the fly can be meaningfully transferred into a robotic context, such as for the robust and efficient control of autonomous flying micro air vehicles.
In recent years autonomous, uncrewed flight vehicles have become increasingly common. Of course leaving out the crew can be useful for dangerous missions, but the absence of any personnel also allows for very small vehicles. There are applications for micro flight vehicles, and this work adds to a growing body of research on how the sophisticated designs of insects can be of use in such vehicles.
Alfred North Whitehead once observed that we often take our most crucial assumptions to be obvious and in no need of justification. These underlying assumptions are unspoken and undefended because, as Whitehead put it, "Such assumptions appear so obvious that people do not know what they are assuming because no other way of putting things has ever occurred to them.” This week a new paper describes a beautiful primate fossil which evolutionists claim as powerful evidence for their theory. In fact, evolutionists have orchestrated an instant sensation out of the find. Journalists across the board obediently relayed the evolutionary message to their readers, listeners and viewers, and movies, books, documentaries and web sites are in the works. It will be a multi media extravaganza.
Why all the hype? It is not merely because we now have a beautifully preserved early primate fossil. While this is certainly cause for celebration in the paleontology department, it would not qualify for the evening news. The excitement is because of what Darwinius is thought to portend for evolution. The fossil is supposed to be an important puzzle piece in primate evolution, and therefore human evolution. And that's big news. But behind all the hype lies an unspoken and unrecognized assumption that has nothing to do with scientific research.
It seems so obvious that evolutionists would laugh to think it even needs to be explained: similarity implies evolution. As one evolutionist quipped, if an intelligent being had designed both a fish and Sophia Loren from scratch, there’s no way, if evolution hadn’t occurred, that her arm would have had any internal resemblance to the fish.
That's a funny way to put it, but it is no joke. This sentiment comes from a non scientific, theological tradition that has been influential for centuries. It is one of the core religious components of evolutionary thought, and it has deeply penetrated today's science. This new primate fossil is not merely viewed as a new specimen to add to our understanding of species from the past. It is taken as yet more proof of evolution, and this will be the message in the media blitz to come.
But similarities between species are not necessarily a result of evolution. In fact, that idea has substantial scientific problems. But the mandate for evolution doesn't come from science, it comes from religion. The Darwinius masillae story is yet another example of this influence, and why it is important. Consider this recent example from PZ Myers' blog:
The evolution of whales is also a matter of fact and evidence. We have the fossils; we can see a pattern of change across geological time, from those hooved terrestrial quadrupeds to flippered ambush predators adapted to living in the shallows to four-flippered, paddle-tailed swimmers to obligate water-dwellers with flukes and no hind limbs, with many stages in between. It is a beautiful and strongly-supported example of macroevolutionary change. So yes, we believe it — you'd have to be blind to ignore the testimony of the rocks.
There are three fallacies in this single paragraph, but they aren't fallacies to evolutionists. Given the religious beliefs of evolutionists, such evolutionary thinking makes perfect sense. The most obvious of Myers' fallacies is his affirming of the consequent. If a theory makes a prediction that is found to be true, this does not prove the theory to be true. However, if the theory, and only the theory, can make that particular prediction, then the successful prediction does prove the theory true. As Elliott Sober put it, evolution relies on contrastive thinking. Or as Ernst Mayr put it, evolution is proven by the default of the alternatives.
And how do evolutionists know that only their theory can create the fossil patterns we find? Such a claim, of course, goes far outside science. Such a claim entails religious knowledge not available to science, and not vulnerable to scientific findings. With evolutionary thinking, the logic switches from if P then Q, to if and only if P, then Q. The grammatical difference is slight but the effect is huge. The former is scientific, the latter is religious. The former refers to a particular theory, the latter presumes knowledge of all explanations.
PZ Myers thinks of himself as a voice of reason, free of religious motivation. Like the fish which is unaware it is in water, Myers and the evolutionists are so steeped in religious committment that they are unaware of it. As Whitehead observed, the undefended assumptions are the important ones. For "such assumptions appear so obvious that people do not know what they are assuming because no other way of putting things has ever occurred to them.”