Creationism News – June 2013 创造论新闻– 2013年6月

Creationism News – June 2013 创造论新闻– 2013年6月
Dedicated to David Coppedge who sacrificed his career as the Head Systems Administrator for the Cassini Spacecraft in JPL to honor the Creator of the Universe. He also spent literally thousands of hours to make his excellent websites. The contents of this presentation were taken from David Coppedge’s website Pray for his fast recovery from cancer surgery. Pastor Chui 10/1/2017 1

Genetic Dating Can Fool Scientists 遗传年龄可以欺骗科学家
The dates of some human migrations could have been much more recent than genetic data indicates. What of even older dates? In “Archaeological Genetics: It’s Not All as Old as It at First Seems,” Science Daily reported on work published in Investigative Genetics that indicated data on migrations in the Netherlands fits recent population movements just as well as “ancient” ones: These results could be explained by invoking movement of ancient, Paleolithic-Neolithic humans, similar to that proposed to explain the genetic diversity across central entire Europe. However the data also fits a model involving movement of people within the last 70 generations of modern Dutch, for which there is a wealth of archaeological evidence. 10/1/2017 2

Consequently, “patterns of genetic diversity which indicate population movement may not be as ancient as previously believed, but may be attributable to recent events.” The authors of the open-access paper cautioned colleagues “future human population genetic studies pay more attention to recent demographic history in interpreting genetic clines.” See press release from BioMed Central. 10/1/2017 3

Interpretation Run Amok It would seem, therefore, that if data from the most recent millennia can be misinterpreted, that the uncertainties would mount when interpreting older data. Yet paleoanthropologists routinely speak confidently about supposed events tens of thousands, if not millions, of years ago. If genetic data can be misinterpreted, the same pitfalls can occur with other data, such as artifacts. For example, in “When Did Humans Begin Hurling Spears?” Science Now pointed out that the answer varies from 90,000 to 500,000 evolutionary years ago, depending on how one interprets markings on bones. 10/1/2017 4

Nature News claims that “hominid footprints” 1.52 million years old, “probably” from Homo erectus or Paranthropus, show that the walkers were the same size as modern humans, based on inferences of “stature, body mass and walking speed” compared with those of modern Kenyan barefoot walkers. Science News presented a new hypothesis about why apes descended from the trees that “challenges evolutionary theories behind the development of our earliest ancestors from tree dwelling quadrupeds to upright bipeds capable of walking and scrambling.” A paleoanthopologist published a novel theory that “challenges traditional hypotheses which suggest our early forebears were forced out of the trees and onto two feet when climate change reduced tree cover.” Instead, Dr. Isabelle Winder (U of York) thinks it was a response to geological changes: 10/1/2017 5

“The broken, disrupted terrain offered benefits for hominins in terms of security and food, but it also proved a motivation to improve their locomotor skills by climbing, balancing, scrambling and moving swiftly over broken ground — types of movement encouraging a more upright gait.” The research suggests that the hands and arms of upright hominins were then left free to develop increased manual dexterity and tool use, supporting a further key stage in the evolutionary story. Aside from sounding Lamarckian, this theory begs the question of why all the other animals in the terrain did not develop upright posture and tool use. 10/1/2017 6

Another example borders on the ridiculous. Rob Brooks, in an article posted by Medical Xpress, used Arnold Schwarzenegger’s biceps as support for the notion of a “link between male upper-body strength and assertion of economic self-interest.” (See 5/18/03 story and comments). Brooks unwittingly committed his own show of brute force by referring to Creation-Evolution Headlines as “nutbaggery” while trying to simultaneously backpeddle from the idea that evolutionary forces dictate our politics. “The value of this paper is in showing how our evolved biology and our contemporary politics can interlink in interesting ways, creating nuanced individual differences,” he explained. Very interesting, indeed. Any predictions from this notion? Any way to falsify it? 10/1/2017 7

Always Room for Doubt A few paleoanthropologists are aware of the problems of interpreting data. For instance, Nature recently questioned whether Australopithecus sediba has anything to do with the emergence of the genus Homo. In “Hesitation on Human History,” William H. Kimbel wrote, “I do not think that they provide compelling evidence that this species is anything other than an unusual australopith [ape] from a Pliocene–Pleistocene time period that is already populated by a fair number of them.” Evolutionists Simon E. Fisher and Matt Ridley in Science Magazine (“Culture, Genes and the Human Revolution”) first praised the techniques available for genetic research before cautioning about interpretation: 10/1/2017 8

State-of-the-art DNA sequencing is providing ever more detailed insights into the genomes of humans, extant apes, and even extinct hominins, offering unprecedented opportunities to uncover the molecular variants that make us human. A common assumption is that the emergence of behaviorally modern humans after 200,000 years ago required—and followed—a specific biological change triggered by one or more genetic mutations. For example, Klein has argued that the dawn of human culture stemmed from a single genetic change that “fostered the uniquely modern ability to adapt to a remarkable range of natural and social circumstance”. But are evolutionary changes in our genome a cause or a consequence of cultural innovation…? Many nuanced accounts of human evolution implicitly assume that biological changes must precede cultural changes.… 10/1/2017 9

This prevailing logic in the field may put the cart before the horse. The discovery of any genetic mutation that coincided with the “human revolution” must take care to distinguish cause from effect. Supposedly momentous changes in our genome may sometimes be a consequence of cultural innovation. They may be products of culture-driven gene evolution. 10/1/2017 10

Fisher and Ridley give the example of lactose intolerance as a likely genetic consequence of lifestyle choices by early farmers. They also dispute the relevance of the FOXP2 genetic change that some paleoanthropologists have suggested drove the development of human language. “If, for instance, humanized FOXP2 confers more sophisticated control of vocal sequences, this would most benefit an animal already capable of speech,” they said. “Alternatively, the spread of the relevant changes may have had nothing to do with emergence of spoken language, but may have conferred selective advantages in another domain.” Either way, the interpretation does not jump out of the data. To think science (“prevailing logic”) can be conducted free of human subjectivity would, indeed, put Descartes before the Horace. 10/1/2017 11

Anyone thinking the evolutionary story just leaps out of the data from its own accord needs to study philosophy of science. Data to evolutionists are like colorful pebbles and bits of glass they use to create a mosaic whose image was predetermined by their materialistic world view. Curious, is it not, that to complete their project they have to use intelligent design. Why don’t they just shake the bits on a table and see what “emerges” since emergence (the Stuff Happens Law, 9/15/08) is the theme of their whole story? 10/1/2017 12

Rob Brooks is having a good time at our expense flexing his muscle on his blog against “nutbaggers” instead of answering legitimate questions. Come now, Rob, tell us: does truth evolve? We left that checkmate challenge hanging but he just wants to overturn the table and call it a stupid game. It’s more than a game. It’s a challenge to his credibility. Maybe he should recognize that tens of thousands of people read this website. Our well-educated and sophisticated audience would love to watch if he can wield the sword of logic better than the mudballs of ridicule. 10/1/2017 13

As for bicep politics, maybe Mr. Brooks would like to explain the anti-redistributionism of Sarah Palin, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, and all the other conservatives not particularly known for their upper-body strength. Or how about Nick Vujicic, who has no biceps? Maybe Brooks could entertain the idea that it’s fat, not muscle, that allows men to throw their weight around. Does that explain Rush Limbaugh’s politics? Oh, but we see; Brooks has an escape. Evolution just adds “nuance” to these tendencies. Any exception to his law of nature can just be nuanced away. Well, then, if there’s no law of nature, why call the storytelling science? Notions belong in fabric stores, not the lab (10/14/08). 10/1/2017 14

Brooks laughs at his Yoda Complex. Well, fine. We can all laugh with him. We all know, at the end of the day, it’s just for show. He’s an entertainer, not a philosopher. After his daily storytelling work on the Darwin Light & Magic soundstage, he takes off his latex Yoda costume and behaves like a normal human being, living as if his mental choices matter—ignoring the mutations that the Start Warts script says make him what he is. The fantasy is all CGI, where even truth can evolve. If he insists on manipulating the dork side of the farce (the self-refuting side of illogic), may the farce bewitch him. 10/1/2017 15

Gloria Deo 愿荣耀归上帝 10/1/2017 16

Wonders of the Spliceosome Coming to Light 剪接体的奇迹显露
The more we learn about a vital molecular machine in the nucleus, the spliceosome, the more complex and important it seems. The spliceosome is a large “slicer and dicer” that takes DNA transcripts (messenger RNA) and prepares them for export out of the nucleus, where they will be translated into proteins. Science Daily described what molecular biologists have learned about this amazing multi-function machine: 10/1/2017 17

The process of splicing is carried out by a highly complex molecular machine termed the spliceosome. Human spliceosomes are built up from protein and RNA molecules. They contain some 170 different proteins and five RNA molecules termed “small nuclear RNAs” (snRNAs). It is currently believed that certain snRNAs represent the tools with which the spliceosome carries out the cutting and joining of RNA sections, turning the messenger RNA’s precursor (“pre‑mRNA”) into mature messenger RNA. The proteins of the spliceosome are needed to bring these tools to the right place at the right time, and to set them into operation. 10/1/2017 18

Splicing processes in higher organisms are very highly regulated. In fact, differing patterns of excision and joining of a given pre‑mRNA molecule can lead to any one of a selection of different mature mRNA molecules — all from the same gene. This ability to select the mRNA product according to need is termed “alternative splicing,” and it is thought to be the most important means by which human cells manage to produce a vast spectrum of different proteins from a relatively restricted number of protein-encoding genes. 10/1/2017 19

So far, we’ve seen precision tools that arrive at precision times to do precision jobs. We’ve seen that this multi-part, complex machine, aided by multiple other proteins and small RNA molecules, is capable of turning a transcribed gene into a vast array of protein templates by means of alternative splicing. Years ago, it seemed a mystery why genes contained many apparently useless regions of code, dubbed introns, that had to be cut out of the messenger RNA (see 9/03/2003). The spliceosome’s magic of alternative splicing is providing clues. 10/1/2017 20

The article, based on a press release from the Free University of Berlin, used some pithy analogies to help readers understand the process. One of the tools was likened to a knife in a sheath, that safely moves to the cutting site, waits for a “start signal,” then unsheathes itself and goes to work. The start signal is given by another machine with a “remarkable molecular architecture” that enables the knife. But that start-signal machine is held on a short leash by another machine, preventing it from giving the start signal. That machine acts like a “plug in a stopper,” the researchers said, making sure the start signal is only given at the right time. 10/1/2017 21

But then, the researchers found another machine that works in tandem with the “plug,” regulating the “start signal” independently. “The existence of two or more different mechanisms to regulate the same cellular process underlines the importance of the exact timing of this process for the overall process of RNA splicing,” one of the researchers said. This information is not just academic. “In humans, errors in this control mechanism can lead to blindness.” Could this machine have evolved by chance? The article does not mention evolution. It did say, though, that the spliceosome has some 170 different proteins. Could chance build just one protein? 10/1/2017 22

We in this century are so privileged to get glimpses into the inner workings of life at its most basic level. What would Aristotle or Galen, Leeuwenhoek or Darwin, thought if they knew that machinery—cutting tools, stoppers, regulators and other moving parts—so tiny as to be invisible without highly sophisticated human machinery—were keeping us alive? Every second, every minute we are being upheld by trillions of machines like this that nobody even suspected were possible till the age of molecular biology. 10/1/2017 23

Had Darwin known this, he might never have dared to write a story that blind, unguided processes could explain life. There’s an interesting novella on that theme that was recently presented on ID the Future in audio format, 5 episodes. “I, Charles Darwin” transports the bearded buddha into the 21st century, where he learns about these wonders and responds to them. To encourage you to listen, we won’t spoil the end of the story. 10/1/2017 24

Two More Fossils Challenge Evolution 两个化石挑战进化
One living fossil and one dead fossil strain the credibility of evolutionary dates and mechanisms. Cuttlefish melanin: PhysOrg reported on intact melanin from the ink sac of a Jurassic-era cuttlefish (see also 8/20/02, 5/21/12) . The spectrum of the melanin matches that from a living specimen. The article did not question why an organic substance would be expected to survive for 160 million years. It just assumed that it did, and launched into a speculation: “Because melanin survives so long, an analysis of the melanin from old cancerous tissue samples could give researchers a useful tool for predicting the spread of melanoma skin cancer in humans.” 10/1/2017 26

Israeli frog: The Hula painted frog (no, it does not use a Hula-Hoop), feared extinct 60 years ago, has been rediscovered in Israel, reported the BBC News and National Geographic. Thought to be a casualty of the draining of wetlands in the Hula Valley in northern Israel, this strange-looking brown amphibian with white spots on its belly caused a stir of excitement when a frog, a kind of “idol of Israel” was found alive two years ago. Thirteen more have since been seen, leading to estimates of a couple of hundred remaining alive. 10/1/2017 27

That’s good news, but not the only point of interest: it’s also a “living fossil.” According to the evolutionary timeline, members of the Latonia group of frogs didn’t learn to keep evolving. National Geographic commented, “the Hula painted frog is considered a rare example of a so-called living fossil, an organism that has retained the same form over millions of years and that has few or no living relatives.” The BBC article said, “These frogs were once widespread throughout Europe for millions of years, but all apart from the Hula painted frog died out about 15,000 years ago.” That would appear to make this frog a member of “Lazarus taxa,” groups thought extinct long ago only to be found alive and well today. 10/1/2017 28

National Geographic erred by claiming that “Only about a dozen other ‘living fossils’ are known, the most famous of which may be the coelacanth, an ancient fish that can trace its ancestry back to the days of the dinosaurs.” As explained on CMI, Dr. Carl Werner has documented hundreds of them. Not only that, Dr. Werner has documented 432 mammal fossils (100 of them complete skeletons) in Cretaceous strata—almost as many species as dinosaurs. He has also found representatives of modern plants, crustaceans and insects in dinosaur rocks, as his video explains. Yet in 60 museums he visited, not a single one displayed a complete Cretaceous mammal fossil, or any modern animal or plant displayed with the dinosaurs. 10/1/2017 29

We agree with what Dr. Werner said in the CMI article: For example, if a scientist believes in evolution and sees fossils that look like modern organisms at the dinosaur digs, he/she might invent an hypothesis to ‘explain’ living fossils this way: ‘Yes I believe that animals have changed greatly over time (evolution), but some animals and plants were so well adapted to the environment that they did not need to change. So I am not bothered at all by living fossils.’ This added hypothesis says that some animals did not evolve. But if a theory can be so flexible, adding hypotheses that predict the opposite of your main theory, one could never disprove the theory. The theory then becomes unsinkable, and an unsinkable theory is not science. 10/1/2017 30

Do Confusing Branches Add up to a Darwin Tree? 添加混淆树枝成为达尔文树嗎？
Evolutionists routinely try to construct parts of Darwin’s grand “tree of life” from fossils and genes. Do the parts come together as expected? Camels & mammals: The genome of a Bactrian (two-humped) camel named Mozart was deciphered. According to Science Daily, “The DNA code also represents a rich resource for addressing questions on phylogenetic relationships between animals.” So far, though, all the geneticists found was 85% similarity to the one-humped dromedary camel. They hope it will clarify relationships with llamas and alpacas, too, but that work remains to be done. 10/1/2017 32

Zebrafish & mermaids: Alongside a photo of a lovely lady swimming underwater, Michael Gross wrote in Current Biology, “While we humans tend to have grandiose ideas about our special position in the tree of life, more than 70% of our genes have an obvious orthologue in zebrafish.” Other than telling sweeping stories of evolutionary transitions, Gross only mentioned the coelacanth genome and the zebrafish genome as data, noting that “zebrafish has the largest number of unique genes (3,634) not shared with any of the others” (chicken, mouse, and human). And despite the major changes involved in moving from sea to land, he wrote, “Arthropods must have made the transition at least five times, as researchers have concluded from phylogenetic trees.” 10/1/2017 33

Tree of life is fishy: In “Somethings’s fishy in the tree of life,” Science Daily reported on the largest comparison of fish genes to date, providing data that “dramatically increase understanding of fish evolution and their relationships.” Some assembly required, after disassembling previous assumptions and “proposing” relationships nobody would have expected: While some of the findings provide new support for previously understood fish relationships, others significantly change existing ideas. Many different groupings are proposed in this new tree. For example, tunas and marlins are both fast-swimming marine fishes with large, streamlined bodies, yet they appear on very different branches of the tree. Tunas appear to be more closely related to the small, sedentary seahorses, whereas marlins are close relatives of flatfishes, which are bottom-dwelling and have distinctive asymmetric heads. 10/1/2017 34

Fish & Hips: A short article on Science Daily tries to explain the “fishy origin of our hips.” We’re related to salamanders, by implication: it only took a “few evolutionary steps” to convert fins to hips. Even though humans are thought to be very distant on Darwin’s tree, “the differences between us and them are not as great as they appear — most of the key elements necessary for the transformation to human hips were actually already present in our fish ancestors,” the article alleges. And that’s because “Many of the muscles thought to be ‘new’ in tetrapods evolved from muscles already present in lungfish,” a Monash University evolutionist said. “We also found evidence of a new, more simple path by which skeletal structures would have evolved.” A picture of an axolotl adorns the article—but that’s a salamander, not a fish. 10/1/2017 35

Speaking of salamanders, an article on PhysOrg alleges that the “repeated evolution of high foraging rates in spotted salamanders” shows the “invisible finger of evolution” at work. Quote from the evolutionary spokesman from U of Connecticut: “Finding that adaptive evolution may disguise strong ecological effects means that a range of ecological predictions are likely to be unreliable if we ignore how evolution affects biological communities” — i.e., evolution and ecology are so “inexorably intertwined,” one can mask the other. 10/1/2017 36

Snakes alive, and hopeful lizards: A researcher with his team at George Washington U has built a new evolutionary tree of all lizards and snakes around the globe, 4,161 species in all. “While there are gaps on some branches of the tree,” the lead acknowledged, “the structure of the tree goes a long way toward fully mapping every genus and species group.” He thinks he knows what will fill the gaps, even though the project is preliminary: “this estimate of the squamate tree of life shows us what we do know, and more importantly, what we don’t know, and will hopefully spur even more research on the amazing diversity of lizards and snakes.” 10/1/2017 37

Speaking of lizards, here’s a big one. While listening to music from The Doors, Jason Head (U of Nebraska) found a six-footer he named after Jim Morrison (leader of the rock band, who apparently committed suicide). Thought to have lived 40 million years ago, Barbaturex morrisoni was larger than many of the mammals it munched on. Head attributed today’s paucity of large lizards to climate change. Apparently global temperatures and carbon dioxide levels were much higher back then, even with human smokestacks and automobiles around. “We think the warm climate during that period of time allowed the evolution of a large body size and the ability of plant-eating lizards to successfully compete in mammal faunas,” he said (PhysOrg). Is he proposing reptile size as a function of temperature? Why, then, were there large dinosaurs in the arctic circle? Why are lizards smaller today, to first approximation, in hot as well as cold climates? 10/1/2017 38

Ant what they used to be: How’s the ant branch coming along? Science Daily reported on a new ant family tree that supposedly “Confirms Date of Evolutionary Origin” and “Underscores Importance of Neotropics” in their emergence. Data from genes and fossils were used to build the largest ancestry diagram for ants. According to the phylogenists, “the rainforests of the Neotropics are both a museum, protecting many of the oldest ant groups, and also a cradle that continues to generate new species.” In other words, some evolve and some don’t. “This ant tree-of-life confirmed an earlier surprising finding that two groups of pale, eyeless, subterranean ants, which are unlike most typical ants, are the earliest living ancestors of the modern ants.” It would seem easier to lose eyes than to gain them. 10/1/2017 39

Planting trees in the fast lane: “Biologists have known for a long time that some creatures evolve more quickly than others,” begins an article on PhysOrg. “Exactly why isn’t well understood, particularly for plants.” A new notion is that short plants grow in the “evolutionary fast lane” compared to tall plants. At the U.S. National Evolutionary Synthesis Center, researchers estimated the average height of 140 families of plants, then plotted them against their assumed date of emergence in the fossil record to conclude (to their surprise) that “shorter plants evolved as much as five times faster than taller ones.” Why would that be? They surmised that the tips of small plants generate more mistakes: 10/1/2017 40

What puts short plants in the evolutionary fast lane? The researchers suspect the difference may be driven by genetic changes that accumulate in the actively-dividing cells in the tip of the plant shoot as it grows. Cells don’t copy their DNA perfectly each time they divide. In animals, most DNA copy mistakes that occur in the cells of the animal’s body can’t be inherited—they’re evolutionary dead ends. But this isn’t the case for plants, where genetic changes in any part of the plant could potentially get passed on if those cells eventually form flowers or other reproductive organs. For the notion to work, “the rate of cell division and genome copying in taller plants eventually slows down, and changes in DNA—the raw material for evolution—accumulates less quickly.” Sounds like a hypothesis in need of observation. 10/1/2017 41

Does Darwin need his tree? As reported here May 15, the “tree of life” is a tangled bramble bush, according to an article on Science Daily. Astrobiology Magazine went further to debunk the notion of a “tree of life” with a last universal common ancestor (LUCA). But their idea of “digging down below the tree of life” threatens to uproot it: A family tree unites a diverse group of individuals that all carry genetic vestiges from a single common ancestor at the base of the tree. But this organizational structure falls apart if genetic information is a communal resource as opposed to a family possession. 10/1/2017 42

The article stressed the significance of horizontal gene transfer, Nigel Goldenfield (U of Chicago) stated it this way: “Our perspective is that life emerged from a collective state, and so it is not at all obvious that there is one single organism which was ancestral.” Although this refers to the trunk of the tree, the impact of the new idea flows upward. “In his work,[Peter] Gogarten [U of Connecticut] has shown that horizontal gene transfer turns the tree of life into a thick bush of branches that interweave with each other.” (see also 2/01/07). The new ideas of Carl Woese (1/28/10), Goldenfield and Gogarten are examples of “the evolution of evolution,” the article suggests (see 12/19/07). The group is particularly interested in the question of how the ability to evolve originally developed. The “evolution of evolution” sounds like a chicken-and-egg problem — especially if you think, as Goldenfeld does, that life is by definition something capable of evolving. 10/1/2017 43

However, evolution can utilize different mechanisms to achieve the same goal. Goldenfeld’s team will try to recover some of life’s former evolutionary phases by stressing cells and then seeing how their genomes rearrange in response. It appears, then, that to salvage evolutionary theory, astrobiologists must personify evolution (“evolution can utilize different mechanisms”) and dispense with Darwin’s core concept of unguided natural selection (“to achieve the same goal”). 10/1/2017 44

Goldenfield, a physicist, tries to see evolution in thermodynamics terms in order to come up with rules of “universal biology.” However it is viewed, it’s clear that evolutionists have a long way to go. He said, “We would like to have a better understanding of why life exists at all.” Why does life exist at all? Because it was created. It didn’t just happen. We can say that confidently after showcasing once again the utter bankruptcy of evolutionary theory (10/19/10). Did you catch that the zebrafish has 3,634 unique genes? What’s the probability of those arising without design? 10/1/2017 45

After 154 years of Darwin, evolutionists are not even sure there is a tree of life. Creationists have the certainty of a life-giving, created tree of life: in the beginning and at the end. Don’t be fooled by the mystical divination of modern-day shamans who use mumbo-jumbo like “the evolution of evolution” or “the invisible finger of evolution” to keep their fake tree fable going (2/01/07 commentary), who refuse to acknowledge the clear evidence for design, and who keep promising understanding that never comes. 10/1/2017 46

Evolutionists Strategize to Fight Creation 进化论者战略抗击创造
If evolution were a matter of obvious biological facts, why would it be necessary to list strategies to teach it without exposing it to critical thinking? Nature’s editorial for May 15, “Science in schools,” took aim at creationists, and the Discovery Institute (not a creationist organization, an intelligent design organization) in particular, on the occasion of Eugenie Scott’s retirement (5/09/13) from the National Center for Science Education or NCSE (not an education organization, but an anti-creationist organization). Beyond the usual talking points (e.g., evolution is science, creation is religion; Kitzmiller; the bandwagon argument all scientists accept evolution), the editors suggested three things scientists could do to keep up Eugenie’s fight against Darwin skeptics. 10/1/2017 48

1. Make evolution appear non-atheist. The editors applauded Eugenie Scott’s tactical coup in removing the words “impersonal” and “unsupervised” when the US National Association of Biology Teachers described natural selection that way in a statement. It’s not that Scott believed the converse (that natural selection is supervised or personal); she just didn’t want to make evolution a lightning rod for those who would use such a statement as evidence that Darwinists are atheists. So she argued that there’s a “false dichotomy” between religious people, some of whom believe evolution, and scientists, some of whom might actually believe in some “higher power.” Scott (an atheist herself) argued that “science could not address such questions.” 10/1/2017 49

2. Build coalitions. This strategy is vague enough to allow Darwinists to appear conciliatory while insisting their view is uncontested. They can have their say, as long as they all say the right things: Another strategy is to put together coalitions of people from diverse backgrounds to provide multiple perspectives. Faith-based communities can express concerns about one religious view being favoured over another. Parents can argue for their children’s clear thinking and academic futures. Scientists can talk about the scientific process and why accuracy in schools matters, but should also participate, where applicable, as parents, community members or people of faith. 10/1/2017 50

3. Perform outreach. The third strategy is for scientists to get out and interact with the public more often. The “articulate” ones who can explain the evolutionary view should be recognized and supported by their institutions; “they should bring the same passion to describing the work that is most likely to engage the public,” perhaps dinosaur evolution. Surprisingly, the editors pointed to Stephen Jay Gould as a good example of outreach. Gould, a staunch evolutionist, rankled other evolutionists with his frank admissions that the fossils did not support Darwinian gradualism. His theory of “punctuated equilibria” showed that there are strong disagreements within the scientific community over neo-Darwinism, as the Discovery Institute likes to point out. 10/1/2017 51

The editors made it clear that they are not for dialogue or debate. They ended, “With support from the NCSE and similar efforts, scientists can further not only science education, but science itself.” Oh, they can sound so noble. They just want to further science. They just want to help the children. Who could possibly be against that? Readers need well-tuned baloney detectors to see why this is DODO talk (Darwin-only, Darwin-only). In strategy #2, for instance, we have various types of people in their coalition giving “multiple perspectives” on the only acceptable viewpoint, the DODO viewpoint. 10/1/2017 52

The “Faith-based communities” they have in mind are the liberal churches who take the DODO position, like the Clergy Letter Project people who want to have Darwin Day celebrations in their churches. The “parents” they have in mind are leftist ACLU supporters who will scream on cue that they don’t want their kids getting religion in science class at the slightest suggestion of teaching evolution honestly. Notice that they want parents NOT who support academic freedom, but rather “clear thinking” (that is, pure DODO without confusing counter-arguments) and “academic futures” (the red-herring big lie that allowing debate about Darwinism might compromise their ability to get into college). 10/1/2017 53

The “scientists” they have in mind are the DODO evolutionists who still hold to logical positivism, that dead philosophy of science that claims the “scientific process” has some kind of objective meaning. The “accuracy” they want is Darwin Party approved DODO talking points. And as long as they stay DODO, it’s strategic for them to play the part of “parents, community members or people of faith” in the manner of Ken Miller, the DODO Catholic. 10/1/2017 54

“People of faith.” That phrase should be banned from the English language. Everybody is a person of faith. Some have logical faith, and some have absurd faith. Anyone believing life arose by chance and became Man the Wise by unguided processes belongs in the latter group. No reasonable person should have the kind of faith to believe the impossible. Those are People of Fluff. The worst are the ones that throw tantrums when you question their DODO hood: the People of Froth. 10/1/2017 55

Hopefully, here at CEH you are learning how to read Darwinian rhetoric with your critical thinking skills honed. Their talking points can sound grandiose when they just want to “help” people “understand” why anything less than 100% pure DODO is unacceptable. They know that letting in honest scientific debate over the evidence for Darwinism would be their undoing. 10/1/2017 56

Mind Your Matters, Evolutionist 进化论者，介意您的事务
Several recent articles illustrate the mental struggle materialists have with human uniqueness, particularly the mind and consciousness. The animal continuum: Described as a “highly influential researcher studying animality (our animal nature),” Dominique Lestel thinks the human-animal divide is a false dichotomy, reported Science Daily. He takes issue with Western philosophy that elevates humanness above the beasts. He thinks man needs to “reactivate his animality and animalize himself anew.” One might wonder what college students would do with that advice. Another might ask what other animals do research and publish it in Social Science Information, a journal of SAGE. 10/1/2017 58

The consciousness debate goes on: Live Science described a panel discussion at the World Science Festival in New York between philosophers and scientists about consciousness. Tanya Lewis opened with the material angle: “As you read this sentence, the millions of neurons in your brain are frantically whispering to each other, resulting in the experience of conscious awareness.” Her article gave the edge to the materialists who believe “the brain gives rise to conscious phenomena.” Her opening question, though, “But can modern neuroscience ever hope to crack this mysterious phenomenon?” led to admissions that they’re not there yet. The article led to a lively discussion in the comments between monists and dualists (i.e., those who see mind as separate from matter). 10/1/2017 59

Is morality mental or natural? Bob Holmes on New Scientist reviewed two books about the origin of human morality: The Bonobo and the Atheist: In Search of Humanism Among the Primates by Frans de Waal, and How Animals Grieve by Barbara J. King. Both books “show that we must be careful when studying animals to learn about the origins of human traits and behaviours,” he said. He thought de Waal was more thoughtful than King, but Holmes was inclined to agree (and believes most of New Scientist’s readers will concur) that morality is relative, not absolute: If he’s right, then there may be no absolute code of right and wrong out there to be discovered. Instead, each individual’s evolved sense of empathy and concern for the group may help shape the group’s consensus on what kind of behaviour is appropriate. In short, says de Waal, morality may be something we all have to work out together. It’s a persuasive argument, and de Waal’s cautious and evidence-based approach is one that many New Scientist readers are sure to find congenial. 10/1/2017 60

Is neuroscience the answer? Another article on New Scientist cast a shadow on materialist hopes in neuroscience. David Robson reviewed two more books that challenge the notion that neuroscience will ever understand consciousness. The books are, Brainwashed: The seductive appeal of mindless neuroscience by Sally Satel and Scott O. Lilienfeld, and A Skeptic’s Guide to the Mind: What neuroscience can and cannot tell us about ourselves by Robert A. Burton. The titles alone indicate that the authors aren’t ready to give neuroscience a free pass, and neither does Robson: NO CREVICE of the human experience is safe. Our deepest fears and desires, our pasts and our futures – all have been revealed, and all in the form of colourful images that look like lava bubbling under the skull. 10/1/2017 61

That, at least, is the popular conception of neuroscience – and it’s worth big money. The US and the European Union are throwing billions of dollars at two new projects to map the human brain. Yet there is also a growing anxiety that many of neuroscience’s findings don’t stand up to scrutiny. It’s not just sensational headlines reporting a “dark patch” in a psychopath’s brain, there are now serious concerns that some of the methods themselves are flawed. 10/1/2017 62

And that takes the discussion right back to philosophy, so long criticized as asking good questions but not providing good answers. “Neurology is not destiny,” Robson says, after pointing out some false positives using fMRI (functional MRI) and other tools of neuroscience. But Robson is not ready to throw out the neuroscience baby with the bathwater. He puts his hope in what neuroscience will learn some day. Game Theory: Meanwhile, evolutionists continue to speak of human mental traits in materialist, evolutionary terms. Michael Taborsky in Current Biology continued sounding the ongoing paradigm that human cooperation and altruism are a result of social evolution; Milot and Pelletier in Current Biology advanced the idea that human beings are still a playground for natural selection (but cf. Science Magazine’s review of Paleofantasy and our 3/13/13 entry). The scientific institutions pay little respect to, or even notice of, the views of theologians or philosophical dualists. 10/1/2017 63

If the brain is a window, who is looking through it? If the brain is a computer, who is typing on the keyboard and watching the screen? If morality is a dark spot in an fMRI image, who is interpreting it? God help the disciples of Frans de Waal who think they can agree on a consensus for what is “appropriate” as a substitute for morality. Most likely, their consensus will be crushed by another culture with better weapons and more motivation for power. What will they say as they are dying? “You can’t do that. That’s not right!” 10/1/2017 64

Each of the authors above defeats materialism by arguing for it. Who is doing the arguing? Their brains? Who is deciding who is telling the truth? Someone who doesn’t accept that truth is real? Who is deciding who has the best arguments, someone who disbelieves in absolute morality? Those who think humans are “mere” animals (though even theologians acknowledge our animal natures) would make sense if they left off writing books, and concentrated on stuffing bananas into their mouths and scratching their bottoms. The moment they try to access the realms of the mind and consciousness, they become dualists in spite of themselves. The moment they assume truth exists and morality can be judged by each of us with sufficient accuracy, they become supernaturalists in spite of themselves. And the moment they say humans “should” do anything (like pay attention to their arguments rationally), they become theists in spite of themselves. You can’t argue for materialism without assuming the very thing you want to disprove: we are more than mere animals; we have a soul that is consciously aware of absolute truth and morality. 10/1/2017 65

Cambrian Explosion: Evolutionists Have No Answers 寒武纪大爆发：进化论者没有答案
An intelligent design advocate is publishing a book this month that uses the Cambrian Explosion as evidence against Darwinism and for I.D. Two major evolutionary paleontologists have also published a book about the issue. Stephen Meyer’s new book, Darwin’s Doubt, is officially released next week. Chapter 4 will tell about the uproar caused at the University of Oklahoma in 2009 when Meyer and Wells scheduled a panel discussion after a showing of Illustra’s film Darwin’s Dilemma about the Cambrian fossil record. Darwinists at the university attempted a pre-emptive strike by issuing announcements that the event was religiously motivated. In the Q&A, though, the university’s professors and museum curators could not produce any unambiguous fossil as a credible ancestor to any of the Cambrian animals. Meyer’s book, updated with the latest findings since then, examines all the putative fossil ancestors and evolutionary exlanations for the Cambrian explosion, and assesses the issue’s relevance to the Darwin-ID debate. 10/1/2017 67

Meanwhile, two leading evolutionary paleontologists have just come out with a pro-evolution book about the sudden appearance of virtually all animal phyla at the base of the Cambrian. Written by Douglas Erwin and James Valentine, experts on the Cambrian fossil record, the new work, The Cambrian Explosion The Construction of Animal Biodiversity, was reviewed by Christpher J. Lowe (Stanford) in Science Magazine this week: “What Led to Metazoa’s Big Bang?” was his suggestive headline. His first paragraph states the problem in such a way as to furrow the brows of Darwinists and make creationists or ID advocates grin, “We told you so.” 10/1/2017 68

The Ediacaran and Cambrian periods witnessed a phase of morphological innovation in animal evolution unrivaled in metazoan history, yet the proximate causes of this body plan revolution remain decidedly murky. The grand puzzle of the Cambrian explosion surely must rank as one of the most important outstanding mysteries in evolutionary biology. Evidence of early representatives of all the major animal phyla first appear abruptly in the Cambrian(starting 542 million years ago). This spectacular morphological diversity contrasts strongly with Precambrian deposits, which have yielded a sparse fossil record with small, morphologically ambiguous trace fossils or the enigmatic but elegant creatures of the Ediacaran fauna. Following the Cambrian, despite a rich fossil record that documents impressive morphological diversification among animals, no new body plans have been revealed, leaving the Cambrian as the apparent crucible of metazoan body plan innovation. 10/1/2017 69

Lowe agrees, then, that it was an explosion, that all the animaly phyla appear abruptly, and that the few Precambrian fossils (including the “enigmatic” Ediacarans) are not ancestral to the Cambrian animals. So what, then, is the evolutionists’ response to this “outstanding mystery” that Darwin wrote about 154 years ago? Lowe is not helpful to the Darwin side: “The range of hypotheses proposed to explain the Cambrian explosion is as diverse and broad as the fossils they seek to explain.” He gives some sample explanations from Erwin and Valentine’s book. The authors gave a “heroic attempt” to synthesize hypotheses from the “disparate fields” of geology, ecology, developmental biology, and genomics, each of which has “made substantial contributions toward unraveling the causes of this key puzzle of animal evolution.” But a contribution toward unraveling is not the same thing as actually unraveling. 10/1/2017 70

It shouldn’t matter that Erwin and Valentine decorated their book with nice illustrations. It shouldn’t matter how good they are at making their prose accessible to non-specialists. It also shouldn’t matter that they could state “how recent modifications to animal phylogeny have strongly revised our understanding of early animal diversification.” What is the explanation for the virtually instantaneous arrival (in evolutionary geological terms) of some 40 animal body plans, in a period of time Jonathan Wells has described in Illustra’s films as one minute on a 24-hour clock, or one step on a football field? 10/1/2017 71

After filtering out Lowe’s words of hope, not much remains of factual evidence in his tentative solutions: The authors also review molecular biology’s substantial contributions to solving the grand puzzle of the Cambrian explosion, which have at times been at odds with interpretations derived from fossil data. Comparative developmental genetic studies and genome sequencing projects from diverse metazoan phyla have revealed some of the genetic innovations that were likely responsible, in part, for the increase in animal complexity. These new data may help us reconstruct ancestral morphological features of the mysterious stem lineages of the Ediacaran, by reconstructing ancestral gene complements and by inferring gene regulatory networks that have key roles in setting up the body plans of extant animals. However, our understanding of how to relate genomic and developmental regulatory complexity to organizational and morphological complexity remains in its infancy. 10/1/2017 72

This paragraph consists of little more than promissory notes that the infant will grow up, despite 154 years of trying. Identifying “genetic innovations” that were “likely responsible, in part” says nothing about specific mutations that could have been selected. And examining gene regulatory networks from “extant animals” can only be of minimal help interpreting extinct animals that left no DNA to study. “It’s just too complex,” Lowe seems to be saying. 10/1/2017 73

It seems that Erwin and Valentine’s solution is all futureware. Multidisciplinary approaches will be needed, they say. Proposing multiple causes will be needed, they say. More understanding of the environment, genetics and ecology will be important, they say, to explain this “great evolutionary puzzle”. Somehow, these factors provided “Ecological opportunities for novel morphological innovations” that (as evolutionists) they believe drove the diversification. In other words, if the environment builds it, the body plans will come. Lowe’s last sentences appear to reveal that Erwin and Valentine have not explained the Cambrian Explosion at all: 10/1/2017 74

Erwin and Valentine illuminate clear links between seemingly disparate disciplines, and they make a compelling case that substantial progress toward understanding the origins of animal diversity will not be achieved through adding isolated gains in individual fields. It is futile to hope to explain such a major evolutionary event without embracing an interdisciplinary approach. This implies that there has not been substantial progress toward understanding the Cambrian Explosion. The book appears to be a call for all good evolutionists to come to the aid of their theory. Nothing has changed in the 7 years since Charles Marshall, the Master of Disaster, took on the challenge (4/23/06, see also 9/04/09, 8/05/10). His answer was circular; the animals “evolved because they evolved.” Something gave these animals the “opportunity” to evolve, so they took advantage of it. What kind of answer is that? Why do we pay any attention to these charlatans? 10/1/2017 75

If there was ever a key evidential falsification of evolution, this is it. Too bad for evolutionists it’s not the only one. There’s also the origin of intelligence and morality, the origin of consciousness, the origin of species, the origin of life, the origin of earth, the origin of cosmic structure, the origin of the universe, and the origin of anything from nothing. Every one of these is a show-stopper for Darwinism, and as we like to repeat, it only takes one show-stopper to stop a show. But who wants to watch a show with a master of ceremonies who comes out, shrugs his shoulders, and says, “Stuff Happens”? Put your money on the show with the necessary and sufficient cause for the amazing biosphere we observe: intelligent design. 10/1/2017 76

There are old-earth ID advocates and old-earth creationists who can agree on that much—that the Cambrian Explosion falsifies Darwinism. Thinking long and hard enough about the consequences of that falsification, though, may lead to other questions, like, “Why are we trusting in the dating methods of these charlatans? What else did they get wrong” It’s at least a start of more and more honest debate. Exercise: To illustrate the folly of Marshall’s explanation for the Cambrian Explosion, take something observable in everyday life and come up with a silly, obviously-illogical explanation for it. Then, dress it up in the most erudite, learned language you can, and see if you can fool somebody. Example hypothesis: An opportunity for knives, forks and spoons to appear in your kitchen drawer arose, so they emerged out of the surrounding material. 10/1/2017 77

Is This Primate a Prime Mate? 这是灵长类动物一个最优惠伴侣？
The news media jumped onto claims that a tiny primate fossil is an ancestor of human beings, when it is really an amazing example of biological miniaturization. A tiny fossil primate from China, classified as Archicebus achilles, was announced with fanfare by most of the science news media (e.g., Northern Illinois Univ. press release). It looks like a tiny shrew or tarsier that probably lived in the trees. It probably weighed less than an ounce. What makes it noteworthy such that reporters would call it a human ancestor? For one, it’s the alleged oldest primate fossil. For another, it has a mosaic of features (small eyes, odd feet, etc.) that led K. Christopher Beard (Carnegie Museum) to say, It looks like an odd hybrid with the feet of a small monkey, the arms, legs and teeth of a very primitive primate, and a primitive skull bearing surprisingly small eyes. It will force us to rewrite how the anthropoid lineage evolved. 10/1/2017 79

After commenting on its tarsier-like toes but monkey-like heel, Beard said that some interpretation is required: “We have interpreted this new combination of features as evidence that this fossil is quite primitive and its unique anatomical combination is a link between the tarsier and monkey-ape branches of dry-nosed primates,” he said. “This new view suggests that the advanced foot features of anthropoids (monkeys and apes) are in fact primitive for the entire lineage of dry-nosed primates. 10/1/2017 80

The press release avoided mention of this tiny creature as an ancestor of human beings. Other reporters were not so restrained, even though the original paper in Nature did not mention human evolution at all: Science Daily: Discovery of Oldest Primate Skeleton, Ancestor of Humans and Apes American Museum of Natural History: Discovery of Oldest Primate Skeleton Helps Chart Early Evolution of Humans, Apes Carnegie Museum of Natural History: “crucial for illuminating a pivotal event in primate and human evolution” Live Science: Ancient Primate Skeleton Hints at Monkey and Human Origins 10/1/2017 81

One problem is that this creature lived in Asia, not Africa, where most ape evolution is thought to have occurred. On Evolution News & Views, Casey Luskin pointed out that this would require ape ancestors to go a-rafting across the ocean to get to Africa, which is believed to have been an island back then. According to Science Now, Beard said he was ridiculed when he suggested primates might have evolved in Asia. “Everybody knew that everything in primate and human evolution occurred in Africa,” he said. Like many of the feathered dinosaur fossils (5/31/13), this one was found by a farmer. Science Now downplayed the link to humans: “Although several experts—including Beard himself—expect debate about the precise position of A. achilles on the primate family tree, they all agree that it is a remarkable specimen.” 10/1/2017 82

Meanwhile, National Geographic jumped for joy at the thought that some humans have bendable soles like apes. New Scientist claimed that 1 in 13 people have “bendy, chimp-like feet.” Other than making the textbooks wrong, it’s not clear what this has to do with evolution (humans and chimps also have bendy mouths, tongues, and fingers). It’s possible the trait in humans is a disadvantage, making walking less efficient, in those people so afflicted. Those who remember the flap over Ida (Darwinius masillae, 3/20/10) have learned to yawn at these pronouncements. The little fossil should be enjoyed for its own sake, not for what evolutionary narrative Darwinians can force it into. That all the features of a primate could be microminiaturized into this one-ounce critter is the amazing thing. The interpretation is dumb. 10/1/2017 83

Storytelling; that’s the game for Darwinists. Look what Parmy Olson did with the craft on Forbes: projected how humans will look in 100,000 years, after millennia of staring at screens or wearing Google glass. Why, they’re evolving back the bulging eyes of their ancestors, the tarsiers! Doesn’t this sound scientific when a computational geneticist did the prognosticating? No; it’s just plain silly. And he won’t be around then for us to say, “You were wrong!” It’s just as wrong for these monkey-makers to tell us the new fossil is a human ancestor. Time travel backwards is just as unavailable as it is forwards. The claims can’t be tested; they can’t be falsified; they are not science. 10/1/2017 84

Extrasolar Planets: Bigger and More Mortal 太阳系外行星：更大，更致命
Many of the stars and planets found by the Kepler spacecraft are not earthlike. Also, astronomers have seen planets destroyed by their stars. Earthlike Planet Pool Shrinks NASA’s Astrobiology Magazine reported that follow-up measurements of Kepler’s candidate earthlike planets show most of them are larger than thought; a quarter of them are 35% larger or more. “By implication, these new results reduce the number of candidate Earth-size planet analogues detected by Kepler,” one researcher said. Source: National Optical Astronomy Observatory News. Historical note: Johannes Kepler, a creationist, speculated on the habitability of other worlds. 10/1/2017 86

The announcement came just days after PhysOrg asked “How common are earths around small stars?” Someone has found a way for earth-size planets to exist around red dwarfs (the most numerous category of stars), where tidal locking and flares were thought to rule out living conditions. The brief article did not explain how those dangerous conditions could be overcome. 10/1/2017 87

Special Creation PhysOrg reported the discovery of a “dust trap” around a star that could allow a planet to accrete without migrating into the star. If they could get the material to stick, this is the only way astronomers can account for rocky planets forming: Computer models suggest that dust grains grow when they collide and stick together. However, when these bigger grains collide again at high speed they are often smashed to pieces and sent back to square one. Even when this does not happen, the models show that the larger grains would quickly move inwards because of friction between the dust and gas and fall onto their parent star, leaving no chance that they could grow even further. Somehow the dust needs a safe haven where the particles can continue growing until they are big enough to survive on their own. Such “dust traps” have been proposed, but there was no observational proof of their existence up to now. 10/1/2017 88

The article did not discuss the sticking problem: dust grains do not stick together; they, too, are “often smashed to pieces” (see 2/03/04, 5/21/09). Having a safe haven does not imply that anything good is likely to happen there. A paper in Nature claims that a new model keeps Mercury dry and Earth wet when they accrete from dust – that is, if plenty of tweaks are not overlooked: 10/1/2017 89

The authors’ model underscores the importance of the earliest accretion and solidification steps in determining the future evolution of the rocky planets. However, several crucial caveats need to be considered in applying this model. First, in extrapolating back in time, the faint young star’s radiation level needs to be considered. Second, initial atmospheres might not all be water-rich; the rocky building blocks for some planets might have produced atmospheres rich in methane and hydrogen, instead of steam. In the absence of a steam atmosphere, there would be no outgoing radiation limit to slow solidification and cooling. Third, forming an initial atmosphere above a magma ocean is not a simple process. The removal of volatile gases from magma might require a significant degree of supersaturation and might not occur until late in solidification. If this is so, then solidification would proceed to a high degree before a steam atmosphere formed and occluded heat flux. 10/1/2017 90

Planets Aren’t Forever Old stars devour their progeny, New Scientist reported. “A survey of ageing stars offers some of the first direct evidence that these cantankerous elders often rip their nearest planets to shreds.” A JPL press release said that stars don’t obliterate their planets—at least, that is, very often. It appears “often” is in the eye of the beholder. Scientific pronouncements are only tentative. Often further observations call them into question. Then later, more observations seem to confirm the earlier idea. At any given time, the probability that scientists are wrong about what they confidently assert is non-trivial. 10/1/2017 91

If a model works, it does not follow that nature operates according to the model. Models are simplifications of complex processes that are useful for exploring possibilities. Who knows what omitted factors, no matter how inconsequential they might seem to the investigator, are crucial for the conclusions? The less models can be tested against observations, the more they become computer games for the entertainment of humans, not for explaining reality. 10/1/2017 92

Molecular Motors Put a Spring in Your Step 分子马达将一个弹簧放在您的脚步
When you feel in spring in your step, thank tiny molecular motors in your muscles and tissues that make it possible. A paper in Science by researchers primarily from University of Washington, Seattle, proposed the novel idea that the molecular motors in muscle cells store elastic energy. Observing flight muscles in moths, they deduced that the springiness of these motors provides an additional boost to the power generate by muscles: 10/1/2017 94

Muscles not only generate force. They may act as springs, providing energy storage to drive locomotion. Although extensible myofilaments are implicated as sites of energy storage, we show that intramuscular temperature gradients may enable molecular motors (cross-bridges) to store elastic strain energy.… These results suggest that cross-bridges can perform functions other than contraction, acting as molecular links for elastic energy storage. Researchers from Europe, publishing in PNAS, found that collagen and fibrin exhibit non-linear strain response upon loading. This is another factor that provides resilience in movement. 10/1/2017 95

“We show that the nonlinear mechanical response of networks formed from un–cross-linked fibrin or collagen type I continually changes in response to repeated large-strain loading. We demonstrate that this dynamic evolution of the mechanical response arises from a shift of a characteristic nonlinear stress–strain relationship to higher strains. Therefore, the imposed loading does not weaken the underlying matrices but instead delays the occurrence of the strain stiffening. Using confocal microscopy, we present direct evidence that this behavior results from persistent lengthening of individual fibers caused by an interplay between fiber stretching and fiber buckling when the networks are repeatedly strained.… Thus, a fibrous architecture in combination with constituents that exhibit internal plasticity creates a material whose mechanical response adapts to external loading conditions.” 10/1/2017 96

This behavior is so interesting, they pass the news on to biomimetics engineers: “This design principle may be useful to engineer novel materials with this capability.” Once again, the CEH Law is confirmed: Darwin-talk is inversely proportional to the amount of detail discussed about biological systems. 10/1/2017 97

Quantum Secret of Photosynthesis Revealed 光合作用的量子秘密揭晓
The magic of light capture by plants is so small and fast, its secrets are only now being understood. Lightning is slow compared to photosynthesis. A press release from the Institute of Photonic Sciences (ICFO) explains how “antenna proteins” capture photons of sunlight and ferry the energy to reaction centers: 10/1/2017 99

The efficient conversion of sunlight into useful energy is one of the challenges which stand in the way of meeting the world’s increasing energy demand in a clean, sustainable way without relying on fossil fuels. Photosynthetic organisms, such as plants and some bacteria, have mastered this process: In less than a couple of trillionths of a second, 95 percent of the sunlight they absorb is whisked away to drive the metabolic reactions that provide them with energy. The efficiency of photovoltaic cells currently on the market is around 20 percent. What hidden mechanism does nature use to transfer energy so efficiently? Various research groups around the world have shown that this highly efficient energy transport is connected to a quantum-mechanical phenomenon. However, until now, no one had directly observed the possible impacts of such a quantum transport mechanism at work at room temperature. 10/1/2017 100

The quantum mechanical phenomenon is known as coherence. The way plants use it makes photosynthesis “more robust in the face of environmental influences,” the press release said. Quantum coherence is manifested in so-called photosynthetic antenna proteins that are responsible for absorption of sunlight and energy transport towards the photochemical reaction centers where the energy is stored. 10/1/2017 101

ICFO researchers used light flashes at femtosecond speeds (10–15 s, one quadrillionth of a second) to monitor the actions of these proteins in their work. The most surprising discovery was that, while the transport paths within single proteins vary over time due to changes in the environmental conditions, the protein uses the quantum character to adapt for optimal efficiency. These results show that coherence, a genuine quantum effect of superposition of states, is responsible for maintaining high levels of transport efficiency in biological systems, even while they adapt their energy transport pathways due to environmental influences. 10/1/2017 102

The press release includes a diagram of one of the antenna proteins, with the caption “natural quantum machines.” Photosynthesis operates not only in the leaves of plants, but also in algae and some bacteria. How did “nature” master quantum coherence for optimal efficiency of light capture? How did plants develop “quantum machines” to achieve 475% better efficiency than man’s best intelligent design of photocells? When materialistic man cannot explain the exquisite design of natural processes by its blind, unguided processes, he worships “nature” as his substitute god. 10/1/2017 103

Plants Do Arithmetic 植物做算术
For keeping track of their food stores for the next day, plants perform “sophisticated” arithmetical division. The BBC News reported a discovery by UK scientists that “astonished” them: “Plants have a built-in capacity to do maths, which helps them regulate food reserves at night, research suggests.” They were “amazed” at this, the article said. Researchers were “amazed” to find out that plants perform arithmetic with chemicals: Overnight, when the plant cannot use energy from sunlight to convert carbon dioxide into sugars and starch, it must regulate its starch reserves to ensure they last until dawn. Experiments by scientists at the John Innes Centre, Norwich, show that to adjust its starch consumption so precisely, the plant must be performing a mathematical calculation — arithmetic division. 10/1/2017 105

The inputs to the division are the measures of starch (S) and the biological clock that keeps time (T). If the S molecules stimulate starch breakdown, while the T molecules prevent this from happening, then the rate of starch consumption is set by the ratio of S molecules to T molecules. In other words, S divided by T. “This is the first concrete example in biology of such a sophisticated arithmetic calculation,” said mathematical modeller Prof Martin Howard, of the John Innes Centre. 10/1/2017 106

This may be a widespread phenomenon in the living world. Birds, for instance, might use arithmetic to calculate their food stores for long-distance migrations, or for storing energy when deprived of food while incubating eggs. Another researcher say this as evidence for design: Commenting on the research, Dr Richard Buggs of Queen Mary, University of London, said: “This is not evidence for plant intelligence. It simply suggests that plants have a mechanism designed to automatically regulate how fast they burn carbohydrates at night. Plants don’t do maths voluntarily and with a purpose in mind like we do. The article did not mention evolution. 10/1/2017 107

The comment by Richard Buggs is telling. For one, it distinguishes humans from plants, by pointing out how we act with purpose and intention (intelligent design). Second, it points out that plants have design programmed into them to perform the arithmetic. The implication is that they were programmed much the same way robots are programmed with software. Plants don’t have to “be” intelligent designers with minds to perform arithmetic on purpose. They just have to show the marks of design imputed into them. If the robot is evidence of intelligent design, so is the plant. Darwinism would add nothing to this science project but a tall tale. Brits should follow American practice of dropping the “s” from maths to math. Not only is it more grammatical, it’s easier to pronounce. 10/1/2017 108

Living Design Inspires Design 活的设计启发设计
Engineers continue to look to the living world for solutions to practical problems. One of them is as close as your skin. Artificial photosynthesis: As reported here 6/22/13, plants achieve 95% efficiency of light capture compared to man’s 20%. PhysOrg reported how scientists at Caltech and Berkeley labs are making slow progress toward “An artificial version of photosynthesis … one of the most promising of solar technologies.” One comment in the press release sounds like old-earth creationism: “For more than two billion years, nature has employed photosynthesis to oxidize water into molecular oxygen.” 10/1/2017 110

Artificial cricket hairs: A sensitive flow sensor modeled on cricket hairs was announced by Science Daily: These tiny hairs, which are manufactured using microtechnology techniques, are neatly arranged in rows and mimic the extremely sensitive body hairs that crickets use to detect predators. When a hair moves, the electrical capacitance at its base changes, making the movement measurable. If there is an entire array of hairs, then this effect can be used to measure flow patterns. In the same way, changes in air flow tell crickets that they are about to be attacked. That’s why crickets are usually able to jump before you swat them. 10/1/2017 111

Artificial butterfly wings: An old biomimetics story is back, the prospect of improving anti-counterfeiting technology through the use of photonic crystals like those found on butterfly wing scales. Live Science reported that a Canadian company named Nanotech Security Corporation has imitated the iridescent wings of the Morpho butterfly to create a pattern that could be placed on paper currency that would be impossible to counterfeit. The phenomenon Nanotech employs is similar to the way some animals, including male peacocks, produce iridescent colors: instead of using proteins and other chemicals to produce a hue, the creature’s feathers or scales play with light, using very tiny holes that reflect different colors or wavelengths. The Morpho does this with complicated scales on its wing that produce shimmering blues and greens. 10/1/2017 112

The company’s product could be embossed on nearly any surface, making it possible to watermark products like plastics, metals, solar cells, fabrics, paper, and even pills. Since no dies or paints are required, even images can be embossed on surfaces without affecting their composition. The work is another example of what scientists call biomimicry, which adapts nature’s solutions for innovative human devices, in this instance, nano-optics, a burgeoning new technology. 10/1/2017 113

Artificial skin: Who would want to imitate an ugly scab? Medical engineers, that’s who: “Human scabs have become the model for development of an advanced wound dressing material that shows promise for speeding the healing process,” reported PhysOrg. How would they do it? They describe how research on the surface structure of natural scabs served as inspiration for developing a “cytophilic” wound dressing material. It attracts new cells needed for healing. The material mimics the underside of scabs, where tiny fibers are arranged in the same direction like velvet or a cat’s fur. Wang’s team spun fibers of polyurethane—the common durable and flexible plastic—into the same pattern. In laboratory experiments, the human cells involved in healing quickly attached to the membrane and lined up like those in actual scabs.” 10/1/2017 114

The abstract of the paper in ACS Applied Materials and Interfaces states, “This scab-inspired cytophilic membrane is promising in applications as functional interfacial biomaterials for rapid wound healing, bone repair, and construction of neural networks.” Have you ever observed the underside of a scab? Be thankful for small wonders like these. Scabs may look gross and ugly for awhile, but they are designed to heal. Underneath, precision operations are taking place to heal the wound and build new skin to make it like new. If every scratch and wound we got from childhood onward left permanent scars on our skin, we would be an awful sight by now. Fortunately, most small wounds are healed so completely we completely forget about the momentary afflictions. 10/1/2017 115

No wonder scientists are imitating living technology. These are but a few of dozens of ongoing projects that began with inspiration for the intelligent design in nature. Even though one of the articles assumed billions of years, none of them had any use for evolution. Intelligent design is guiding science into the information age. 10/1/2017 116

Brain Cells Have a Twist-Open Gate 脑细胞有一个扭打开门
The structure of an important potassium-ion gate in the membrane of brain cells has been found to open like a camera iris. In Nature, Eitan Reuveny described a paper in the same issue by Whorton and MacKinnon that reveals how an important molecular gate named GIRK2 works in the membranes of brain cells. These gates control the passage of potassium ions (K+) to the outside of the cell, a process that changes the electrical charge between inside and outside, allowing conduction of electrical signals. His description, “Ion channel twists to open,” compares the twisting motion of the components to a camera iris: “The conformational changes that open the inner helical gate are comparable to the widening of a lens aperture by hand-rotating the aperture ring.” 10/1/2017 118

But whose hands rotate the ring? The cylindrical channel that allows passage of K+ ions is surrounded by four complex proteins that lock into the cell membrane. Activation of these “hands” by G-protein coupled receptors makes them turn the channel, opening it just a bit wider, but not enough, to allow the ions through. From there, random perturbations may permit the ions to “burst” through the narrow opening as observed in living cells. The channel also contains a “selectivity filter” to ensure only K+ ions can make it through. Reuveny began by explaining the importance of these channels: 10/1/2017 119

Ion channels are the main units responsible for the electrical activity in our body. They constitute a large family of some 400 proteins in humans. A subfamily of these proteins consists of four GIRK channels, which specialize in converting chemical signals — mostly those of neurotransmitter molecules such as acetylcholine, dopamine, serotonin and adrenaline — into electrical ones in heart cells and neurons. They are therefore essential for controlling heart rate and the activity of neural circuits. 10/1/2017 120

Roderick MacKinnon received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2003 for his work on ion channels (see “Wonders of the Salt Gate” 1/17/02, also 3/12/02, 5/29/02, 5/01/03). This paper contributes to the “long-awaited crystal structure of the mammalian GIRK2 channel in complex with two subunits of a G protein (a dimer of the Gβ and Gγ subunits), providing information about their mechanism of opening,” Reuveny said. Ion channels such as GIRK2 literally “pump” ions against the direction of osmosis in order to set up the voltage necessary for electrical transmission. 10/1/2017 121

It’s nice to see MacKinnon still at work uncovering the secrets of these cellular gates a decade after receiving his Nobel. In the past 10 years, has he seen the light of the Darwinists? Has he found evolution essential to explain how these exquisite molecular gates work? Nope. Neither MacKinnon or Reuveny even mentioned it. Thinking about the action of these gates in slow-motion is amazing enough. Realize, though, that they act lightning-fast, allowing your heart rate to adjust and allowing chemicals and ions to speed through the brain at the speed of thought. Just like in 2002, this is phenomenal evidence for intelligent design. 10/1/2017 122

The Problem With Evolutionary Explanations 进化解释的问题
A new theory attempts to explain why mammals vary from teaspoon size to battleship size. But what does it really explain, if anything? There are two aspects to scientific investigation: fact-gathering (the “what”) and explanation (the “why”). Much of day-to-day science is the former: carefully cataloguing phenomena in the natural world, whether they be stars, wildflowers, proteins, or anything else observable. But this is often considered mere stamp collecting without a theory to explain how things got the way they are. 10/1/2017 124

Science Daily advertised, “From Tiny to Massive, Mammal Size Evolution Explained.” Scientists have added another piece to the evolutionary puzzle to explain why certain mammal families evolved to be very large, while others remained tiny. In research published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, an international group of scientists including Monash University’s Dr Alistair Evans proposed a new theory explaining the diversity of mammal sizes — from the Etruscan shrew which weighs around two grams, to the blue whale which clocks in at almost 200 tonnes. 10/1/2017 125

A look into the article, however, shows much “what” with very little “why.” Evolutionary theory’s duty here is to explain the patterns, not just catalog them. Moreover, evolution needs to make testable predictions and falsify alternative explanations. Evolution should also tie the observations to its core concept, fitness by natural selection, in such a way that Darwinian evolution stands as the best explanation out of all contenders. The first part of Dr. Evans’ proposal is that “baby weight relative to adult body mass is key.” But where is the explanation in his focus on size? 10/1/2017 126

“Size is fundamental to your life and your body — how fast your heart beats, how much food you need to eat, and how you move,” Dr Evans said. Classification of mammals (the “stamp collecting”) has already shown what people have known for millennia: size differences are plentiful and obvious. The meat of the new proposal seems to be in a relationship between speed of maturation and maximum body size: Following the extinction of the dinosaurs, mammals flourished and their size increased dramatically. The study examined the maximum size of groups including whales, elephants, primates and rodents over this period to examine the constraints on size. 10/1/2017 127

The researchers found that species that matured more quickly and produced a larger mass of young each year relative to body weight were able to evolve to a larger maximum size. Further, they are likely to reach that size in fewer generations. This high rate of biological production is vital, regardless of whether many small young or just one large offspring are born in a year. 10/1/2017 128

Finding a relationship, though is a “what,” not a “why.” For instance, when Henrietta Leavitt discovered a period-luminosity relationship in variable stars, it proved a useful pattern, but it did not explain why stars vary. Can evolution explain why some mammals develop faster and others don’t? Dr Evans said whales were an excellent example of the theory. “The blue whale is the largest animal to have evolved, even larger than dinosaurs, and it reached this size at the fastest rates we recorded. Key to this success is that they produce large young that mature quickly, reaching around 30 metres in eight to 10 years,” Dr Evans said. 10/1/2017 129

Lead author of the study, Dr Jordan Okie from Arizona State University, said primates were at the opposite end of the spectrum. “Primates have a low production rate and have evolved very slowly. They have never got bigger than about 500 kilograms,” Dr Okie said. Again, though, these are “what” statements, not “why” statements. None of these statements relate to fitness by natural selection. Presumably, both apes and whales are fit, else they would not have survived to the present day. Dr. Evans added a “really surprising finding” from his team’s study. Is it more than just another pattern — a why instead of a what? 10/1/2017 130

The study also linked maximum size to mortality rate. Because larger animals tend to breed less frequently than smaller animals, if the mortality rate doubles, the maximum size is predicted to be 16 times smaller. A supporter of the theory might say that a prediction was just made. Measure the breeding rate, factor in the mortality rate, and you can predict the maximum size of an unknown mammal. Evans applied his theory to explain extinctions after the Ice Age, on the basis that “changing climates probably increase mortality rates.” If so, then climate changes today might exacerbate extinctions, because “it takes a long time for their population to rebound from disasters.” A supporter might also point out that such information is useful to scientists and politicians who must consider the ecological effects of human activity. 10/1/2017 131

Whether any of this amounts to scientific explanation based on evolutionary theory will be considered in the comments. Assignment: Analyze the proposal to see whether Darwinian theory came through on its promise to explain the diversity of mammal sizes and the patterns observed. Remember, it’s not enough to say that patterns or relationships exist. Evolutionary theory needs to explain why they exist. Try your skill, then come back later in the day for our commentary. —– 18 hour break —– How did you do? Oh, for a modern Socrates to roam the halls of academia to embarrass evolutionists like these into realizing they have no idea what they are talking about. 10/1/2017 132

Experienced Baloney Detectors surely noticed right off that the proposal did not apply evolutionary theory; it merely assumed it. It’s another case of shutting down understanding by saying, “It evolved” (see cartoon). Here’s Evans’ theory in a nutshell: small animals evolved to be small because they were able to evolve to be small, and large animals evolved to be large because they were able to evolve to be large. Satisfied? 10/1/2017 133

If you don’t believe it, look at that quote above: “The researchers found that species that matured more quickly and produced a larger mass of young each year relative to body weight were able to evolve to a larger maximum size.” What, pray tell, was added to knowledge of current mammals who mature quickly and produce a larger mass of young to explain why they have those lifestyle patterns? Stating that they were able to evolve that way is a circular argument. It’s completely vacuous. And why did the small animals stay small, if fitness was better on the large-size peak? Oh, we get it; they were able to evolve to be small. 10/1/2017 134

This is how evolutionists are able to pretend to be scientists with jargon and hand-waving. No understanding was added by evolutionary theory. None. Everyone already knew that mammals show tremendous diversity in maximum size, clutch size, maturation rate, and every other observational fact mentioned in the article. Aristotle knew these things. Creationists and intelligent design advocates know these things, and use design arguments to explain them. So here comes Darwin, selling the notion that “It evolved because it evolved,” expecting us to say Wow, he’s the man. If Darwiniacs want us to buy their snake oil, they have to show it cures misunderstanding and produces enlightenment. It’s not very enlightened to run around in circles drinking Darwine. 10/1/2017 135

Science News Sites Promote Leftist Ideology 科学新闻网站推广左派意识形态
Celebrating gay marriage is not the only leftist position frequently advocated by secular science news sites. They follow party-line liberal views with few exceptions, and now openly advocate leftist ideas. Advocating gay marriage: One might well ask what astronomy and space travel have to do with gay marriage. Space.com found a way: “Supreme Court Gay Marriage Rulings Hailed by NASA Deputy Chief,” Clara Moskowitz wrote glowingly, quoting only liberals who think it’s wonderful. In an astonishing twist of logic, a Live Science article claimed that the Supreme Court ruling allowing gay marriage will be good for kids – as good if not better than traditional marriage, some pediatricians allege. No conservative spokesperson was sought for a little balance in reporting. 10/1/2017 137

Advocating climate change policy: One might also well ask what astronomy and space travel have to do with climate change. Another Space.com headline by another reporter reads, “NASA Chief Lauds Obama’s Climate Change Plan.” Again, the significant percentage of conservative Americans who disagree with that plan didn’t get any mention. Without a pretense of objectivity, National Geographic published naked ideological advocacy: “Five reasons for Obama to sell climate change as a health issue.” Crazy talk: PhysOrg unabashedly gave positive press to a book that portrays tea-party conservatives as paranoid reactionaries. Headline: “The tea party and the politics of paranoia.” No conservative was given a chance to respond. 10/1/2017 138

Naked aping: Science Magazine published a letter, “The Human Animal,” that advocated treating Darwinism and ideology: “the ‘humans and animals’ paradigm undermines the unifying concept of all biology humans no different from denizens of the zoo. The author, Kim Quillin, established the link between—evolution.” Along with evolutionary common ancestry with animals (rating top on Kim’s issues), she displayed her predilection for evolutionary indoctrination in schools and for “sustainability,” leftist code for UN-style intervention in private property rights. 10/1/2017 139

Nudging: New Scientist gave very good press to the views of leftist Obama aide Cass Sunstein, who believes government needs to “nudge” people toward prescribed views and actions. Knowing full will this is a tactic of manipulation, not debate, New Scientist termed it “The gentle science of good governance” (at least to the nudgers, not the nudged). Conservative Glen Beck often points out, from historical examples, that what starts as “nudge” often becomes “shove.” Despite these attacks from the left, religious conservatives may have the last laugh. At least Science Daily reported results of a survey that showed, “Christians Tweet More Happily, Less Analytically Than Atheists.” 10/1/2017 140

Why would “science” (a word connoting the search for knowledge, using impartial, objective procedures), say such things? It’s because institutional science, like academia, law, labor, the media and Hollywood, has been co-opted by the left. Over the last decade we have seen science news sites becoming more bold. Now they don’t even pretend to be objective. 10/1/2017 141

Radio host and author Dennis Prager often points out how leftists base their views on feeling, not logic. For instance, in the history of civilization, no one ever considered same-sex coupling “marriage,” yet in the last 17 years since Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act with a large bipartisan majority in Congress, we are now being told that gay marriage is a civil right, just because two people love each other. Logically, that is indefensible. What prevents siblings or polygamists from using the very same arguments? Leftism is built on euphemistic slogans, like “marriage equality,” “gay rights,” “reproductive health” and “climate change” — phrases that blow fog and stimulate emotion, not understanding. 10/1/2017 142

Prager points out in his books and radio shows how leftists manipulate and promote their ideology with hate speech, intolerance, illogic, feelings, and judicial activism. There is no parity, because, whereas conservatives argue that leftist positions are illogical, leftists believe conservatives are evil and must be stopped. 10/1/2017 143

At CEH, we point out how leftist positions are built squarely on Darwinian principles — the belief that humans are mere animals, with no accountability to their Creator. Rejection of God as Creator comes first; now we see our society slipping down the slope described by the Apostle Paul in Romans 1. Long ago he warned that difficult times will come (II Tim 3:1–9). Paul added the comforting thought that for those “always learning, yet never able to come to the knowledge of the truth,” their “folly would become evident to all.” You can hasten that by holding up the logic and facts that contradict their feeling-based arguments of the left. 10/1/2017 144

But remember, the left is intolerant despite their claims to tolerance. They hate being shown up for their own hypocrisy. If they continue to co-opt the institutions of power through our negligence, persecution may well be around the corner. Get ready, but don’t let it stop you. Speak the truth boldly. It’s tough, but it’s love. 10/1/2017 145

Are These Horse Genes Really 700,000 Years Old? 这些马的基因真的是7十万岁吗？
News sites are celebrating a “spectacular” new record for fossil DNA, claiming horse genes found in permafrost are 700,000 years old, placing the common ancestor two million years earlier than thought. All the major science news sites – whether Science Now, Nature News, New Scientist, Science Daily, Live Science, the BBC News, and National Geographic – repeated the same narrative essentially unquestioned, never doubting the ages or the evolutionary spin. The narrative is basically that this DNA from a horse hoof is six to ten times older than the previous record, suggesting that even older DNA might be found and sequenced. Comparisons of the fossil DNA with those of other horses, the narrative goes, places the common ancestor twice as far back as previously thought, some 4 million years ago. 10/1/2017 147

Nature News put it this way: The humble horse has provided the oldest full genome sequence of any species — from a specimen more than half a million years old, found frozen in the permafrost of the Canadian Arctic. The finding, published in Nature today, pushes back the known origins of the equine lineage by about 2 million years, and yields a variety of evolutionary insights. 10/1/2017 148

The articles don’t hide the surprise that DNA could last this long. Science Now quoted a paleontologist remarking, “It was not that long ago that people in the field of ancient DNA would have said you can’t retrieve data from something this old, but here we have a whole genome.” Another said, “It’s well beyond the time period where I thought we had any prospect of getting a genome.” New Scientist mentioned that the DNA was found alongside pockets of collagen, a protein that “degrades easily”. 10/1/2017 149

Studies on the half-life of DNA suggest that even under ideal circumstances, DNA sequences older than 1.5 million years will be too short to be readable. So it’s highly unlikely that DNA will be recovered from dinosaurs, since they disappeared 65 million years ago, except for the lineage leading to modern birds. 10/1/2017 150

Did National Geographic hedge its bets because of the soft-tissue findings in some dinosaur bones? The claim that horses have evolved over the alleged 700,000 years seems illogical, given that it may “theoretically be possible to resurrect the ancient horse by implanting a modern horse egg with the ancient DNA,” as Nature News stated. Has there been no speciation in all that time? Some of the articles waffled on how similar the fossil horse would have been to living horses, but one spokesman said he believed it was probably a one-toed horse. Live Science punned, “That means that horses and their ancestors are evolving more slowly than expected — it’s more of an evolutionary trot than a canter.” 10/1/2017 151

Science Daily quoted one of the team members noting that some assembly was required: “This was methodologically challenging but clearly some parameters worked better than others, says Professor Eske Willerslev. But sequencing was just half the way really.” Professor Willerslev continues: “Because 700,000 years of evolution and damage, it is not something that does come without any modification to the DNA sequence itself. We had to improve our ability to identify modified and divergent ancient horse sequences by aligning them to the genome of present day horses. Quite a computational challenge, especially when the level of DNA modification outcompasses that seen in any other Arctic horses from the Late Pleistocene.” 10/1/2017 152

Dr. Orlando explains: “Levels of base modifications were extremely high, for some regions even so high that every single cytosine was actually damaged. This, and the phylogenetic position of the ancient horse outside the diversity of any horse ever sequenced, provided clear evidence that the data was real.” 10/1/2017 153

The DNA was unquestionably real, but the fit to an evolutionary story required interpretation. National Geographic noted that “sequenced 12 billion DNA molecules, of which 40 million [were of] horse origin.” What else was in the mix? “There was a bit of horse DNA in an ocean of microbial DNA.” Most of the DNA was in the form of fragments of 25 base pairs or less, that had to be aligned with genomes of modern horses. 10/1/2017 154

Dating depended on molecular clock hypotheses (i.e., estimates of how quickly the genome evolved) and some geological dating of ash layers in the permafrost. Molecular dating depends on estimates of “divergence events” in evolutionary theory. From assumed dates of divergence, they inferred a mutation rate for horses. This approach, however, is heavily theory-laden, and requires arbitrary tweaking to make things work out, as this quote from the authors’ Supplementary Information file illustrates: 10/1/2017 155

Using relative rate tests, we found that the genome-wide mutation rate is slightly faster in humans than horses (Supplementary Information, section 8.4). The average value of 10–9 substitutions per year per site [Nachmann and Crowell 2000], long considered as a reliable estimate of the human genome-wide mutation rate, has recently been challenged. Lower values about half this mutation rate have been proposed [Conrad et al. 2011; Kong et al. 2012; Campbell and Eichler 2013], with possible important implications for reconstructing the evolutionary dynamics of the human populations [Scally and Durbin 2012]. In particular, with genome-wide mutation rates lower-than-expected, most major evolutionary events in human evolution would have occurred earlier than previously thought. 10/1/2017 156

However, recent clock calibrations of the mitochondrial genome mutation rate have rejected older time scales for human evolution, challenging calibrations based on lower mutation rates [Fu et al. 2013]. Given the present absence of consensus regarding the actual value of the human nuclear mutation rate, we considered a value of 10–9 substitutions per year per site [Nachmann and Crowell 2000] as a maximal estimate for the horse mutation rate. An interesting side finding was that Przelwalski’s horse, a wild horse population in Asia, appears not to have mixed with other horse populations. 10/1/2017 157

The authors scoured their reconstructed genome for signs of natural selection, since they considered Equus “a group representing textbook examples of evolutionary processes”. Although candidate regions of “positive selection” between the old horse and the new were sought, only some modifications to existing genes, like immunity and olfaction, were found. The original paper in Nature said, “We caution that local variations in mutation and recombination rates, as well as misalignments, may result in similar signatures at neutrally evolving regions.” In other words, their candidates for positive selection could be due to genetic drift. Nothing indicating novel function or innovation was reported. 10/1/2017 158

Despite criticisms of the horse series by evolutionists themselves (3/02/01, 3/18/05, 6/30/05, Willerslev called the fossil sequence “a classical example in evolutionary biology and a topic which is taught in high schools and universities.” Darwin skeptics should be incensed at the leaps of faith taken by the researchers and their dupes in the media. Why is nobody but CEH challenging the ideological, procedural and illogical red flags in this story? For all we know, this horse perished in the Ice Age after the Flood just a few thousand years ago. Who can dispute that? Look at the ample fudging and gymnastics the authors went through to turn this story into an offering to Father Charlie. Understand that their narrative does not emerge from the observational facts. Data are mere props to their pre-determined plot: to make horses look like products of a long line of evolutionary descent with modification requiring millions of years. For crying out loud, they could reconstruct this stallion’s pony in a living mare! Where is the evolution? 10/1/2017 159

The implications of this find should disturb evolutionists. DNA decays – probably much faster than the upper limits they put on it. Many aspects of this story were surprises to evolutionists: the survival of ancient DNA, the earlier common ancestor (which remains to be discovered), the modernity of the old horse, the interfertility of all horses, the lack of evidence for “positive natural selection” in over 700,000 years. Yet after decades of criticism of the iconic horse evolution series, they still call it a “classical example in evolutionary biology” and a “textbook example of evolutionary processes”. A classical example this lame could never walk out of the starting gate in the Darwin Derby, let alone trot. 10/1/2017 160

An old Sioux proverb states, “The best strategy when riding a dead horse is to dismount.” As evolutionists continue to beat this dead horse with alacrity, sensible people should pity them, asking, “When will they ever learn?” Live Science tried to be funny: “Researchers are chomping at the bit to further understand how domestication has shaped horses, and what their genetic history can tell us about how climate change has affected their evolution,” the article ended. Bits are not very nutritious. The rest of us will chomp at the smorgasbord, thank you. 10/1/2017 161

Big Flood on Mars; Why Not on Earth? 火星上的大洪水，为什么不在地球上？
More evidence has been presented for a “voluminous” flood on Mars, where there is no water today. So why is a comparable flood disfavored for Earth, where water covers 70% of the surface? In “Fill and spill of giant lakes in the eastern Valles Marineris region of Mars” published in Geology this month, scientists from London and Berlin propose that a megaflood caused by dam breaches of deep lakes scoured out a vast area of the equatorial canyon called Valles Marineris, draining into the northern polar regions: 10/1/2017 163

The existence of Hesperian age (3.7–3.4 Ga) surface water bodies on Mars is a contentious issue, often conflicting with favored climate models. Extensive lakes are proposed to have filled parts of Valles Marineris during this period, yet evidence for their presence and temporal continuity is poorly constrained. Here we report geomorphic and chronologic evidence for the initiation and demise of a voluminous lake system within the basins of eastern Valles Marineris. We find that independent, kilometer-deep lakes were present here well after the wetter, global climate optimum that characterized the previous Noachian epoch (4.1–3.7 Ga).… The topography data demonstrate that incision of the bedrock barriers between the basins during spillover was driven by a dramatic local base-level difference between the lake surface and downstream basin floors. We postulate that the lake spillover process created an integrated drainage routing system between a voluminous equatorial water supply and the northern plains basin. 10/1/2017 164

In other words, these scientists believe that megafloods from large, deep, voluminous lakes occurred during a less-wet period following the “Noachian” period during which Mars scientists think water was even more abundant. A press release from the European Space Agency shows an image from their Mars Express spacecraft suggesting a megaflood created channels measuring 1.55 million kilometers. By contrast, Earth’s Grand Canyon covers less than 5,000 square kilometers. The scientists believe that snow and ice, melted by volcanic eruptions, caused the flood. Now silent, one can only imagine from examples on Earth the roar of gushing water that once cascaded through Kasei Valles, undermining cliff faces and engulfing craters, and eventually flooding onto the plains of Chryse Planitia. 10/1/2017 165

The outflow channel extends 3,000 km, the article states. By contrast, the Grand Canyon is 433 km long. So what’s the problem with global catastophism on Earth? Dam breach theories are popular with young-earth creationists. They find evidence for massive lakes above Grand Canyon that would have contained more water than the Great Lakes combined, likely contained as inland seas after Noah’s flood. A dam breach at Echo Cliffs, and another at the Little Colorado, could have led to the rapid formation of this world-famous scar on Earth that is far smaller than the channels claimed on Mars. Creationists propose this with multiple independent sources of evidence, including shorelines of the upper lakes, dam breach notches, evidence of vast sheet erosion and rapid downcutting, and more; yet their theories are despised by the secular geological establishment moyboys* who cannot bring themselves to imagine catastrophes of that scale at home. Bring it up, and “one can only imagine… the roar”. 10/1/2017 166

The irony is that they can look at dry Mars and imagine catastrophes orders of magnitude larger! No problem. They can even imagine huge lakes approaching ocean depth, and dam breach events there the likes of which they cannot imagine on Earth. But propose a “Noachian” epoch (lasting one year) on Earth, and they say, Bosh, that’s religious myth. As usual, creationists present scientific arguments, and the secular evolutionists respond with religious arguments. Learn to brush away epithets and follow the evidence where it leads. Ask yourself if it is plausible to propose that “giant” and “extensive” deep lakes on Mars sat there undisturbed for millions of years, only to breach their dams and create gigantic canyon systems in a few days of outflow. If global catastrophism is good for Venus or Mars where no water is found, it’s good for Earth where water is plentiful. *moyboys: evolutionists who use the phrases “millions of years, billions of years” with reckless abandon. 10/1/2017 167

Homo erectus were good pitchers 直立人是很好的投手
Science news sites are talking about the evolution of human throwing, but it’s mostly speculation based on prior faith in Darwinism. The real story is good design in the human shoulder. Nature News, in a review entitled “Baseball players reveal how humans evolved to throw so well,” states, “A catapult-like mechanism allows energy to be stored in shoulder and torso, a video study of pitchers reveals.” That study, published in Nature, tries to draw an evolutionary interpretation: 10/1/2017 169

Compared with other carnivores, hominins are slow, weak and lack natural weapons such as fangs and claws. However, hominins were eating meat at least 2.6 million years (Myr) ago, and were probably hunting large prey 1.9 Myr ago.… Although contemporary hunter-gatherers rarely rely on throwing to kill prey, earlier hominins probably needed to throw projectiles frequently to acquire and defend carcasses before the relatively recent inventions of the atlatl and bow. We can therefore surmise that the ability to throw well would confer a strong selective benefit to early hunters. However, to test when and how hominins evolved the ability to throw projectiles effectively, it is necessary to understand both throwing biomechanics and how changes in hominin anatomy affect throwing performance. 10/1/2017 170

Actually, understanding throwing biomechanics doesn’t require evolutionary theory at all. It is the prior belief in human evolution that is propelling these scientists to “surmise” that throwing was beneficial somehow to human ancestors long ago. Notice that the authors, by comparing contemporary hunter-gatherers (modern humans) to “earlier hominins” are saying we are all hominins. The usefulness of the term “hominin” seems, therefore, moot. The science news sites all leapt upon the evolutionary angle: PhysOrg: “Researchers say ability to throw played a key role in human evolution.” BBC News: “Origins of Human Throwing Unlocked.” Live Science: “Homo erectus was the original starting pitcher.” 10/1/2017 171

The authors of the Nature paper, though, only compared modern humans (and Homo erectus, already a good thrower), with chimpanzees and australopiths. Since chimpanzees cannot throw a good baseball game, this illustrates a gap, not a transition. By the assumed time of Homo erectus 2.6 million years ago, “low, wide shoulders, long legs, and hyperextendable wrists” were “all present,” the paper says. From this evolution-contradicting data, the authors nevertheless concocted an evolutionary story without evidence, saying, “Although some of these features were probably selected for functions other than throwing, their combined configuration, first present in H. erectus, would have benefited throwing performance by enabling elastic energy storage in the shoulder, providing a selective advantage during hunting.” 10/1/2017 172

The popular news sites liked the story and repeated it with gusto. “Early humans evolved to throw about two millions years ago, according to new research,” the BBC article stated confidently. Then, with flagrant misunderstanding of Darwinism’s purposeless, aimless process, it continued, “Anatomy changes found in the extinct species Homo erectus allowed this ability to evolve.” Explaining how those anatomy changes arrived in the first place is the issue. And merely allowing an ability “to evolve” does not mean that it will, no more than “allowing” a helicopter to evolve from a junkyard means you can book your ticket in advance. 10/1/2017 173

Live Science shows how high school biology teachers take these evolutionary stories and run the bases with them: While the paper’s information about throwing mechanics is generally well-known to professional baseball players, the link to evolution is particularly interesting, said Tim Layden, head baseball coach and evolutionary biology teacher at Florida’s Montverde Academy.… “I’m probably going to use this next semester in my primate course, for sure,” said Layden. “It makes perfect sense from an evolutionary standpoint that there would be a selective force for high velocity throwing and the buildup of energy within the shoulder joint.” 10/1/2017 174

Mr. Layden, sadly, misrepresents evolutionary theory. Selection is no more a force than a hurdle on a track or a bumper in a pinball game. While praising the mechanics observed by the scientists in the shoulder and torso of modern humans that allow professional pitchers to accurately toss baseballs 90 miles per hour repeatedly in a baseball game, and allow Olympic athletes to throw a javelin hundreds of feet, nothing in the paper explains what mutations could have added to a throwing-challenged Chimpanzee all the attributes that make human throwing so effective – changes to stance, shoulder width and position, wrist extension, and leg length, to name a few. 10/1/2017 175

Don’t you get angry at the storytellers? Think of what this DODO-headed, Darwine-drinking, baloney-barfing high school teacher is going to say to impressionable high school students next semester to make it appear Darwinism is scientific (and, by implication, intelligent design is not). He is basically going to lie to them. He doesn’t understand evolutionary theory well enough to throw it, but you can be sure his job is absolutely secure, compared to many better-educated biology teachers skeptical of Darwin, who, if they dared speak what they know, would be under threat of losing their jobs. 10/1/2017 176

The scientists, the reporters, and the high school teacher have all taken a pro-ID finding and mangled it into a pot of mush to offer to their idol. We should marvel at the design in our bodies and praise God who gave us what we need to serve Him, but no— every day in the media, we are asked to believe “it evolved because it evolved.” Why do we put up with this? Did you catch, also, that Homo erectus is (for all practical purposes), our brother? He ate meat, built fire, cooked, played baseball, he was a better hunter than most of us. We insult these people by demoting them to artificial pre-human categories. If they were alive today it would be denounced as racism. 10/1/2017 177

Time to play hardball. We must keep up the fight to get the storytellers out of science and return it to observational, repeatable, testable evidence. No more “surmising” about what “selective forces” could have created. Darwinism would be disqualified if all its surmisals, probably’s, could have’s and maybes were banned. Teaching Darwinism honestly would make it honestly strike out. Exercise: Why is this sentence self-refuting: “It makes perfect sense from an evolutionary standpoint.” Play umpire and call foul if you see it. 10/1/2017 178

TAKE ME OUT TO THE CON GAME Take me out to the con game, Take me out to the crowd, Tell me some stories by crackpot quacks I don’t care if they never have facts, Oh it’s toot, toot toot for some Dar-wine, If they run out it’s a shame, For it’s D — O — D O D O At the Darwin game! 10/1/2017 179

Mad Scientists Poised on the Slippery Slope 疯狂科学家蓄势滑坡
Stem cells can do good or harm, depending on their source. When scientists think themselves above ethics, watch out. Adult Stem Cell News Adult stem cells (AS) and induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS) are safe and effective ways to treat a variety of diseases, ethically neutral because they are not derived from human embryos. The first clinical trial with iPS is drawing near, Science Now reported. In Japan, they will be used to treat age-related macular degeneration. PhysOrg states this will give hope to millions of elderly people robbed of their sight. Before iPS, the only way to harvest stem cells was from embryos, the article said, a process that is “controversial because it requires the destruction of the embryo, a process to which religious conservatives, among others, object,” implying that liberals have less a problem with destroying human embryos. 10/1/2017 181

Speaking of blindness, adult stem cells derived from body fat may help treat retinopathy, “a complication of diabetes that threatens the vision of millions,” Medical Xpress reported. Since “everybody has extra fat,” this alternative treatment can garner an abundance of source material while being gentler on the eye. ““Most importantly, you can obtain them from the same donor as you would be injecting into, so it’s autologous therapy, meaning you don’t need to worry about the body’s immune response.” Researchers at Georgia Institute of Technology have found a faster way to isolate iPS cells, Live Science reported, based on their stickiness. This will allow “scientists to experiment with a greater number of cells at a time and thereby speeding progress toward potential medical therapies.” 10/1/2017 182

Science Magazine reported progress with growing entire tissues, such as portions of the intestine, from stem cells embedded in a patient’s own tissues. A single intestinal stem cell can develop into a “mini-gut” with folds and all. “Because biopsies taken from live donors can serve as the tissue source, this approach could solve ethical and logistical issues associated with organ transplantation and may represent a safe complement to embryonic or induced pluripotent stem cell–based strategies.” 10/1/2017 183

Embryonic Stem Cells and Cloning Scientists know that experimentation on human embryos is “controversial” and raises “ethical issues,” yet many of them continue to lust after embryonic stem cells (ES) and, even more shocking, want to work on human cloning and human-animal chimeras. Science Magazine asked, “Does Cloning Produce Better Embryonic Stem Cells?”, implying that if they do, scientists would want to use them. Nothing was said about ethics in the article. Shoukhrat Mitalipov, the researcher at University of Oregon who recently claimed to have cloned human embryos (see 5/13/13), is arguing that “cloned human embryonic stem cells may have some advantages over other cells.” That is a completely pragmatic argument that dodges whether scientists should pursue their use. 10/1/2017 184

Nature printed the views of two researchers in the Netherlands who, while applauding Mitalipov’s achievement, advocate sticking with iPS cells and improving them instead of tinkering with human embryos by harvesting eggs. (Note: their views are not necessarily those of the editors of Nature.) In our opinion, the discovery in 2006 that differentiated adult cells can be directly reprogrammed to a stem-cell-like state called induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells was a more significant breakthrough for this research field. iPS cells can be generated by introducing just four transcription factors into differentiated cells of an individual, without the need for the ethically sensitive step of creating embryos from oocytes as intermediates.… Indeed, many laboratories now routinely generate iPS cells from patients, bypassing the practical and regulatory difficulties associated with obtaining human oocytes. 10/1/2017 185

Hybrids and Chimeras On the path to the mad scientist in H. G. Wells’ The Island of Dr. Moreau, some researchers lust to mix human and animal tissue into “chimera” organisms. New Scientist discussed this ethical dilemma in an article, “Human-animal hybrids mean boom time for bioethicists.” It’s not talking about implanting a pig heart valve into a patient, but something more sinister. The UK has some ethics guidelines about what can and cannot be done: 10/1/2017 186

Two years ago, the UK Academy of Medical Sciences released a groundbreaking report on “animals containing human material”. It concluded that most research on chimeras is permitted by existing UK laws. But it also identified some experiments that should not (yet) be done because of strong ethical objections. One is to breed an animal that has human sperm or eggs. Another is to create a non-human primate with a humanised brain. 10/1/2017 187

That qualifier “(yet)” is worrisome. What ethical standards will govern future experimenters, particularly if it becomes very profitable or leads to pragmatic breakthroughs to save lives? New Scientist said that Japan is already “very” close to crossing the boundaries of the UK standards. One can already hear the pragmatists arguing that human-animal hybrids made from pigs or primates will provide all kinds of benefits (not the least of which, money for the profiteers): 10/1/2017 188

All of which leads to the unsurprising conclusion that the ultimate aim of this research – to provide desperately needed human organs for transplantation – can only be achieved if serious ethical and technical hurdles are surmounted. We are rapidly approaching those ethical hurdles.… Of course, any ethical concerns must be weighed against the potential benefits for human health and life. An entire generation of bioethicists may not be needed, but there is still plenty of work to be done. 10/1/2017 189

Complications of Crossing Ethical Lines At the end of June, Nature published a historical story ripe for pitting ethicists against pragmatists. A stem cell line generated from an aborted fetus in 1962 has been used to to create vaccines that have saved many lives. Unlike stem cells from diseased individuals, the “normal” cells from this Wi-38 stem cell line, derived from the “legal abortion,” is “the most extensively described and studied normal human cells available to this day.” Here’s the ethical dilemma: 10/1/2017 190

Vaccines made using WI-38 cells have immunized hundreds of millions of people against rubella, rabies, adenovirus, polio, measles, chickenpox and shingles. In the 1960s and 1970s, the cells helped epidemiologists to identify viral culprits in disease outbreaks. Their normality has made them valuable control cells for comparison with diseased ones. And at the Wistar Institute, as in labs and universities around the world, they remain a leading tool for probing the secrets of cellular ageing and cancer. 10/1/2017 191

“Here’s a clump of cells that has had an enormous impact on human health,” says Paul Offit, chief of the division of infectious diseases at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “These cells from one fetus have no doubt saved the lives of millions of people.” The article went on to describe the money trail from the WI-38 cell line. The scientist who obtained them, Leonard Hayflick, started selling access to them, earning $90,000, leading to debates about how scientists should profit from human cells. (The money went to lawyers because of ensuing legal squabbles over the cells.) Even more troubling, “the WI-38 strain has helped to generate billions of dollars for companies that produce vaccines based on the cells, yet it seems that the parents of the fetus have earned nothing.” But should they, if they chose to abort? In what kind of society does someone earn money for killing? 10/1/2017 192

The “ends justify the means” pragmatic arguments weaken when considering that other methods could have sufficed to save lives. Vaccines obviously existed well before “Other vaccines are produced in a completely morally non-objectionable way,” one pro-life activist argued. “So why aren’t we doing this with all vaccines?” For 40 years, anti-abortion activists have protested against the use of WI-38 and vaccines developed from it. “It’s still a live issue,” says Alta Charo, a professor of law and bioethics at the University of Wisconsin Law School in Madison. “We still have people who refuse to take these vaccines because of their origins in fetal tissue.” 10/1/2017 193

But what if those people weren’t around? It appears that Hayflick preferred the fetal cells because he believed they had less exposure to viruses than adult cells. He reasoned that if nothing were done with the fetal cells made available to him, they would end up in the incinerator – thus the pragmatic argument. Is this not the same as salvaging organs from a car accident fatality victim? But what if such pragmatic moves create a market for engineering car accidents? 10/1/2017 194

It’s telling that Nature should have focused exclusively on possible injustices to Hayflick and the parents of the aborted baby (the “tissue donors”). Hayflick himself seems blind to the real victim: Hayflick argues that there are at least four stakeholders with title to WI-38 or any human cell culture: the tissue donors, the scientists whose work gave it value, the scientists’ institution and the body that funded the work. “Like me”, he adds, “hundreds of other scientists had their careers advanced using WI-38 and other human cell cultures so we all owe a moral debt to the tissue donors.” 10/1/2017 195

Clearly, though, the most unjustly treated individual was the aborted baby, who had no opportunity for life or liberty to give its consent to sacrifice its life for others. If there had been no pressure from pro-lifers throughout the 50 years since the abortion, it’s doubtful the scientists, pharmaceutical companies and lawyers would have many ethical qualms with the use of fetal tissue, those “clumps of cells” that are so very useful and profitable. 10/1/2017 196

Ever since science as an institution cut itself loose from the moorings of religion, it has floundered aimlessly on a sea of pragmatism, anchored on nothing but Darwinian self-interest. Morality requires the presupposition that certain things are eternally right or wrong. How can a Darwinist ground ethics in a universe where everything evolves? One can feel the tension in these articles. The scientists have self-interest and motivation for money or fame to do anything they can in the name of science, but are troubled by their consciences and fear of upsetting funding sources who might be listening to the pro-life activists who believe in the sanctity of human life (a Biblical world view). Pragmatic arguments can be very strong. Scientists can rationalize about human health and lives that could be saved by the new technologies. Take away conscience (which Darwinism can do) and political opposition, and they stand on the edge of the slippery slope. 10/1/2017 197

The atrocities possible in a world down the slope are very real. They not only can happen; they have happened. Who cannot remember with horror the “medical experiments” committed in Nazi Germany by well-known scientists? Experiments were done not just on living prisoners, but on the corpses coming from the death camps. The scientists justified some of that work on the grounds that they didn’t do the killing; they were just taking good advantage of a bad situation. Compare that with what Hayflick and the scientific institutions did. Hey; the abortion was legal, wasn’t it? Didn’t the government legislate it as ethical at the time? Pragmatism teases rationalization. “Hey, I didn’t kill the fetus; don’t blame me! I’m doing something good with the tissue!” Enough of that line of thinking, and abortion increases – justified on the grounds that mothers are helping “science” by sacrificing their children to the new Moloch. 10/1/2017 198

There are Darwinian bioethicists. They are useless. On what basis would they say “no” to anything the scientific institutions and pharmaceutical companies want? The only people keeping a leash on the mad scientists of our day are those who can ground their ethics in unchanging morality – particularly, Christians and Jews who believe in the holy, righteous, just transcendent Creator God of the Bible, who gave mankind the Ten Commandments. That leash must hold. Resources for thinking about the limits of the ethically possible in a Darwinian world: Darwin Day in America by John West; provides many other historical examples of ethics set adrift by Darwinian thinking. The Magician’s Twin: C. S. Lewis on Science, Scientism and Society from the Discovery Institute details Lewis’s fears about godless scientism. That Hideous Strength by C. S. Lewis: a novel about a modern scientific Babel using science to destroy humanness. 10/1/2017 199

Creationism News – June 2013 创造论新闻– 2013年6月

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Creationism News – June 2013 创造论新闻– 2013年6月"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Creationism News – June 2013 创造论新闻– 2013年6月

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Creationism News – June 2013 创造论新闻– 2013年6月"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback