Tuesday 21 March 2017
Victorian era scourges make a mockery of our 21st century tech.
London (CNN)Josie Garrett seems like a healthy and happy 24-year-old when we meet her in between classes at University College London where she is studying for a master's degree.
But Garrett is making a tough recovery from a potentially deadly strain of tuberculosis -- a disease she, along with many people, thought was a thing of the past.Six months ago she was seriously ill and being treated in an isolation unit in a London hospital.
Up until recently, Garrett says she wasn't able to do anything.
"I couldn't work, wasn't able to socialize, I wasn't able to kind of live a normal life. It had a huge impact, so the idea of it being done and hopefully not coming back again is amazing," the student says.
Garrett says she felt "complete shock" at her diagnosis.
"I think there is a general sense in this country, at least for me -- which is incorrect -- that infectious diseases are completely eradicated, or that we found some way to get rid of them and that they are 'Victorian' illnesses," she says. "The reality is that's just not the case. It's definitely something people need to be aware of."
Deadlier than Iraq?
Some London neighborhoods have higher rates of tuberculosis than almost anywhere else in the world, as high as 113 per 100,000 people. That's significantly higher than in countries such as Rwanda, Iraq and Guatemala."We think TB is a disease of developing countries or of days gone by, but TB is a disease of today. It certainly was a disease of yesterday, and we need to make sure that it isn't a disease of tomorrow," says Dr. Onkar Sarhota, who is chair of London's Health Committee.
TB is one disease often synonymous with poverty, affecting the most vulnerable.
And it is not the only such disease worrying London's doctors.
Recent studies for Britain's National Health Service found that other diseases, widespread in the 19th and early 20th centuries, are making a comeback.
"There has been a huge rise in scarlet fever -- 14,000 [suspected] cases in the last year, the highest since the 1960s," says Dr. Nuria Martinez-Alier, a London immunologist. "We have seen a rise in the cases of tuberculosis, we've seen a rise in cases of whooping cough, we have seen more measles in the last 10 years than in the last 10 years before that," she warns.
Over the past five years in England, hospital admissions for scarlet fever have risen 136%, scurvy by 38% and cholera by 300%, though the number of scurvy and cholera cases is very small.
TB fightback:
Modern factors like migration are contributing to the resurgence, as well as age-old afflictions: malnutrition, poverty and lack of access to health care.In England, malnutrition has risen by 51% over the past five years, the National Health Service reports.
And there are other factors.
"We are seeing a reduced vaccine uptake, for example with measles; reduced population immunity, for example with whooping cough; increased poverty and more people on the poverty line," Martinez-Alier says.
London health officials credit awareness campaigns and free screening sessions in the city for a steady improvement in the rate of tuberculosis infection this year, though it remains high.In England, malnutrition has risen by 51% over the past five years, the National Health Service reports."It is a serious problem and we need to tackle it," says Dr. Sarhota.
Josie Garrett's recovery from TB will have taken two years when she is finished with her treatment.
She is urging awareness, so other people can get diagnosed faster than she was. "My perception of TB was something Jane Austen heroines had, not someone today."
But Garrett is making a tough recovery from a potentially deadly strain of tuberculosis -- a disease she, along with many people, thought was a thing of the past.Six months ago she was seriously ill and being treated in an isolation unit in a London hospital.
Up until recently, Garrett says she wasn't able to do anything.
"I couldn't work, wasn't able to socialize, I wasn't able to kind of live a normal life. It had a huge impact, so the idea of it being done and hopefully not coming back again is amazing," the student says.
Garrett says she felt "complete shock" at her diagnosis.
"I think there is a general sense in this country, at least for me -- which is incorrect -- that infectious diseases are completely eradicated, or that we found some way to get rid of them and that they are 'Victorian' illnesses," she says. "The reality is that's just not the case. It's definitely something people need to be aware of."
Deadlier than Iraq?
Some London neighborhoods have higher rates of tuberculosis than almost anywhere else in the world, as high as 113 per 100,000 people. That's significantly higher than in countries such as Rwanda, Iraq and Guatemala."We think TB is a disease of developing countries or of days gone by, but TB is a disease of today. It certainly was a disease of yesterday, and we need to make sure that it isn't a disease of tomorrow," says Dr. Onkar Sarhota, who is chair of London's Health Committee.
TB is one disease often synonymous with poverty, affecting the most vulnerable.
And it is not the only such disease worrying London's doctors.
Recent studies for Britain's National Health Service found that other diseases, widespread in the 19th and early 20th centuries, are making a comeback.
"There has been a huge rise in scarlet fever -- 14,000 [suspected] cases in the last year, the highest since the 1960s," says Dr. Nuria Martinez-Alier, a London immunologist. "We have seen a rise in the cases of tuberculosis, we've seen a rise in cases of whooping cough, we have seen more measles in the last 10 years than in the last 10 years before that," she warns.
Over the past five years in England, hospital admissions for scarlet fever have risen 136%, scurvy by 38% and cholera by 300%, though the number of scurvy and cholera cases is very small.
TB fightback:
Modern factors like migration are contributing to the resurgence, as well as age-old afflictions: malnutrition, poverty and lack of access to health care.In England, malnutrition has risen by 51% over the past five years, the National Health Service reports.
And there are other factors.
"We are seeing a reduced vaccine uptake, for example with measles; reduced population immunity, for example with whooping cough; increased poverty and more people on the poverty line," Martinez-Alier says.
London health officials credit awareness campaigns and free screening sessions in the city for a steady improvement in the rate of tuberculosis infection this year, though it remains high.In England, malnutrition has risen by 51% over the past five years, the National Health Service reports."It is a serious problem and we need to tackle it," says Dr. Sarhota.
Josie Garrett's recovery from TB will have taken two years when she is finished with her treatment.
She is urging awareness, so other people can get diagnosed faster than she was. "My perception of TB was something Jane Austen heroines had, not someone today."
Is wikipedia run by the borg?
Wikipedia and the Sociology of Darwinian Belief
David Klinghoffer February 5, 2012 8:12 PM
I wish I worked as efficiently as Wikipedia's editors. Last week I noted here that notwithstanding the impressive volume of pro-ID peer-reviewed publications, by researchers within and outside the intelligent-design movement, Wikipedia's article on ID carries the ridiculously false statement that "The intelligent design movement has not published a properly peer-reviewed article in a scientific journal," with a footnote to the six-years-old Kitzmiller v. Dover decision.
Writing us at ENV, a reader in South Africa promptly took it on himself to try to correct the Wiki article and report back about the results. A worthy gesture, but I could have told him he was probably wasting his time.
As anyone knows who's followed the popular Darwinist blogging sites, Darwinism is an ideological movement seemingly rich in believers unhindered by responsibilities to family or work or both, with little better to do day and night than engage in (usually anonymous) skirmishes on the Internet. Editing the Wiki article, our South African friend inserted references to the 50-plus peer-reviewed articles from our updated list of pro-ID scientific literature. Sure enough, within just 30 minutes, someone had erased his additions and substituted snide and again false language to the effect that:
The Discovery Institute insists that a number of intelligent design articles have been published in peer-reviewed journals.... Critics, largely members of the scientific community, reject this claim, stating that no established scientific journal has yet published an intelligent design article. Rather, intelligent design proponents have set up their own journals with peer review that lacks impartiality and rigor, consisting entirely of intelligent design supporters.
This is preposterous, as anyone who has looked at the list of papers would have to honestly admit. Our South African friend went a few rounds with the Wikipedia editors but, last time I checked, without ultimate success. They kept erasing or editing his edits. The main Wiki article on intelligent design still falsely reports, "The intelligent design movement has not published a properly peer-reviewed article in a scientific journal."
Our friend suggested despairingly,
I'm afraid that the only way to get some balance in Wikipedia is if the [Discovery Institute] appoints people on a full time basis just to monitor and correct the articles...Given how important Wikipedia is as a source to the common man, it might well be a worthwhile investment.
A nice suggestion, if totally unrealistic. Of course he's right, though, about Wikipedia's cultural importance. Many a high school or college student or curious adult will rely on that article and conclude erroneously with Judge Jones, on whose cribbing from the ACLU six years ago the article explicitly relies, that ID has no serious scientific backing.
It's pathetic, but also revealing. As I noted at the American Spectator the other day, Darwinists and other liberals are very big on seeking sociological or medical explanations for the persistent tendency of most Americans to "deny science" by doubting Darwinism, politically correct climate science, and the rest. It tells you something that, in defending their doctrine at Wikipedia, the Darwinian cause can draw on such an impressive body of apparently unemployed and socially isolated devotees.
Intelligent design can't do that. If I had to estimate, based on ample experience, I would say that the sociology of ID leans far, far more in the direction of people tied in with other people -- work, family, friends -- in other words, with reality. We don't live just virtually on the Internet. And so, despite the fact that Darwin-doubting represents a majority view in American culture as a whole, we can't muster the needed forces among the unemployed and isolated to monitor Wikipedia for falsehoods around the clock. We just don't have the time. We have other things to do.
That's a big challenge. But if the sociology of belief means anything -- if you can tell something about an idea from the people who hold it -- it speaks well for our side in the evolution debate and gives some reason for longterm hope.
David Klinghoffer February 5, 2012 8:12 PM
I wish I worked as efficiently as Wikipedia's editors. Last week I noted here that notwithstanding the impressive volume of pro-ID peer-reviewed publications, by researchers within and outside the intelligent-design movement, Wikipedia's article on ID carries the ridiculously false statement that "The intelligent design movement has not published a properly peer-reviewed article in a scientific journal," with a footnote to the six-years-old Kitzmiller v. Dover decision.
Writing us at ENV, a reader in South Africa promptly took it on himself to try to correct the Wiki article and report back about the results. A worthy gesture, but I could have told him he was probably wasting his time.
As anyone knows who's followed the popular Darwinist blogging sites, Darwinism is an ideological movement seemingly rich in believers unhindered by responsibilities to family or work or both, with little better to do day and night than engage in (usually anonymous) skirmishes on the Internet. Editing the Wiki article, our South African friend inserted references to the 50-plus peer-reviewed articles from our updated list of pro-ID scientific literature. Sure enough, within just 30 minutes, someone had erased his additions and substituted snide and again false language to the effect that:
The Discovery Institute insists that a number of intelligent design articles have been published in peer-reviewed journals.... Critics, largely members of the scientific community, reject this claim, stating that no established scientific journal has yet published an intelligent design article. Rather, intelligent design proponents have set up their own journals with peer review that lacks impartiality and rigor, consisting entirely of intelligent design supporters.
This is preposterous, as anyone who has looked at the list of papers would have to honestly admit. Our South African friend went a few rounds with the Wikipedia editors but, last time I checked, without ultimate success. They kept erasing or editing his edits. The main Wiki article on intelligent design still falsely reports, "The intelligent design movement has not published a properly peer-reviewed article in a scientific journal."
Our friend suggested despairingly,
I'm afraid that the only way to get some balance in Wikipedia is if the [Discovery Institute] appoints people on a full time basis just to monitor and correct the articles...Given how important Wikipedia is as a source to the common man, it might well be a worthwhile investment.
A nice suggestion, if totally unrealistic. Of course he's right, though, about Wikipedia's cultural importance. Many a high school or college student or curious adult will rely on that article and conclude erroneously with Judge Jones, on whose cribbing from the ACLU six years ago the article explicitly relies, that ID has no serious scientific backing.
It's pathetic, but also revealing. As I noted at the American Spectator the other day, Darwinists and other liberals are very big on seeking sociological or medical explanations for the persistent tendency of most Americans to "deny science" by doubting Darwinism, politically correct climate science, and the rest. It tells you something that, in defending their doctrine at Wikipedia, the Darwinian cause can draw on such an impressive body of apparently unemployed and socially isolated devotees.
Intelligent design can't do that. If I had to estimate, based on ample experience, I would say that the sociology of ID leans far, far more in the direction of people tied in with other people -- work, family, friends -- in other words, with reality. We don't live just virtually on the Internet. And so, despite the fact that Darwin-doubting represents a majority view in American culture as a whole, we can't muster the needed forces among the unemployed and isolated to monitor Wikipedia for falsehoods around the clock. We just don't have the time. We have other things to do.
That's a big challenge. But if the sociology of belief means anything -- if you can tell something about an idea from the people who hold it -- it speaks well for our side in the evolution debate and gives some reason for longterm hope.
Sunday 19 March 2017
Metamorphosis Vs. Darwinism
Previewing Metamorphosis: The Case for Intelligent Design in a Nutshell Chrysalis
David Klinghoffer May 18, 2011 7:46 AM
The other night, I watched the latest production from Illustra Media, Metamorphosis, with our oldest kid, nine-year-old Ezra. Given that he pretty strictly requires that video entertainment involve robots flying around blowing things up, I expected him to scoff at a movie about caterpillars that crawl around, turn into butterflies then proceed to fly to Mexico. Conspicuously, on its remarkable unguided cross-continental journey, the luminous orange-and-black Monarch butterfly fails to blow up anything at all.
Yet Ezra sat entranced throughout, as I did, which leads me to think Metamorphosis is going to be a big, cross-generational hit.
Scheduled to be released in DVD form on June 15, Metamorphosis follows on the heels of past Illustra offerings, including Privileged Planet, Unlocking the Mystery of Life, and Darwin's Dilemma. It's probably true that with these films taken altogether, Illustra producer and documentarian Lad Allen has made the most easily accessible, visually stunning case for intelligent design available.
If you have one shot at opening the mind of an uninformed and dismissive friend or family member, the kind who feels threatened by challenges to Darwinism, then presenting him with a copy of a 600-page volume like Signature in the Cell, or even a slimmer alternative like Darwin's Black Box, would probably be less effective than choosing one of Mr. Allen's DVDs.
Among those, Metamorphosis might well make the best initial selection, since the argument for intelligent design doesn't come in till the third and final act. When it comes, it's a soft sell, preceded by a gorgeous, non-threatening nature film that only hints at what's ahead in Act III. In Act I, the focus is on the mind-blowing magical routine by which the caterpillar enters into the chrysalis, dissolves into a buttery blob and swiftly reconstitutes itself into a completely different insect, a butterfly.
A cute graphic sequence shows, by way of analogy, a Ford Model T driving along a desert road. It screeches to a stop and unfolds a garage around itself. Inside, the car quickly falls to pieces, divesting itself of constituent parts that spontaneously recycle themselves into an utterly new and far more splendid vehicle. A sleek modern helicopter emerges from the garage door and thumps off into the sky.
In Act II, we follow a particular butterfly, the Monarch, on its journey to a volcanic mountain lodging site in Mexico for the winter, accomplished each year despite the fact that no single, living Monarch was among the cohort that made the trip the year before. Only distant relations -- grandparents, great-grandparents -- did so. Given the brief life cycle of the insect, those elders are all dead. The Monarch follows the lead of an ingenious internal mapping and guidance system dependent on making calculations of the angle of the rising sun and on magnetic tugs from ferrous metal in the target mountain range.
Experts explain and comment, including CSC fellow and philosopher of biology Paul Nelson, Biologic Institute developmental biologist Ann Gauger, and University of Florida zoologist Thomas Emmel. The film argues that neither metamorphosis nor migration is the kind of feature with which blindly groping Darwinian natural selection could ever equip a creature. How could an unguided step-by-step process build metamorphosis, inherently an all-or-nothing proposition? As Dr. Gauger points, once the caterpillar has entered the chrysalis, there's no going back. It must emerge either as a fully formed butterfly or the soupy remains of a dead caterpillar.
If I had a criticism of the film, it would be that too little time is devoted to the evolution debate. You come away wondering how Darwinists would respond, and how ID-friendly experts would reply in turn.
Well, Lad Allen's film won't be the last word on the subject, just as it is far from the first. Contemplating butterflies was among the considerations that drove evolutionary theory's co-discoverer, Alfred Russel Wallace, to doubt the sufficiency of natural selection to account for the most wondrous aspects of animal life. Like lepidopterist and novelist Vladimir Nabokov a half-century later, Wallace noted the astonishing, gratuitous artistry with which butterflies adorn their wings.
In The World of Life, Wallace wrote of how he could satisfyingly account for this only as a feature intended by design "to lead us to recognize some guiding power, some supreme mind, directing and organizing the blind forces of nature in the production of this marvelous development of life and loveliness." Butterflies may not literally blow up bad guys like the robots in my son's favorite movies, but they strike another blow for Wallaceism.
More subtly, the transformation of the caterpillar hints at a deeper truth about life, that it is not bestowed on machines or other mechanical devices, as per the mechanistic myth. Ancient philosophers and mystics spoke of an "animal soul," different from the soul that makes human beings unique, although people possess both an animal and a divine soul, along with our physical bodies. The animal soul, in this view, is a vital force received by inheritance at conception and, among other functions, participating in the direction of how the body gets knitted together.
Speaking of it as a soul implies purpose, intention, intelligence. That sure does look like what's at work in those mere couple of weeks spent in the chrysalis. Darwinism, of course, has a hard enough time explaining the construction of a living machine. This is something much greater, posing a far harder challenge to materialist evolutionism.
David Klinghoffer May 18, 2011 7:46 AM
The other night, I watched the latest production from Illustra Media, Metamorphosis, with our oldest kid, nine-year-old Ezra. Given that he pretty strictly requires that video entertainment involve robots flying around blowing things up, I expected him to scoff at a movie about caterpillars that crawl around, turn into butterflies then proceed to fly to Mexico. Conspicuously, on its remarkable unguided cross-continental journey, the luminous orange-and-black Monarch butterfly fails to blow up anything at all.
Yet Ezra sat entranced throughout, as I did, which leads me to think Metamorphosis is going to be a big, cross-generational hit.
Scheduled to be released in DVD form on June 15, Metamorphosis follows on the heels of past Illustra offerings, including Privileged Planet, Unlocking the Mystery of Life, and Darwin's Dilemma. It's probably true that with these films taken altogether, Illustra producer and documentarian Lad Allen has made the most easily accessible, visually stunning case for intelligent design available.
If you have one shot at opening the mind of an uninformed and dismissive friend or family member, the kind who feels threatened by challenges to Darwinism, then presenting him with a copy of a 600-page volume like Signature in the Cell, or even a slimmer alternative like Darwin's Black Box, would probably be less effective than choosing one of Mr. Allen's DVDs.
Among those, Metamorphosis might well make the best initial selection, since the argument for intelligent design doesn't come in till the third and final act. When it comes, it's a soft sell, preceded by a gorgeous, non-threatening nature film that only hints at what's ahead in Act III. In Act I, the focus is on the mind-blowing magical routine by which the caterpillar enters into the chrysalis, dissolves into a buttery blob and swiftly reconstitutes itself into a completely different insect, a butterfly.
A cute graphic sequence shows, by way of analogy, a Ford Model T driving along a desert road. It screeches to a stop and unfolds a garage around itself. Inside, the car quickly falls to pieces, divesting itself of constituent parts that spontaneously recycle themselves into an utterly new and far more splendid vehicle. A sleek modern helicopter emerges from the garage door and thumps off into the sky.
In Act II, we follow a particular butterfly, the Monarch, on its journey to a volcanic mountain lodging site in Mexico for the winter, accomplished each year despite the fact that no single, living Monarch was among the cohort that made the trip the year before. Only distant relations -- grandparents, great-grandparents -- did so. Given the brief life cycle of the insect, those elders are all dead. The Monarch follows the lead of an ingenious internal mapping and guidance system dependent on making calculations of the angle of the rising sun and on magnetic tugs from ferrous metal in the target mountain range.
Experts explain and comment, including CSC fellow and philosopher of biology Paul Nelson, Biologic Institute developmental biologist Ann Gauger, and University of Florida zoologist Thomas Emmel. The film argues that neither metamorphosis nor migration is the kind of feature with which blindly groping Darwinian natural selection could ever equip a creature. How could an unguided step-by-step process build metamorphosis, inherently an all-or-nothing proposition? As Dr. Gauger points, once the caterpillar has entered the chrysalis, there's no going back. It must emerge either as a fully formed butterfly or the soupy remains of a dead caterpillar.
If I had a criticism of the film, it would be that too little time is devoted to the evolution debate. You come away wondering how Darwinists would respond, and how ID-friendly experts would reply in turn.
Well, Lad Allen's film won't be the last word on the subject, just as it is far from the first. Contemplating butterflies was among the considerations that drove evolutionary theory's co-discoverer, Alfred Russel Wallace, to doubt the sufficiency of natural selection to account for the most wondrous aspects of animal life. Like lepidopterist and novelist Vladimir Nabokov a half-century later, Wallace noted the astonishing, gratuitous artistry with which butterflies adorn their wings.
In The World of Life, Wallace wrote of how he could satisfyingly account for this only as a feature intended by design "to lead us to recognize some guiding power, some supreme mind, directing and organizing the blind forces of nature in the production of this marvelous development of life and loveliness." Butterflies may not literally blow up bad guys like the robots in my son's favorite movies, but they strike another blow for Wallaceism.
More subtly, the transformation of the caterpillar hints at a deeper truth about life, that it is not bestowed on machines or other mechanical devices, as per the mechanistic myth. Ancient philosophers and mystics spoke of an "animal soul," different from the soul that makes human beings unique, although people possess both an animal and a divine soul, along with our physical bodies. The animal soul, in this view, is a vital force received by inheritance at conception and, among other functions, participating in the direction of how the body gets knitted together.
Speaking of it as a soul implies purpose, intention, intelligence. That sure does look like what's at work in those mere couple of weeks spent in the chrysalis. Darwinism, of course, has a hard enough time explaining the construction of a living machine. This is something much greater, posing a far harder challenge to materialist evolutionism.
On the Genius of the original designer
On Darwin’s Day, Let’s Ask: Are Our Bodies the Product of ‘Unintelligent Design’?
By Ann Gauger | February 11, 2016
This Friday, February 12, is Darwin Day, the birth date of Charles Darwin (1809-1882). It’s an occasion celebrated around the world for revealing the truth about who we really are and what we’re really like—so say Darwin’s more aggressive followers. Look at yourself in the mirror. You’re just an animal, and a poorly made one, at that. You are the product of “unintelligent design.”
But perhaps, on this occasion of Darwin’s birthday, might it not be worth asking, is what they say true?
Let’s examine the rhetoric of one of the more articulate and media-savvy of those who express this viewpoint, professor of psychology Dr. David Barash. A couple of years ago he opened a remarkable window on his classroom teaching. Writing in the New York Times, he described a yearly talk – “The Talk” – he gives to his students at the University of Washington. In The Talk, he explains why Darwinian theory, if faced squarely, undermines belief in a “benevolent, controlling creator.”
His candor is to be commended. Many biology students likely receive a similar message, perhaps more implied than explicit, from their teachers.
More recently, in the Wall Street Journal, the prolific Dr. Barash highlighted a particular challenge, as he sees it, to “intelligent design.” I put the phrase in quotation marks because the only example of design thinking he gives goes back well over a century and a half, to a theological document, the Bridgewater Treatises (1833-1840), while skipping over modern scientific evidence of intelligent design (ID) altogether. I’m sorry to say this is typical of many who criticize ID. But leave that aside.
In the article, Barash reviews two new books that describe the evolutionary mess that our bodies are – a hodgepodge, so this view insists, of barely good enough solutions to physiological problems, a collection of compromises that leave us prone to injury and disease, according to the authors and according to him. I haven’t read the books in question, but Barash’s piece itself makes the case for “unintelligent design.”
There’s an undercurrent that runs through that argument, sometimes visible on the surface, sometimes below the water, tugging our feet out from under us. That ripple on the surface goes something like this: Our design isn’t perfect. That’s the visible part. Then there’s the undercurrent: If there were an intelligent designer he would have made perfect things. Barash, ever frank, says this directly. Giving examples like the optic nerve and the prostate gland, he says, “An intelligent designer wouldn’t have proceeded this way.” Therefore we are the product of patchwork evolution and there is no designer.
Note, that undercurrent is an assumption. Who knows what an intelligent designer capable of creating life would have done? Theologians who believe the designer is God may argue about that, but science provides no insight.
It’s another assumption that good design never breaks down. Not many human machines can last 70 years without breaking down sometime. A 1940 Cadillac, top of the line, in continuous use, would have needed considerable refurbishing by now to keep it running and looking decent. Its leather seats would likely have cracked and its paint job flaked and dimmed, numerous sets of tires worn out, its brakes replaced numerous times, and its valves and pistons either machined or replaced.
At the same age, many human beings look pretty good by comparison, since we generally keep running without replacement parts long after our warranty has expired.
Any human designer knows that good design often means finding a way to meet multiple constraints. Consider airplanes. We want them to be strong, but weight is an issue, so lighter materials must be used. We want to preserve people’s hearing and keep the cabin warm, so soundproofing and insulation are needed, but they add weight. All of this together determines fuel usage, which translates into how far the airplane can fly. In 1986, the Rutan Voyager made its flight around the world without stopping or refueling, the first aircraft ever to do so. To carry enough fuel to make the trip, the designers had to strip the plane of everything except the essentials. That meant no soundproofing and no comfortable seats. But the airplane flew all the way. This was very special design.
Last, despite what some, like Dr. Barash, would tell you, our bodies are marvels of perfection in many ways. The rod cells in our eyes can detect as little as one photon of light; our brains receive the signal after just nine rods have responded. Our speech apparatus is perfectly fit for communication. Says linguist Noam Chomsky, “Language is an optimal way to link sound and meaning.” Our brains are capable of storing as much information as the World Wide Web.
We can run long distances, better than a horse and rider sometimes. For an amusing comparison of our fastest times compared to various animals, have a look here. But bear in mind, not one of those animals can run, swim, and jump as well as we can.
Then there is our capacity for abstract thought, an activity you and I are engaged in right now, and our incredible fine-motor skills. Think concert pianist.
On that note, happy Darwin Day, and I do mean happy. Before allowing some evolutionists to get us down and drag us under, let’s remember and be grateful for all the things that go right and work well. Intelligent design does not mean “perfect design,” or “design impervious to aging, injury, and disease.” It means being a product of intelligence, whatever the source might be, giving evidence of care, intention, and forethought, as our bodies surely do.
Ann Gauger holds a PhD in developmental biology from the University of Washington and is a senior research scientist at Biologic Institute.
By Ann Gauger | February 11, 2016
This Friday, February 12, is Darwin Day, the birth date of Charles Darwin (1809-1882). It’s an occasion celebrated around the world for revealing the truth about who we really are and what we’re really like—so say Darwin’s more aggressive followers. Look at yourself in the mirror. You’re just an animal, and a poorly made one, at that. You are the product of “unintelligent design.”
But perhaps, on this occasion of Darwin’s birthday, might it not be worth asking, is what they say true?
Let’s examine the rhetoric of one of the more articulate and media-savvy of those who express this viewpoint, professor of psychology Dr. David Barash. A couple of years ago he opened a remarkable window on his classroom teaching. Writing in the New York Times, he described a yearly talk – “The Talk” – he gives to his students at the University of Washington. In The Talk, he explains why Darwinian theory, if faced squarely, undermines belief in a “benevolent, controlling creator.”
His candor is to be commended. Many biology students likely receive a similar message, perhaps more implied than explicit, from their teachers.
More recently, in the Wall Street Journal, the prolific Dr. Barash highlighted a particular challenge, as he sees it, to “intelligent design.” I put the phrase in quotation marks because the only example of design thinking he gives goes back well over a century and a half, to a theological document, the Bridgewater Treatises (1833-1840), while skipping over modern scientific evidence of intelligent design (ID) altogether. I’m sorry to say this is typical of many who criticize ID. But leave that aside.
In the article, Barash reviews two new books that describe the evolutionary mess that our bodies are – a hodgepodge, so this view insists, of barely good enough solutions to physiological problems, a collection of compromises that leave us prone to injury and disease, according to the authors and according to him. I haven’t read the books in question, but Barash’s piece itself makes the case for “unintelligent design.”
There’s an undercurrent that runs through that argument, sometimes visible on the surface, sometimes below the water, tugging our feet out from under us. That ripple on the surface goes something like this: Our design isn’t perfect. That’s the visible part. Then there’s the undercurrent: If there were an intelligent designer he would have made perfect things. Barash, ever frank, says this directly. Giving examples like the optic nerve and the prostate gland, he says, “An intelligent designer wouldn’t have proceeded this way.” Therefore we are the product of patchwork evolution and there is no designer.
Note, that undercurrent is an assumption. Who knows what an intelligent designer capable of creating life would have done? Theologians who believe the designer is God may argue about that, but science provides no insight.
It’s another assumption that good design never breaks down. Not many human machines can last 70 years without breaking down sometime. A 1940 Cadillac, top of the line, in continuous use, would have needed considerable refurbishing by now to keep it running and looking decent. Its leather seats would likely have cracked and its paint job flaked and dimmed, numerous sets of tires worn out, its brakes replaced numerous times, and its valves and pistons either machined or replaced.
At the same age, many human beings look pretty good by comparison, since we generally keep running without replacement parts long after our warranty has expired.
Any human designer knows that good design often means finding a way to meet multiple constraints. Consider airplanes. We want them to be strong, but weight is an issue, so lighter materials must be used. We want to preserve people’s hearing and keep the cabin warm, so soundproofing and insulation are needed, but they add weight. All of this together determines fuel usage, which translates into how far the airplane can fly. In 1986, the Rutan Voyager made its flight around the world without stopping or refueling, the first aircraft ever to do so. To carry enough fuel to make the trip, the designers had to strip the plane of everything except the essentials. That meant no soundproofing and no comfortable seats. But the airplane flew all the way. This was very special design.
Last, despite what some, like Dr. Barash, would tell you, our bodies are marvels of perfection in many ways. The rod cells in our eyes can detect as little as one photon of light; our brains receive the signal after just nine rods have responded. Our speech apparatus is perfectly fit for communication. Says linguist Noam Chomsky, “Language is an optimal way to link sound and meaning.” Our brains are capable of storing as much information as the World Wide Web.
We can run long distances, better than a horse and rider sometimes. For an amusing comparison of our fastest times compared to various animals, have a look here. But bear in mind, not one of those animals can run, swim, and jump as well as we can.
Then there is our capacity for abstract thought, an activity you and I are engaged in right now, and our incredible fine-motor skills. Think concert pianist.
On that note, happy Darwin Day, and I do mean happy. Before allowing some evolutionists to get us down and drag us under, let’s remember and be grateful for all the things that go right and work well. Intelligent design does not mean “perfect design,” or “design impervious to aging, injury, and disease.” It means being a product of intelligence, whatever the source might be, giving evidence of care, intention, and forethought, as our bodies surely do.
Ann Gauger holds a PhD in developmental biology from the University of Washington and is a senior research scientist at Biologic Institute.
Saturday 18 March 2017
Acts17 ESV
English Standard Version
Paul and Silas in Thessalonica
1Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. 2And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.” 4And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women. 5But the Jewsa were jealous, and taking some wicked men of the rabble, they formed a mob, set the city in an uproar, and attacked the house of Jason, seeking to bring them out to the crowd. 6And when they could not find them, they dragged Jason and some of the brothers before the city authorities, shouting, “These men who have turned the world upside down have come here also, 7and Jason has received them, and they are all acting against the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus.” 8And the people and the city authorities were disturbed when they heard these things. 9And when they had taken money as security from Jason and the rest, they let them go.
Paul and Silas in Berea
10The brothersb immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. 11Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. 12Many of them therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men. 13But when the Jews from Thessalonica learned that the word of God was proclaimed by Paul at Berea also, they came there too, agitating and stirring up the crowds. 14Then the brothers immediately sent Paul off on his way to the sea, but Silas and Timothy remained there. 15Those who conducted Paul brought him as far as Athens, and after receiving a command for Silas and Timothy to come to him as soon as possible, they departed.
Paul in Athens
16Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him as he saw that the city was full of idols. 17So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the devout persons, and in the marketplace every day with those who happened to be there. 18Some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers also conversed with him. And some said, “What does this babbler wish to say?” Others said, “He seems to be a preacher of foreign divinities”—because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection. 19And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, “May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? 20For you bring some strange things to our ears. We wish to know therefore what these things mean.” 21Now all the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there would spend their time in nothing except telling or hearing something new.
Paul Addresses the Areopagus
22So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. 23For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription: ‘To the unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. 24The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man,c 25nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. 26And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, 27that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, 28for
“‘In him we live and move and have our being’;d
as even some of your own poets have said,
“‘For we are indeed his offspring.’e
29Being then God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. 30The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”
32Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked. But others said, “We will hear you again about this.” 33So Paul went out from their midst. 34But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them.
Footnotes:
a 5 Greek Ioudaioi probably refers here to Jewish religious leaders, and others under their influence, in that time; also verse 13
b 10 Or brothers and sisters; also verse 14
c 24 Greek made by hands
d 28 Probably from Epimenides of Crete
e 28 From Aratus's poem "Phainomena"
Paul and Silas in Thessalonica
1Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. 2And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.” 4And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women. 5But the Jewsa were jealous, and taking some wicked men of the rabble, they formed a mob, set the city in an uproar, and attacked the house of Jason, seeking to bring them out to the crowd. 6And when they could not find them, they dragged Jason and some of the brothers before the city authorities, shouting, “These men who have turned the world upside down have come here also, 7and Jason has received them, and they are all acting against the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus.” 8And the people and the city authorities were disturbed when they heard these things. 9And when they had taken money as security from Jason and the rest, they let them go.
Paul and Silas in Berea
10The brothersb immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. 11Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. 12Many of them therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men. 13But when the Jews from Thessalonica learned that the word of God was proclaimed by Paul at Berea also, they came there too, agitating and stirring up the crowds. 14Then the brothers immediately sent Paul off on his way to the sea, but Silas and Timothy remained there. 15Those who conducted Paul brought him as far as Athens, and after receiving a command for Silas and Timothy to come to him as soon as possible, they departed.
Paul in Athens
16Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him as he saw that the city was full of idols. 17So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the devout persons, and in the marketplace every day with those who happened to be there. 18Some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers also conversed with him. And some said, “What does this babbler wish to say?” Others said, “He seems to be a preacher of foreign divinities”—because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection. 19And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, “May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? 20For you bring some strange things to our ears. We wish to know therefore what these things mean.” 21Now all the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there would spend their time in nothing except telling or hearing something new.
Paul Addresses the Areopagus
22So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. 23For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription: ‘To the unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. 24The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man,c 25nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. 26And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, 27that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, 28for
“‘In him we live and move and have our being’;d
as even some of your own poets have said,
“‘For we are indeed his offspring.’e
29Being then God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. 30The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”
32Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked. But others said, “We will hear you again about this.” 33So Paul went out from their midst. 34But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them.
Footnotes:
a 5 Greek Ioudaioi probably refers here to Jewish religious leaders, and others under their influence, in that time; also verse 13
b 10 Or brothers and sisters; also verse 14
c 24 Greek made by hands
d 28 Probably from Epimenides of Crete
e 28 From Aratus's poem "Phainomena"
Continuing to unsettle 'settled science'
Oxford’s Denis Noble Advocates “Fundamental Revision” in “Reductionist…Neo-Darwinism” -
David Klinghoffer
Here is a new book from Oxford University biologist Denis Noble, Dance to the Tune of Life: Biological Relativity. He is one of the Third Way of Evolution folks, and no advocate of intelligent design.
Now read this comment on the book from Jos de Mul of Erasmus University in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. He is likewise no proponent of ID:
In this elegantly written and personal book world-renowned physiologist and systems biologist Denis Noble effectively argues for a fundamental revision of the theory of evolution. Against the reductionist, gene-centered approach of Neo-Darwinism, which has dominated biology for more than a century, Noble passionately pleas for a more integrated approach. Massively supported by recent postgenomic and epigenetic empirical research, Dance to the Tune of Life deepens and synthesizes ideas Noble earlier developed in The Music of Life: Biology Beyond the Genome (2006) and subsequent writings. Just like Newtonian physics underwent a major transformation in the beginning of the 20th century due to Einstein’s general theory of relativity, the life sciences are facing a no less fundamental transformation. Noble’s book is a must read for anyone who wants to understand this transformation.
That is strong language — a “fundamental revision” in evolutionary theory, against “reductionist…neo-Darwinism,” comparable to how “Newtonian physics underwent a major transformation in the beginning of the 20th century.” Meanwhile fake science news out of the mainstream media and the National Center for Science Education assures us that evolutionary thinking is established as firmly as the Pillars of Hercules.
The book was published in January by Cambridge University Press. Don’t believe me? It’s all right on the Amazon page. Noble was among the organizers and participants at the Royal Society meeting in London that we’ve talked so much about here.
Evolutionary biology is in a state of ferment verging, in some quarters, on open rebellion. Don’t let Darwin apologists tell you otherwise.
- See more at: https://www.evolutionnews.org/2017/03/new-book-from-denis-noble-advocates-fundamental-revision-in-reductionistneo-darwinism/#sthash.9cTYiVmt.dpuf
David Klinghoffer
Here is a new book from Oxford University biologist Denis Noble, Dance to the Tune of Life: Biological Relativity. He is one of the Third Way of Evolution folks, and no advocate of intelligent design.
Now read this comment on the book from Jos de Mul of Erasmus University in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. He is likewise no proponent of ID:
In this elegantly written and personal book world-renowned physiologist and systems biologist Denis Noble effectively argues for a fundamental revision of the theory of evolution. Against the reductionist, gene-centered approach of Neo-Darwinism, which has dominated biology for more than a century, Noble passionately pleas for a more integrated approach. Massively supported by recent postgenomic and epigenetic empirical research, Dance to the Tune of Life deepens and synthesizes ideas Noble earlier developed in The Music of Life: Biology Beyond the Genome (2006) and subsequent writings. Just like Newtonian physics underwent a major transformation in the beginning of the 20th century due to Einstein’s general theory of relativity, the life sciences are facing a no less fundamental transformation. Noble’s book is a must read for anyone who wants to understand this transformation.
That is strong language — a “fundamental revision” in evolutionary theory, against “reductionist…neo-Darwinism,” comparable to how “Newtonian physics underwent a major transformation in the beginning of the 20th century.” Meanwhile fake science news out of the mainstream media and the National Center for Science Education assures us that evolutionary thinking is established as firmly as the Pillars of Hercules.
The book was published in January by Cambridge University Press. Don’t believe me? It’s all right on the Amazon page. Noble was among the organizers and participants at the Royal Society meeting in London that we’ve talked so much about here.
Evolutionary biology is in a state of ferment verging, in some quarters, on open rebellion. Don’t let Darwin apologists tell you otherwise.
- See more at: https://www.evolutionnews.org/2017/03/new-book-from-denis-noble-advocates-fundamental-revision-in-reductionistneo-darwinism/#sthash.9cTYiVmt.dpuf
Academic freedom on the march?
Louisiana Adopts Science Standards, Including Louisiana Science Education Act -
Sarah Chaffee
On Tuesday, March 7, the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education voted in committee on proposed science standards. They confirmed their adoption the following day. In a 7-2 vote, they added the Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA) to the standards. Then, the Board voted unanimously to adopt the standards as amended.
Gene Mills, president of the Louisiana Family Forum, commented:
I am encouraged that the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education recognized the wisdom of the Louisiana Science Education Act, and saw fit to educate and empower science teachers with its rich provisions. Encouraging teachers “to assist students to understand, analyze, critique, and objectively review scientific theories being studied” promotes understanding and supports student engagement in the disciplines of science. This is an enormous step forward for Louisiana education and the state as a whole.
This action came after Dr. Wade Warren, professor of biology at Louisiana College, spent months trying to ensure accurate evolution standards. His was the lone dissenting vote at the Standards Committee meeting last month. At the BESE meeting, Warren explained the scientific evidence for claims made in several specific life science standards on evolution.
Dr. Warren noted:
Although this was a positive step, the standards on evolutionary biology are still not acceptable. There are multiple places they do not reflect correct, up-to-date science. The public should weigh in on these standards during the 120-day review period.
The LSEA, authored by Senator Ben Nevers (D), is a 2008 academic freedom law based on the model academic freedom bill prepared by the Center for Science & Culture. It passed 94-3 in the House and unanimously in the Senate.
- See more at: https://www.evolutionnews.org/2017/03/louisiana-adopts-science-standards-including-louisiana-science-education-act/#sthash.phjj2cIo.dpuf
Sarah Chaffee
On Tuesday, March 7, the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education voted in committee on proposed science standards. They confirmed their adoption the following day. In a 7-2 vote, they added the Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA) to the standards. Then, the Board voted unanimously to adopt the standards as amended.
Gene Mills, president of the Louisiana Family Forum, commented:
I am encouraged that the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education recognized the wisdom of the Louisiana Science Education Act, and saw fit to educate and empower science teachers with its rich provisions. Encouraging teachers “to assist students to understand, analyze, critique, and objectively review scientific theories being studied” promotes understanding and supports student engagement in the disciplines of science. This is an enormous step forward for Louisiana education and the state as a whole.
This action came after Dr. Wade Warren, professor of biology at Louisiana College, spent months trying to ensure accurate evolution standards. His was the lone dissenting vote at the Standards Committee meeting last month. At the BESE meeting, Warren explained the scientific evidence for claims made in several specific life science standards on evolution.
Dr. Warren noted:
Although this was a positive step, the standards on evolutionary biology are still not acceptable. There are multiple places they do not reflect correct, up-to-date science. The public should weigh in on these standards during the 120-day review period.
The LSEA, authored by Senator Ben Nevers (D), is a 2008 academic freedom law based on the model academic freedom bill prepared by the Center for Science & Culture. It passed 94-3 in the House and unanimously in the Senate.
- See more at: https://www.evolutionnews.org/2017/03/louisiana-adopts-science-standards-including-louisiana-science-education-act/#sthash.phjj2cIo.dpuf
Friday 17 March 2017
On the anti-Christ: The Watchtower Society's commentary.
Who Is the Antichrist?
A recent horror film was entitled Antichrist.
A popular music group named one of its albums Antichrist Superstar.
Friedrich Nietzsche, 19th-century philosopher, named one of his works The Antichrist.
Kings and emperors in the Middle Ages often called their opponents antichrists.
Martin Luther, German Reformation leader, labeled Roman Catholic popes as antichrists.
SINCE the term “antichrist” has long been used as a label for everything from monarchs to movies, it is only natural to ask: Who is the antichrist? Does this term have anything to do with us today? Surely the logical place to begin when searching for the identity of the antichrist is in the Bible, where the term appears five times.
ANTICHRIST EXPOSED:
The only Bible writer to use the word “antichrist” is the apostle John. How did he describe the antichrist? Note these words in the first letter bearing his name: “Young children, it is the last hour, and just as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared, from which fact we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of our sort . . . Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.”—1 John 2:18, 19, 22.
he apostle John understood the antichrist to be all who deliberately spread religious deception about Jesus Christ and Jesus’ teachings:
What do we learn from those words? John mentioned “many antichrists,” indicating that the antichrist is, not an individual, but a collective term. People or organizations making up the antichrist spread lies, deny that Jesus is the Christ, or the Messiah, and try to distort the relationship between God and His Son, Jesus Christ. Those who make up the antichrist claim to be Christ or his representatives, but since “they went out from us,” they deviated from true Bible teachings. Furthermore, this group was present at the time when John wrote his letter, in “the last hour,” presumably the end of the time of the apostles.
What else did John write regarding the antichrist? Speaking about false prophets, he warned: “Every inspired statement that acknowledges Jesus Christ as having come in the flesh originates with God. But every inspired statement that does not acknowledge Jesus does not originate with God. Furthermore, this is the antichrist’s inspired statement that you have heard was coming, and now it is already in the world.” (1 John 4:2, 3) Then, in his second letter, John reiterated this point: “Many deceivers have gone out into the world, those not acknowledging Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.” (2 John 7) Clearly, John understood the antichrist to be all who deliberately spread religious deception about Jesus Christ and Jesus’ teachings.
“FALSE PROPHETS” AND “THE MAN OF LAWLESSNESS”:
Long before John wrote about such religious deceivers, Jesus Christ advised his followers: “Be on the watch for the false prophets who come to you in sheep’s covering, but inside they are ravenous wolves.” (Matthew 7:15) The apostle Paul likewise warned Christians in Thessalonica: “Let no one lead you astray in any way, because it [the day of Jehovah] will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness gets revealed, the son of destruction.”—2 Thessalonians 2:3.
Hence, in the first century, false prophets and apostates were already at work, endeavoring to weaken the Christian congregation. All those involved in spreading lies and religious deception about Jesus Christ and his teachings were included in John’s term “antichrist.” Jehovah’s view of them was revealed when Paul described them as “the son of destruction.”
BEWARE OF ANTICHRIST’S ACTIVITIES TODAY:
What about today? People and organizations making up the antichrist still oppose Christ and his teachings. They deliberately spread lies and deceptions with the intent of confusing the identity of the Father, Jehovah God, and of His Son, Jesus Christ. We have good reason to beware of such religious deceptions. Let us look at two examples.
For centuries, the churches propagated the doctrine of the Trinity, claiming that the Father and the Son are part of the same entity. The antichrist thus shrouds in mystery the identity of Jehovah God and Jesus Christ. This mystery hinders sincere people from imitating Jesus Christ and drawing close to God, as the Bible encourages them to.—1 Corinthians 11:1; James 4:8.
The churches add to the confusion by promoting the use of Bible translations that omit God’s personal name, Jehovah, from the text. They do this despite the fact that the name Jehovah occurs some 7,000 times in the original text of the Bible. The result? The identity of the true God becomes even more shrouded in mystery.
On the other hand, knowing God’s name, Jehovah, has helped many honesthearted worshippers to draw closer to God. That was the experience of Richard, who recalls a conversation with two of Jehovah’s Witnesses. “They showed me from the Bible that the name of the true God is Jehovah,” explains Richard. “I was fascinated by the thought that God has a personal name, something I had never heard before.” From that point on, he made changes in his life to conform to Bible standards and to please Jehovah. “Learning God’s name has helped me to develop a close relationship with him.”
For centuries, the antichrist has kept millions in spiritual darkness. But by studying God’s Word, the Bible, we are able to learn the true identity of the antichrist and be set free from the antichrist’s religious lies and deceptions.—John 17:17.
A recent horror film was entitled Antichrist.
A popular music group named one of its albums Antichrist Superstar.
Friedrich Nietzsche, 19th-century philosopher, named one of his works The Antichrist.
Kings and emperors in the Middle Ages often called their opponents antichrists.
Martin Luther, German Reformation leader, labeled Roman Catholic popes as antichrists.
SINCE the term “antichrist” has long been used as a label for everything from monarchs to movies, it is only natural to ask: Who is the antichrist? Does this term have anything to do with us today? Surely the logical place to begin when searching for the identity of the antichrist is in the Bible, where the term appears five times.
ANTICHRIST EXPOSED:
The only Bible writer to use the word “antichrist” is the apostle John. How did he describe the antichrist? Note these words in the first letter bearing his name: “Young children, it is the last hour, and just as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared, from which fact we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of our sort . . . Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.”—1 John 2:18, 19, 22.
he apostle John understood the antichrist to be all who deliberately spread religious deception about Jesus Christ and Jesus’ teachings:
What do we learn from those words? John mentioned “many antichrists,” indicating that the antichrist is, not an individual, but a collective term. People or organizations making up the antichrist spread lies, deny that Jesus is the Christ, or the Messiah, and try to distort the relationship between God and His Son, Jesus Christ. Those who make up the antichrist claim to be Christ or his representatives, but since “they went out from us,” they deviated from true Bible teachings. Furthermore, this group was present at the time when John wrote his letter, in “the last hour,” presumably the end of the time of the apostles.
What else did John write regarding the antichrist? Speaking about false prophets, he warned: “Every inspired statement that acknowledges Jesus Christ as having come in the flesh originates with God. But every inspired statement that does not acknowledge Jesus does not originate with God. Furthermore, this is the antichrist’s inspired statement that you have heard was coming, and now it is already in the world.” (1 John 4:2, 3) Then, in his second letter, John reiterated this point: “Many deceivers have gone out into the world, those not acknowledging Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.” (2 John 7) Clearly, John understood the antichrist to be all who deliberately spread religious deception about Jesus Christ and Jesus’ teachings.
“FALSE PROPHETS” AND “THE MAN OF LAWLESSNESS”:
Long before John wrote about such religious deceivers, Jesus Christ advised his followers: “Be on the watch for the false prophets who come to you in sheep’s covering, but inside they are ravenous wolves.” (Matthew 7:15) The apostle Paul likewise warned Christians in Thessalonica: “Let no one lead you astray in any way, because it [the day of Jehovah] will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness gets revealed, the son of destruction.”—2 Thessalonians 2:3.
Hence, in the first century, false prophets and apostates were already at work, endeavoring to weaken the Christian congregation. All those involved in spreading lies and religious deception about Jesus Christ and his teachings were included in John’s term “antichrist.” Jehovah’s view of them was revealed when Paul described them as “the son of destruction.”
BEWARE OF ANTICHRIST’S ACTIVITIES TODAY:
What about today? People and organizations making up the antichrist still oppose Christ and his teachings. They deliberately spread lies and deceptions with the intent of confusing the identity of the Father, Jehovah God, and of His Son, Jesus Christ. We have good reason to beware of such religious deceptions. Let us look at two examples.
For centuries, the churches propagated the doctrine of the Trinity, claiming that the Father and the Son are part of the same entity. The antichrist thus shrouds in mystery the identity of Jehovah God and Jesus Christ. This mystery hinders sincere people from imitating Jesus Christ and drawing close to God, as the Bible encourages them to.—1 Corinthians 11:1; James 4:8.
The churches add to the confusion by promoting the use of Bible translations that omit God’s personal name, Jehovah, from the text. They do this despite the fact that the name Jehovah occurs some 7,000 times in the original text of the Bible. The result? The identity of the true God becomes even more shrouded in mystery.
On the other hand, knowing God’s name, Jehovah, has helped many honesthearted worshippers to draw closer to God. That was the experience of Richard, who recalls a conversation with two of Jehovah’s Witnesses. “They showed me from the Bible that the name of the true God is Jehovah,” explains Richard. “I was fascinated by the thought that God has a personal name, something I had never heard before.” From that point on, he made changes in his life to conform to Bible standards and to please Jehovah. “Learning God’s name has helped me to develop a close relationship with him.”
For centuries, the antichrist has kept millions in spiritual darkness. But by studying God’s Word, the Bible, we are able to learn the true identity of the antichrist and be set free from the antichrist’s religious lies and deceptions.—John 17:17.
On Falling out of love with falsifiability
Falsifiability only gained traction as anti-creation move?
January 11, 2016 Posted by News under Philosophy, Science, Creationism, News
Odd, and it speaks very poorly of the science of the day. But one historian says that the historical data demonstrate that view.Further to the new science mythbuster book, Newton’s Apple and Other Myths About Science, a reader kindly notes that we also learn from the paywalled review in Science:
Michael Gordin … [debunks] the widely accepted belief that science can be easily differentiated from pseudoscience simply by determining whether a particular theory is falsifiable. In addition to the philosophical shortcomings of this approach, he notes that if a negative result is sufficient to falsify a theory, then high-school science students manage to “falsify” most of Western science each week in their lab classes. Gordin goes on to analyze why this particular idea rose to such prominence in the 1980s. When various U.S. states legislated that creationism get equal time in school science classes, it became politically urgent to define why creation “science” was nothing of the kind. Part of the appeal of the falsification axiom (if it could never be disproved, it can’t be science) was that it was simple enough for nonscientists to grasp. Yet, when we look at history, falsification simply does not work as a definition of science. As Gordin explains, most historians and scientists accept a sociological definition: Science is what the scientific community says it is (e.g., peer-reviewed work in reputable journals). It’s not a perfect definition, nor a stable one, but it has the virtue of being the one by which scientists actually operate.
So whatever peers say is science is, and evidence is irrelevant?
And now they don’t want falsifiability because favoured theories don’t make the cut, right?
Given the state of peer review today, that’s part of the problem that physicists are anguishing over now.
Should string theory be accepted as science, without falsifiability, because boffins say it is cosmology’s free non-falsifiable lunch?
Note the sneer at “non-scientists.”
Just a minute here. If historian Gordin is right, many only agreed to the falsifiability criterion in the first place for political reasons—and now want to get rid of it… also for political reasons?
The problem is, of course, falsifiability was never thought of by most people as a “definition” of science, but more of an alarm system that non-scientists could use when things were going hairball.
When scientists want the alarm turned off, they lose a reputation for evidence-based thinking, along with credibility and moral authority. They may as well forget the science, join a Darwin trollblog (and specialize in creative profanity) or a crackpot cosmology site and do great graphics.
See also: Physicist: We can only argue positions based on philosophy The problem is that the philosophy that prevails gets to call itself “science” and decide what is or isn’t evidence and whether it matters. And that could just come down to a vote.
January 11, 2016 Posted by News under Philosophy, Science, Creationism, News
Odd, and it speaks very poorly of the science of the day. But one historian says that the historical data demonstrate that view.Further to the new science mythbuster book, Newton’s Apple and Other Myths About Science, a reader kindly notes that we also learn from the paywalled review in Science:
Michael Gordin … [debunks] the widely accepted belief that science can be easily differentiated from pseudoscience simply by determining whether a particular theory is falsifiable. In addition to the philosophical shortcomings of this approach, he notes that if a negative result is sufficient to falsify a theory, then high-school science students manage to “falsify” most of Western science each week in their lab classes. Gordin goes on to analyze why this particular idea rose to such prominence in the 1980s. When various U.S. states legislated that creationism get equal time in school science classes, it became politically urgent to define why creation “science” was nothing of the kind. Part of the appeal of the falsification axiom (if it could never be disproved, it can’t be science) was that it was simple enough for nonscientists to grasp. Yet, when we look at history, falsification simply does not work as a definition of science. As Gordin explains, most historians and scientists accept a sociological definition: Science is what the scientific community says it is (e.g., peer-reviewed work in reputable journals). It’s not a perfect definition, nor a stable one, but it has the virtue of being the one by which scientists actually operate.
So whatever peers say is science is, and evidence is irrelevant?
And now they don’t want falsifiability because favoured theories don’t make the cut, right?
Given the state of peer review today, that’s part of the problem that physicists are anguishing over now.
Should string theory be accepted as science, without falsifiability, because boffins say it is cosmology’s free non-falsifiable lunch?
Note the sneer at “non-scientists.”
Just a minute here. If historian Gordin is right, many only agreed to the falsifiability criterion in the first place for political reasons—and now want to get rid of it… also for political reasons?
The problem is, of course, falsifiability was never thought of by most people as a “definition” of science, but more of an alarm system that non-scientists could use when things were going hairball.
When scientists want the alarm turned off, they lose a reputation for evidence-based thinking, along with credibility and moral authority. They may as well forget the science, join a Darwin trollblog (and specialize in creative profanity) or a crackpot cosmology site and do great graphics.
See also: Physicist: We can only argue positions based on philosophy The problem is that the philosophy that prevails gets to call itself “science” and decide what is or isn’t evidence and whether it matters. And that could just come down to a vote.
Thursday 16 March 2017
It's official:Russia's war on religious liberty goes to the next level.:The Watchtower Society's commentary.
MARCH 16, 2017
RUSSIA
Russia’s Ministry of Justice Moves to Ban Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia
Russia’s Ministry of Justice (Ministry) has filed a claim with the Supreme Court, seeking “to declare the religious organization, the Administrative Center of Jehovah’s Witnesses, extremist, ban its activity, and liquidate it.” On March 15, 2017, the Supreme Court posted notice on its official website that it had received the claim from the Ministry. The Ministry did not notify Jehovah’s Witnesses that it had taken this latest step in its ongoing attack on their worship.
A decision by the Supreme Court in favor of the claim brought by the Ministry would have dire consequences for Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia. The Witnesses could lose properties dedicated to religious worship, almost 400 legal entities could be dissolved, and each of the over 170,000 Witnesses could be criminally prosecuted merely for meeting for worship, reading the Bible together, or talking to others about their faith.
Vasiliy Kalin, a representative of the Administrative Center in Russia, stated: “The profound desire of each of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia is just to be able to worship our God peacefully. For over 100 years, the authorities in Russia have trampled on the guarantees of their own laws, which grant us this right. I was just a boy when Stalin exiled my family to Siberia merely because we were Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is sad and reprehensible that my children and grandchildren should be facing a similar fate. Never did I expect that we would again face the threat of religious persecution in modern Russia.”
Tuesday 14 March 2017
"Junk" v. Darwin.
Three Ways that Transposable Elements Demolish Evolutionary Theory
Cornelius Hunter
Transposable elements just don’t make sense. These so-called “jumping genes” are segments of junk DNA that insert themselves at random in our genomes. That is the evolutionary interpretation of these genetic units, but how and why do they move about, and why don’t they wreak havoc on the genome?
The answers to these questions, which have been emerging in recent years, is that transposable elements are exquisite, finely tuned, highly functional molecular machines that contradict evolutionary expectations. Evolutionists have a long, failed history of presumed disutility — after all, the world arose by chance, surely it doesn’t work very well — and transposable elements are just one more example of this failed prediction. But the junk-to-hero story is only one of three ways that transposable elements utterly demolish evolutionary theory. The other two prongs in this Darwin-destroying triad are serendipity and pattern.
By serendipity, I am referring to the rather awkward findings, which are undeniable at this point, that if evolution is true, then it must have come about by highly complex, non-adaptive, mechanisms. From diploid genetics to horizontal gene transfer, alternate gene splicing, genetic regulation, epigenetics, mechanisms that cause adaptive mutations, and transposable elements, evolution must have bumbled along by luckily constructing fantastically complex mechanisms. Those mechanisms would provide no immediate adaptive value, yet somehow would persist and become vital agents in evolutionary history. Simply put, evolution must have created evolution in a most unlikely (astronomically unlikely) set of circumstances. That’s serendipity, not science, and transposable elements heap more fuel onto the fire.
By pattern, I am referring to another set of awkward findings, again undeniable, that the pattern of structures observed across the species consistently contradicts evolution’s predictions. One of those contradictions are the enormous differences found in otherwise allied species.
All three of these contradictions — disutility, serendipity, and pattern — are on display in a new, systematic study of transposable elements out of Didier Trono’s lab in Switzerland. The study details the interactions between transposable elements and a class of proteins. The findings indicate the complexity and interdependency of these molecular mechanisms. As the press release admits:
Long considered as junk DNA, transposable elements are now recognized as influencing the expression of genes. … the extent of this regulation and how it is harnessed were so far unknown. EPFL scientists have now taken the first extensive look at a family of ~350 human proteins, showing that they establish a complex interplaywith transposable elements … KZFPs can convert transposable elements in exquisitely fine-tuned regulatory platforms that influence the expression of genes, which likely takes place at all stages of development and in all human tissues. … It is a highly combinatorial and versatile system … As a field, epigenetics has come into prominence in recent years, revealing a previously unimagined complexity and elegance in genetics.
Not exactly junk DNA. And of course all of this would require large amounts of serendipity. For evolutionists are now forced to say that transposable elements would have to have played a, err, key role in evolution itself. Evolution would have had to have constructed this highly specific, detailed, system including hundreds of proteins and genetic elements, with hundreds of specific interactions, providing no immediate benefit. As Trono explains:
The vast majority of KZFPs binds to specific motifs in transposable elements. For each KZFP we were able to assign one subset of transposable elements, and also found that one transposable element can often interact with several KZFPs.
Finally, all of this contradicts the expected common descent pattern. This failure has become so common we now have non-evolutionary terminology, such as “species-specific” and “lineage-specific.” The paper uses the term “species-restricted”:
KZFPs partner with transposable elements to build a largely species-restricted layer of epigenetic regulation
Species-restricted? In other words, the designs we are discovering in biology are unique to particular species. This is precisely the opposite of what evolution expects. Note also the teleological language (which as usual is evident in the infinitive form): The proteins “partner” with the transposable elements “to build” a largely “species-restricted” layer of epigenetic regulation. This is a classic example of evolution’s absurd creation-story language.
The contradictory pattern was, of course, unsuspected. As Trono explains:
KZFPs contribute to make human biology unique. Together with their genomic targets, they likely influence every single event in human physiology and pathology, and do so by being largely species-specific — the general system exists in many vertebrates, but most of its components are different in each case. … This paper lifts the lid off something that had been largely unsuspected: the tremendous species-specific dimension of human gene regulation.
Yes, it was largely unsuspected. For what these findings reveal is a tremendous species-specific dimension of human gene regulation. In other words, we would need proteins and genetic elements to evolve, via independent and yet interdependent, random mutations, to construct an entirely new set of genetic regulation instructions. This is astronomically unlikely, no matter how many millions of years are available.
Cornelius Hunter
Transposable elements just don’t make sense. These so-called “jumping genes” are segments of junk DNA that insert themselves at random in our genomes. That is the evolutionary interpretation of these genetic units, but how and why do they move about, and why don’t they wreak havoc on the genome?
The answers to these questions, which have been emerging in recent years, is that transposable elements are exquisite, finely tuned, highly functional molecular machines that contradict evolutionary expectations. Evolutionists have a long, failed history of presumed disutility — after all, the world arose by chance, surely it doesn’t work very well — and transposable elements are just one more example of this failed prediction. But the junk-to-hero story is only one of three ways that transposable elements utterly demolish evolutionary theory. The other two prongs in this Darwin-destroying triad are serendipity and pattern.
By serendipity, I am referring to the rather awkward findings, which are undeniable at this point, that if evolution is true, then it must have come about by highly complex, non-adaptive, mechanisms. From diploid genetics to horizontal gene transfer, alternate gene splicing, genetic regulation, epigenetics, mechanisms that cause adaptive mutations, and transposable elements, evolution must have bumbled along by luckily constructing fantastically complex mechanisms. Those mechanisms would provide no immediate adaptive value, yet somehow would persist and become vital agents in evolutionary history. Simply put, evolution must have created evolution in a most unlikely (astronomically unlikely) set of circumstances. That’s serendipity, not science, and transposable elements heap more fuel onto the fire.
By pattern, I am referring to another set of awkward findings, again undeniable, that the pattern of structures observed across the species consistently contradicts evolution’s predictions. One of those contradictions are the enormous differences found in otherwise allied species.
All three of these contradictions — disutility, serendipity, and pattern — are on display in a new, systematic study of transposable elements out of Didier Trono’s lab in Switzerland. The study details the interactions between transposable elements and a class of proteins. The findings indicate the complexity and interdependency of these molecular mechanisms. As the press release admits:
Long considered as junk DNA, transposable elements are now recognized as influencing the expression of genes. … the extent of this regulation and how it is harnessed were so far unknown. EPFL scientists have now taken the first extensive look at a family of ~350 human proteins, showing that they establish a complex interplaywith transposable elements … KZFPs can convert transposable elements in exquisitely fine-tuned regulatory platforms that influence the expression of genes, which likely takes place at all stages of development and in all human tissues. … It is a highly combinatorial and versatile system … As a field, epigenetics has come into prominence in recent years, revealing a previously unimagined complexity and elegance in genetics.
Not exactly junk DNA. And of course all of this would require large amounts of serendipity. For evolutionists are now forced to say that transposable elements would have to have played a, err, key role in evolution itself. Evolution would have had to have constructed this highly specific, detailed, system including hundreds of proteins and genetic elements, with hundreds of specific interactions, providing no immediate benefit. As Trono explains:
The vast majority of KZFPs binds to specific motifs in transposable elements. For each KZFP we were able to assign one subset of transposable elements, and also found that one transposable element can often interact with several KZFPs.
Finally, all of this contradicts the expected common descent pattern. This failure has become so common we now have non-evolutionary terminology, such as “species-specific” and “lineage-specific.” The paper uses the term “species-restricted”:
KZFPs partner with transposable elements to build a largely species-restricted layer of epigenetic regulation
Species-restricted? In other words, the designs we are discovering in biology are unique to particular species. This is precisely the opposite of what evolution expects. Note also the teleological language (which as usual is evident in the infinitive form): The proteins “partner” with the transposable elements “to build” a largely “species-restricted” layer of epigenetic regulation. This is a classic example of evolution’s absurd creation-story language.
The contradictory pattern was, of course, unsuspected. As Trono explains:
KZFPs contribute to make human biology unique. Together with their genomic targets, they likely influence every single event in human physiology and pathology, and do so by being largely species-specific — the general system exists in many vertebrates, but most of its components are different in each case. … This paper lifts the lid off something that had been largely unsuspected: the tremendous species-specific dimension of human gene regulation.
Yes, it was largely unsuspected. For what these findings reveal is a tremendous species-specific dimension of human gene regulation. In other words, we would need proteins and genetic elements to evolve, via independent and yet interdependent, random mutations, to construct an entirely new set of genetic regulation instructions. This is astronomically unlikely, no matter how many millions of years are available.
Yet more iconoclasm. II
Nylon and Nylonase: Ann Gauger Disentangles an Evolutionary Icon -
David Klinghoffer
Nylon is a human-synthesized substance. It’s familiar from ladies’ stockings and a variety of other uses, from toothbrush bristles to car parts.
It didn’t exist until 1935 years ago because it hadn’t been invented. Thus a strain of bacteria capable of digesting it would evidently need to do something novel that no bacteria had done before. When Japanese scientists in 1975 discovered such a bacterium at work, Darwinists later brandished this. They said it showed evolving new proteins is a breeze.
The nylon-degrading enzyme nylonase arose in the course of 40 years. That sounds like a score for evolution, right? Indeed, our theistic evolutionary friends over at BioLogos were in a triumphant mood on the subject a little while back on their Open Forum (“Biological Information and Intelligent Design: evolving new protein folds“).
Now they had Doug Axe on protein evolution, and by extension Stephen Meyer, beat! Writes biologist Dennis Venema:
Meyer’s argument (based on Axe) is that protein folds are too rare for evolution to find. The amino acids in the de-novo nylonase are a new sequence of amino acids — the frameshift mutation means that the old gene is being translated in a different reading frame, hence a new string of amino acids. This new, de novo, protein folds up into a functional nylonase.
If Meyer’s argument was correct, this could not happen. The probability of these new amino acids finding a functional sequence is, according to Meyer, only one in 10 to the 77th power. So, the fact that we can observe new functions coming into being shows that his estimate is grossly over-inflated.
In a brief window of time, some bacteria developed the ability to consume nylon. Ergo, no need for intelligent design in biology?
Not so fast, explains Discovery Institute biologist Ann Gauger. In an ID the Future conversation, she talked with Sarah Chaffee. Conclusion: “Nylonase was a pre-existing enzyme, had a pre-existing activity. It was easy to convert it to the ability to degrade nylon [by a] step-wise path. Therefore, there’s no reason to think that the enzyme is a newly derived enzyme from a frame shift. We don’t need that explanation.”
In short, as an icon of evolution, nylonase has no legs. Listen to the podcast here, or download it here.
David Klinghoffer
Nylon is a human-synthesized substance. It’s familiar from ladies’ stockings and a variety of other uses, from toothbrush bristles to car parts.
It didn’t exist until 1935 years ago because it hadn’t been invented. Thus a strain of bacteria capable of digesting it would evidently need to do something novel that no bacteria had done before. When Japanese scientists in 1975 discovered such a bacterium at work, Darwinists later brandished this. They said it showed evolving new proteins is a breeze.
The nylon-degrading enzyme nylonase arose in the course of 40 years. That sounds like a score for evolution, right? Indeed, our theistic evolutionary friends over at BioLogos were in a triumphant mood on the subject a little while back on their Open Forum (“Biological Information and Intelligent Design: evolving new protein folds“).
Now they had Doug Axe on protein evolution, and by extension Stephen Meyer, beat! Writes biologist Dennis Venema:
Meyer’s argument (based on Axe) is that protein folds are too rare for evolution to find. The amino acids in the de-novo nylonase are a new sequence of amino acids — the frameshift mutation means that the old gene is being translated in a different reading frame, hence a new string of amino acids. This new, de novo, protein folds up into a functional nylonase.
If Meyer’s argument was correct, this could not happen. The probability of these new amino acids finding a functional sequence is, according to Meyer, only one in 10 to the 77th power. So, the fact that we can observe new functions coming into being shows that his estimate is grossly over-inflated.
In a brief window of time, some bacteria developed the ability to consume nylon. Ergo, no need for intelligent design in biology?
Not so fast, explains Discovery Institute biologist Ann Gauger. In an ID the Future conversation, she talked with Sarah Chaffee. Conclusion: “Nylonase was a pre-existing enzyme, had a pre-existing activity. It was easy to convert it to the ability to degrade nylon [by a] step-wise path. Therefore, there’s no reason to think that the enzyme is a newly derived enzyme from a frame shift. We don’t need that explanation.”
In short, as an icon of evolution, nylonase has no legs. Listen to the podcast here, or download it here.
Monday 13 March 2017
Yet more iconoclasm.
Evolving Icons of Evolution
Evolution News | @DiscoveryCSC
Peter and Rosemary Grant, the husband and wife pair from Princeton University, have spent 40 years studying four species of ground finch on one uninhabited island of the Galápagos archipelago. They are to be commended for their dedication, and for details that they have published over the years about the birds made famous by Darwin. (Design advocates appreciate the Grants for their findings that undermine neo-Darwinism, although they would not see it that way.)
In a new Perspective piece in Science Magazine, “Watching Speciation in Action,” they show that they are not the only ones who have witnessed the origin of species. Beginning with the Darwin quote about “grandeur in this view of life” that evolves, they describe a number of studies like theirs that illustrate organisms that have varied and diversified from parent stock. Let’s begin by listing the examples and what is known about them, both genetically and phenotypically. These can be considered their finest “icons of evolution” for 2017.
Darwin’s finches. The Grants witnessed variations due to five beak genes, two transcription factor genes, hybridization, climate forcing, and reproductive isolation.
Peppered moths. The black morph comes from one transposon, which “suggests that transposable elements may play a more important role in generating variation among species in ecologically important traits than is currently realized.”
Pentstemons and morning glories. Asymmetric loss-of-function mutations and inversions tend to change pollinators from bees to hummingbirds, but not the reverse.
Ruff, a wading bird “with an unusual mating system in which three male forms, differing in plumage and behavior, compete for females on a courting arena.” An inversion 3.8 million years ago, they say, was followed by mutations that produced this result.
Deer mice in Nebraska’s sand hills. The lighter coat colors, adaptive for the sandy environment, “were the result of selection on not one but multiple mutations in the Agouti”
Three-spined sticklebacks. Marine fish that have colonized freshwater environments repeatedly evolved into surface dwellers and bottom dwellers. They also lost the pelvic apparatus and armor through similar genetic pathways (involving a transcription factor and a signaling protein).
High-altitude birds. Hemoglobin adaptation to high altitude has been shown to involve “repeated use of the same genetic pathway.” It “may be the case generally” that “closely related species use similar genes, whereas more distantly related species use different genetic pathways that depend on their genetic backgrounds.”
Heliconius butterflies. The genes involved in Mullerian mimicry are shown to be due to introgressive hybridization, “that is, gene exchange between species as a result of hybrids backcrossing to a parental species.” This process is also seen in the Darwin finch study.
Mosquitos and mice. Cases of insecticide resistance have been “transmitted between populations” by introgressive hybridization.
Asian longhorn beetles. These eukaryotes, in a case “even more remarkable, and similar to introgressive hybridization,” obtained genes for digesting plant cell walls via horizontal gene transfer from bacteria and fungi.
High-altitude humans. They say that Tibetans may have obtained adaptation to high altitude via interbreeding with Denisovans.
Sunflowers. Members of Helianthus colonized salt marshes via “transgressive segregation,” a form of hybridization whereby individuals can “colonize novel habitats where neither parental lineage can survive.”
Blind cave fish. Mexican fish lost vision via “release of hidden [cryptic] variation.” In their case, the heat shock protein HSP90 masks variation for eye size in surface waters. “This variation is exposed in the altered conductivity of cave water and becomes available for selection.”
It’s an impressive list. The Grants have thrown down the gauntlet to Darwin skeptics, providing a baker’s dozen of clear examples of variation leading to populations with phenotypic change. But before we bow before these icons, we should ask some important questions — like those Jonathan Wells asked in his classic book, Icons of Evolution (2000). What kind of evolution have they really shown? Nobody doubts variation. It was clearly evident long before Darwin. Even today, the most ardent creationists allow for significant variability within what they call “created kinds,” while a good number of intelligent design advocates cheerfully accept universal common descent even as they reject neo-Darwinian evolution as the explanation for it.
To distinguish Darwin’s explanation from these positions, therefore, the burden on the Grants is to demonstrate adaptive variation arising by random mutations and positive natural selection. (Loss of function, while interesting, is not particularly helpful to their argument.) These adaptive variations, moreover, must be significant enough to create true novelties, innovations beyond mere reshuffling of existing information. And they must persist in new populations that are reproductively isolated, so as to branch off Darwin’s tree in new directions. We need to see something as significant as the presumed first tetrapod colonizing land, or the first dinosaur obtaining powered flight — something on a new fitness peak that has the appearance of being designed, but is now demonstrably explainable by gradual steps up the backside of Mt. Improbable. Furthermore, the selected random variations should be detectable in the genes.
A key point of the Grants’ article is that variation did not always arise by random mutation. In fact, most of the cases in their list involve reshuffling of existing genetic information by interbreeding, hybridization or horizontal gene transfer. This immediately takes #8-12 off the list. The challenge to Darwinism by hybridization was shown in our post last year, “Hybrids Weave Darwin’s Tree into a Web,” which mentions the Grants and the potentially devastating impacts of this “revolution” on their work.
Loss of function takes #13 off the list as well as #2, #3, and #6. None of these demonstrate Darwinian evolution. That leaves us with #1 Darwin’s finches, #4 Ruff, #5 Deer mice, and #7 High-altitude birds. To give the best benefit of the doubt, we might put #11 High-altitude humans back on the list with #7, High-altitude birds.
Jonathan Wells discussed three of these icons in his book: #1 Darwin’s finches, #2 Peppered moths (see his update last year), and #11 Human evolution. The Grants don’t offer any new solutions. In fact, the situation is worse now for Darwinians than it was in 2000. Now we know that hybridization was involved in the finches. Now we know that a transposon created the dark peppered moth — a case of shuffling of existing information. And now we know about interbreeding of modern humans with Neanderthals and Denisovans, proving they were compatible species and not “reproductively isolated” (a requirement for speciation). None of the variations in these cases are demonstrably due to neo-Darwinian mechanisms.
What about the Ruff wading birds? At best, these involve minor changes to existing information. Birds already were divided into males and females. Birds already had plumage. Birds already had behaviors. If all three male types can mate with the females, they are members of one species anyway; this is not a case of the origin of species.
What about the deer mice? This is another peppered-moth case, merely shifting the ratios of existing populations. Again, even if multiple mutations occurred in the Agouti locus, they only affected fur color. The mice already had fur. Lots of mammals, including humans, show wide variations in hair color. The paper in Science referenced by the Grants indicates that the coloration patterns fall on a continuum. The researchers used a highly-contrived artificial lab experiment to try to correlate fur color to predation, but even so, all the mice of all colors are members of the same species anyway. So, peppered mice? Much ado about nothing. See also what Casey Luskin wrote about stickleback fish (#6), and what Kirk Durston wrote about microevolution, which is what all the examples on the Grants’ list amount to.
In short, nothing the Grants presented rises to the level of evidence required to distinguish their view from those of intelligent design or even Young Earth Creationism. What’s perhaps most illuminating about the Grants’ article is the frank admission that, 158 years after Darwin’s Origin, and after 40 years on Daphne Major studying finches, evolutionists still do not understand microevolution, let alone macroevolution. In the first paragraph, they state:
Today, scientists are using genetics to understand how species multiply, and ecological and behavioral knowledge to understand why they do so [implying that they still do not understand]. However, many questions remain about the sources of genetic variation and how new phenotypes arise in response to environmental change [isn’t that what Darwin solved?]. Recent research has revealed unexpected origins of genetic variation, providing crucial insights into phenotypic divergence and the evolutionary effects of rare events triggered by global climatic change. [Emphasis added.]
Yes, be sure to mention climate change to score extra points with the editor. At the end, they state:
Future genomic and ecological research on natural populations will provide a more comprehensive answer to Darwin’s question of why the world is so extraordinarily rich in numbers, diversity, and complexity of organisms. Foremost among current questions is how gradual climate change and extreme climatic events cause rapid evolutionary change, and why some species groups diversify prolifically while others do not.
So exactly how much is understood about this theory that rules biology?
Evolution News | @DiscoveryCSC
Peter and Rosemary Grant, the husband and wife pair from Princeton University, have spent 40 years studying four species of ground finch on one uninhabited island of the Galápagos archipelago. They are to be commended for their dedication, and for details that they have published over the years about the birds made famous by Darwin. (Design advocates appreciate the Grants for their findings that undermine neo-Darwinism, although they would not see it that way.)
In a new Perspective piece in Science Magazine, “Watching Speciation in Action,” they show that they are not the only ones who have witnessed the origin of species. Beginning with the Darwin quote about “grandeur in this view of life” that evolves, they describe a number of studies like theirs that illustrate organisms that have varied and diversified from parent stock. Let’s begin by listing the examples and what is known about them, both genetically and phenotypically. These can be considered their finest “icons of evolution” for 2017.
Darwin’s finches. The Grants witnessed variations due to five beak genes, two transcription factor genes, hybridization, climate forcing, and reproductive isolation.
Peppered moths. The black morph comes from one transposon, which “suggests that transposable elements may play a more important role in generating variation among species in ecologically important traits than is currently realized.”
Pentstemons and morning glories. Asymmetric loss-of-function mutations and inversions tend to change pollinators from bees to hummingbirds, but not the reverse.
Ruff, a wading bird “with an unusual mating system in which three male forms, differing in plumage and behavior, compete for females on a courting arena.” An inversion 3.8 million years ago, they say, was followed by mutations that produced this result.
Deer mice in Nebraska’s sand hills. The lighter coat colors, adaptive for the sandy environment, “were the result of selection on not one but multiple mutations in the Agouti”
Three-spined sticklebacks. Marine fish that have colonized freshwater environments repeatedly evolved into surface dwellers and bottom dwellers. They also lost the pelvic apparatus and armor through similar genetic pathways (involving a transcription factor and a signaling protein).
High-altitude birds. Hemoglobin adaptation to high altitude has been shown to involve “repeated use of the same genetic pathway.” It “may be the case generally” that “closely related species use similar genes, whereas more distantly related species use different genetic pathways that depend on their genetic backgrounds.”
Heliconius butterflies. The genes involved in Mullerian mimicry are shown to be due to introgressive hybridization, “that is, gene exchange between species as a result of hybrids backcrossing to a parental species.” This process is also seen in the Darwin finch study.
Mosquitos and mice. Cases of insecticide resistance have been “transmitted between populations” by introgressive hybridization.
Asian longhorn beetles. These eukaryotes, in a case “even more remarkable, and similar to introgressive hybridization,” obtained genes for digesting plant cell walls via horizontal gene transfer from bacteria and fungi.
High-altitude humans. They say that Tibetans may have obtained adaptation to high altitude via interbreeding with Denisovans.
Sunflowers. Members of Helianthus colonized salt marshes via “transgressive segregation,” a form of hybridization whereby individuals can “colonize novel habitats where neither parental lineage can survive.”
Blind cave fish. Mexican fish lost vision via “release of hidden [cryptic] variation.” In their case, the heat shock protein HSP90 masks variation for eye size in surface waters. “This variation is exposed in the altered conductivity of cave water and becomes available for selection.”
It’s an impressive list. The Grants have thrown down the gauntlet to Darwin skeptics, providing a baker’s dozen of clear examples of variation leading to populations with phenotypic change. But before we bow before these icons, we should ask some important questions — like those Jonathan Wells asked in his classic book, Icons of Evolution (2000). What kind of evolution have they really shown? Nobody doubts variation. It was clearly evident long before Darwin. Even today, the most ardent creationists allow for significant variability within what they call “created kinds,” while a good number of intelligent design advocates cheerfully accept universal common descent even as they reject neo-Darwinian evolution as the explanation for it.
To distinguish Darwin’s explanation from these positions, therefore, the burden on the Grants is to demonstrate adaptive variation arising by random mutations and positive natural selection. (Loss of function, while interesting, is not particularly helpful to their argument.) These adaptive variations, moreover, must be significant enough to create true novelties, innovations beyond mere reshuffling of existing information. And they must persist in new populations that are reproductively isolated, so as to branch off Darwin’s tree in new directions. We need to see something as significant as the presumed first tetrapod colonizing land, or the first dinosaur obtaining powered flight — something on a new fitness peak that has the appearance of being designed, but is now demonstrably explainable by gradual steps up the backside of Mt. Improbable. Furthermore, the selected random variations should be detectable in the genes.
A key point of the Grants’ article is that variation did not always arise by random mutation. In fact, most of the cases in their list involve reshuffling of existing genetic information by interbreeding, hybridization or horizontal gene transfer. This immediately takes #8-12 off the list. The challenge to Darwinism by hybridization was shown in our post last year, “Hybrids Weave Darwin’s Tree into a Web,” which mentions the Grants and the potentially devastating impacts of this “revolution” on their work.
Loss of function takes #13 off the list as well as #2, #3, and #6. None of these demonstrate Darwinian evolution. That leaves us with #1 Darwin’s finches, #4 Ruff, #5 Deer mice, and #7 High-altitude birds. To give the best benefit of the doubt, we might put #11 High-altitude humans back on the list with #7, High-altitude birds.
Jonathan Wells discussed three of these icons in his book: #1 Darwin’s finches, #2 Peppered moths (see his update last year), and #11 Human evolution. The Grants don’t offer any new solutions. In fact, the situation is worse now for Darwinians than it was in 2000. Now we know that hybridization was involved in the finches. Now we know that a transposon created the dark peppered moth — a case of shuffling of existing information. And now we know about interbreeding of modern humans with Neanderthals and Denisovans, proving they were compatible species and not “reproductively isolated” (a requirement for speciation). None of the variations in these cases are demonstrably due to neo-Darwinian mechanisms.
What about the Ruff wading birds? At best, these involve minor changes to existing information. Birds already were divided into males and females. Birds already had plumage. Birds already had behaviors. If all three male types can mate with the females, they are members of one species anyway; this is not a case of the origin of species.
What about the deer mice? This is another peppered-moth case, merely shifting the ratios of existing populations. Again, even if multiple mutations occurred in the Agouti locus, they only affected fur color. The mice already had fur. Lots of mammals, including humans, show wide variations in hair color. The paper in Science referenced by the Grants indicates that the coloration patterns fall on a continuum. The researchers used a highly-contrived artificial lab experiment to try to correlate fur color to predation, but even so, all the mice of all colors are members of the same species anyway. So, peppered mice? Much ado about nothing. See also what Casey Luskin wrote about stickleback fish (#6), and what Kirk Durston wrote about microevolution, which is what all the examples on the Grants’ list amount to.
In short, nothing the Grants presented rises to the level of evidence required to distinguish their view from those of intelligent design or even Young Earth Creationism. What’s perhaps most illuminating about the Grants’ article is the frank admission that, 158 years after Darwin’s Origin, and after 40 years on Daphne Major studying finches, evolutionists still do not understand microevolution, let alone macroevolution. In the first paragraph, they state:
Today, scientists are using genetics to understand how species multiply, and ecological and behavioral knowledge to understand why they do so [implying that they still do not understand]. However, many questions remain about the sources of genetic variation and how new phenotypes arise in response to environmental change [isn’t that what Darwin solved?]. Recent research has revealed unexpected origins of genetic variation, providing crucial insights into phenotypic divergence and the evolutionary effects of rare events triggered by global climatic change. [Emphasis added.]
Yes, be sure to mention climate change to score extra points with the editor. At the end, they state:
Future genomic and ecological research on natural populations will provide a more comprehensive answer to Darwin’s question of why the world is so extraordinarily rich in numbers, diversity, and complexity of organisms. Foremost among current questions is how gradual climate change and extreme climatic events cause rapid evolutionary change, and why some species groups diversify prolifically while others do not.
So exactly how much is understood about this theory that rules biology?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)