It's design all the way down II:The micropolis.

Each Cell in Your Body Is a Walled City Besieged by Enemies

Howard Glicksman March 2, 2015 3:53 AM 

Editor's note: Engineers and physicians have a special place in the community of thinkers and scholars who have elaborated the argument for intelligent design. Perhaps that's because, more than evolutionary biologists, they are familiar in very practical ways with the challenges of designing or maintaining a functioning complex system on the order of a jet airplane, or the human body. With that in mind, Evolution News & Views is delighted to present this new series, "The Designed Body," and to welcome Howard Glicksman MD as a contributor. A graduate of the University of Toronto (1978), he presently practices palliative medicine for a hospice organization. Find Dr. Glicksman's introduction to the series here.

Just as a brick is the basic building block of a wall, the human cell is the basic functioning unit of the human body. Our body has about a hundred trillion of them. And just as with a brick wall, the requirement that it not collapse means being sturdy enough to stand up to the forces of nature, our cells likewise need to stand up to nature. For this reason, and others, the two hundred different types of cells in the body have common features that allow them to follow the rules to live, grow, and work properly.

In Darwin's day, a cell was considered to be just a bag of chemicals containing within it various structures of unknown function. During the last century it has been shown that the cell is a huge software-driven micro-sized city containing many different nano-sized buildings with programmed pico-sized machines that are able to use energy to build the structures and perform the functions necessary for life. Here is a brief summary of some of the aspects of the human cell which must first be understood to appreciate why it must take control to survive in the world.

A very thin wall, called the plasma membrane, surrounds the cell. The plasma membrane defines the limits of the cell and separates it from other cells and from the outside world. It serves to keep what is needed inside the cell and what is not needed outside the cell. The important chemicals and vital structures of the cell would not be very useful if they were not kept in one place.

The main substance of the cell, which fills up the space within the plasma membrane, is a fluid called the cytosol. The cytosol consists of water with different chemicals dissolved within it. The amount of water inside the cell is its volume and the total number of chemical particles dissolved within each unit volume of water is its concentration. The cytosol is said to be more concentrated when there are more chemical particles per unit volume of water and less concentrated when there are fewer chemical particles per unit volume of water. Also, for a given number of chemical particles in the cytosol, an increase in volume results in a decrease in concentration and a decrease in volume results in an increase in concentration.

Each cell not only consists of water, but is also surrounded by water. The water inside the cell has a high concentration of potassium and protein and a low concentration of sodium. The water outside the cell has a high concentration of sodium and a low concentration of potassium and protein. In other words, the chemical make-up of the water inside the cell is exactly the opposite of the water outside. The plasma membrane serves to separate the two different solutions from each other.

Since the water in the cell takes up space, it applies a certain amount of pressure against the plasma membrane. Think of a bicycle tire. The more it is pumped up, the more air pressure is applied against the tire wall. Since the plasma membrane is made up of matter with a specific structure, like the bicycle tire, it too has physical limits when it comes to remaining intact and functional under pressure.

Suspended within the cell are structures, called organelles, and important proteins which together perform functions that allow for life. These include the nucleus, which contains the genetic information the cell needs to live and reproduce, the mitochondria, where the energy for cell function is obtained, the rough endoplasmic reticulum and the golgi apparatus, which are the factories that produce proteins, the lysosomes, which are the recycling plants where used cellular material is broken down, and the microtubules and microfilaments, which are the supportive cytoskeleton that allows the cell to alter its shape in response to changes in its environment.

Now consider what some of the laws of nature demand for the cell to survive in the world. Real numbers have real consequences. If the cell can't take control to follow the rules, then life will quickly turn into death.

Whether it's a mountain, a molehill, or a molecule, all material objects have mass and so energy is needed to change them. Therefore, to produce, move, or control anything requires that the cell have enough energy. Like a light bulb short on electricity or a car short on gas, without enough energy the cell is as good as dead.

The chemical content in the cell must be kept relatively constant for it to live and work properly. This means that the fluid inside the cell must maintain its high level of potassium and protein and its low level of sodium. If the chemical content of the cell isn't in the right range, then the cell dies a quick death.

Finally, as noted above, the plasma membrane surrounding the cell has definite physical limitations and is therefore sensitive to changes in pressure. Think of blowing up a balloon. There is only so much air pressure the wall of the balloon can handle before it explodes. So too the volume of the cell must be kept within certain limits. If the water pressure against the plasma membrane rises too high, then, as with a balloon, cell death will take place, literally by explosion.

Note, too, that the cell is not self-sufficient. To survive it needs to constantly receive new supplies of chemicals, like glucose, for energy. It must also constantly rid itself of toxic chemicals, like carbon dioxide from the breakdown of glucose. However, to survive, the cell faces a major dilemma. In letting these chemicals pass through its plasma membrane, the cell is exposed to the chemical content of the water just outside its doorstep. And remember, the chemical content of the water outside is totally different from that of the water inside the cell. The cell, remember, must control its chemical content and volume to stay alive.

Think of a walled city besieged by enemies. The residents of the city are slowly running out of food and water and are in desperate need of new supplies to stay alive. They must somehow be able to open the gates wide enough to bring in what they need without at the same time being overrun by the enemy.

In allowing these chemicals to pass through its plasma membrane the cell comes up against a dilemma, a result of the laws of nature that govern chemical and fluid movement. In letting down its guard to allow some chemicals to come in and go out, the cell runs the risk of losing control of its chemical content and volume. If that happens, the cell will perish.

Which laws of nature are involved in the cell's dilemma and, if not resisted by some ingenious design, how do they bring about the catastrophe that is cell death? Come back next time and we'll find out.

Edward snowden folk hero?Pros and cons

Is it time to end the global war on narcotics?Pros and Cons.

A line in the sand VIII

A line in the sand VII

Religion's week from hell

By Daniel Burke, CNN Religion Editor

(CNN)Whether you believe that religious violence is fueled by faith or is a symptom of larger factors -- political instability, poverty, cultural chaos -- one thing seems clear: Last week was hellish for religion.

Across several continents, including North America, Europe, Asia and Africa, scores of religious believers suffered and died in brutal attacks over the past seven days. Christians, Muslims and Jews alike all fell prey to assaults.

The causes of violence are complex, and reducing them to talking points only adds to the problem, scholars say. But if you want to rally troops to your side, few tools are more powerful than religion, said Michael Jerryson, co-editor of "The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Violence."

"If you can turn a battle into good versus evil, or doing God's will, you will get so much more devotion," he told CNN. "It's a calling that invokes more than the mundane; it raises the stakes."

 Experts in religious violence say it's too soon to tell whether last week witnessed more terrorist attacks than usual. It often takes several months, if not longer, to tally all of the assaults in a given period of time.

Even so, the brazenness of the attacks -- a gunman shooting up a cafe and a synagogue in a European capital, ISIS decapitating 21 Christians -- makes the past seven days stand out as particularly brutal.

Here are just some of the assaults carried out since last Monday.

Monday

One of the world's most deadly terrorist groups, Boko Haram threatened to continue its assaults, even as several African nations amassed armies to confront it.Boko Haram, the Muslim militant group based in Nigeria, attacked several towns in neighboring Cameroon, kidnapping 20 people. The Islamic extremists also detonated a car bomb in Niger, according to The Associated Press. The death toll is still unclear.

"Your soldiers are infidels, and God's soldiers are victorious," Abubakar Shekau, Boko Haram's leader, said in a video recently posted to YouTube.

Tuesday

Craig Stephen Hicks, an ardent atheist who railed online against religion, was accused of killing three young Muslims in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Police said the shootings likely resulted from a long-running dispute between Hicks and his neighbors over parking spaces.

But Muslims immediately urged the Obama administration to investigate the murders as a hate crime, and the hashtag #MuslimLivesMatter trended on Twitter.

Suzanne Barakat, the sister of one of the victims, said her family members were targeted because they were Muslims and that the slayings should be considered an act of terrorism.

"It's time people call it what it is," Barakat said.

Wednesday

ISIS, the Muslim militant group that calls itself the "Islamic State," launchedseveral attacks across Iraq, striking Kurdish forces in the North and Iraqi civilians in Baghdad.

At least 31 people were killed in Baghdad, including a top Sunni Muslim leader and 10 Shiite Muslims, according to international reports, as ISIS bombs exploded in several neighborhoods.

Thursday

Al Qaeda killed four Yemeni soldiers while seizing a critical military base in the town of Baihan, taking control of its weaponry, according to local security officials.

U.S. officials consider al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which is based in Yemen, the most dangerous branch of al Qaeda. Its sworn enemies, the Houthis, have taken over the nation's capital, throwing the country into chaos.

By Friday, Saudi Arabia, Germany and Italy closed their embassies in Yemen, following the United States and other nations.

"Yemen has turned into another failed state in the Middle East," former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told CNN, "giving al Qaeda a free hand to do what it wants."

Friday

Boko Haram continued its cross-border attacks, killing four civilians and a soldier in neighboring Chad.

The deaths came hours after 21 people were killed in two separate attacks on Akida ‎and Mbuta villages near the northeast Nigerian city of Maiduguri, according to residents and a local community leader.

The violence in northeast Nigeria, Boko Haram's home base, has caused more than 157,000 people to flee into Niger, Cameroon and Chad, according to Adrian Edwards, a spokesman for the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees.

Also on Friday, an attack on a Shia mosque in Peshawar, Pakistan, killed 19 worshippers and injured dozens of others, the U.N. reported.

The Pakistani Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack, according to Reuters.

Saturday

A gunman opened fire at a free-speech forum in Copenhagen, Denmark, where a Swedish cartoonist who had depicted the Prophet Mohammed was scheduled to speak.

By the end of the melee, the gunman had wounded three officers and killed a 55-year-old man.

Hours after the cafe attack, police said, the gunman made his way to a Copenhagen synagogue and once again opened fire. Two officers were wounded, and a man providing security for a bat mitzvah party behind the synagogue died.

Danish authorities theorize that attacks may have been modeled on the assaults that killed 17 in Paris last month, and Jewish leaders say they are worried about a rising tide of anti-Semitism sweeping across the continent.

Sunday

In a new video released Sunday by ISIS, the militant group claims to have beheaded over a dozen members of Egypt's Christian minority on a Libyan beach.

The video shows jihadists in black standing behind each of the victims, who are dressed in orange jumpsuits with their hands cuffed behind them.

The five-minute video, released by the terror group's propaganda wing al-Hayat Media, includes a masked English-speaking jihadi who says, "The sea you have hidden Sheikh Osama bin Laden's body in, we swear to Allah, we will mix it with your blood."

All the victims are then shoved to the ground and beheaded.

CNN's Holly Yan, Susanne Gargiulo. Laura Smith-Spark and Aminu Abubakar contributed to this report.

The original technologist continues to instruct.

Romans1:20NIV"For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

Looking at Nature with an Engineer's Eye

Evolution News & Views February 23, 2015 2:13 AM 

Here are two examples of researchers looking for "design principles" in living organisms, showing that an engineering focus leads to scientific progress.

Cell Replication as System Engineering

The job of an efficiency expert is to find better ways to get more things done in less time at less cost. From "Taylorism" in the early 20th century, through "Operations Research" in the days of World War II, to "systems engineering" today, efficiency expertise has grown into an essential discipline for manufacturing and project scheduling. Recently, Rami Pugatch, a systems biologist at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, looked at the humble lab bacterium E. coli with the eyes of an efficiency expert. PhysOrg explains how he approached "cellular replication as a systems engineering problem" --

The paper describes the problem of task scheduling in cellular replication processes and ultimately produces a mathematical distribution that characterizes an optimal replication strategy for E. coli cells. The scope of Pugatch's work encompasses individual cellular processes, algorithmic descriptions of optimized replication,systems engineering concepts, and even the history of the concept of the self-replicating factory. [Emphasis added.]

The history referred to is John von Neumann's 1948 theoretical work on how to build a self-replicating factory. Pugatch finds that a replicating bacterium meets those requirements: it keeps all ingredients in well-stocked reservoirs for each task, it schedules them optimally, and duplicates the instructions as part of the job. The bacterium even succeeds when resources are scarce, a "hard-to-solve scheduling problem" according to the paper published in PNAS.

Bacterial self-replication is a complex process composed of many de novo synthesis steps catalyzed by a myriad of molecular processing units, e.g., the transcription -- translation machinery, metabolic enzymes, and the replisome. Successful completion of all production tasks requires a schedule -- a temporal assignment of each of the production tasks to its respective processing units that respects orderingand resource constraints. Most intracellular growth processes are well characterized. However, the manner in which they are coordinated under the control of a scheduling policy is not well understood. When fast replication is favored, a schedule that minimizes the completion time is desirable. However, if resources are scarce, it is typically computationally hard to find such a schedule, in the worst case. Here, we show that optimal scheduling naturally emerges in cellular self-replication. Optimal doubling time is obtained by maintaining a sufficiently large inventory of intermediate metabolites and processing unitsrequired for self-replication and additionally requiring that these processing units be "greedy," i.e., not idle if they can perform a production task. We calculate the distribution of doubling times of such optimally scheduled self-replicating factories, and find it has a universal form -- log-Frechet, not sensitive to many microscopic details. Analyzing two recent datasets of Escherichia coli growing in a stationary medium, we find excellent agreement between the observed doubling-time distribution and the predicted universal distribution, suggesting E. coli is optimally scheduling its replication.

The paper makes no mention of evolution or natural selection; neither does the PhysOrg summary. Instead, one finds the language of "PERT" (project evaluation and review technique), "critical path," and other terms familiar to system engineers.

When von Neumann proposed the self-replicating factory, it was a futuristic idea that science fiction writers latched onto, envisioning space-traveling robots that could replicate themselves with resources found on planets they landed on as they spread throughout the galaxy. But right here on earth, we have a perfect example in one of the smallest, "simplest" living organisms.

Surprisingly, our analysis of recently measured datasets of E. coli exponentially growing in a stationary medium reveals that the measured distribution of doubling times fits well to the predicted distribution of doubling times of an optimally scheduled self-replicating factory. [PNAS]

Such a [von Neumann] factory is called "non-trivial" if it includes a universal constructor as a component. The duplicative process is not considered to be complete until a copy of the instructions is provided. Instead of directing their own replication, the instructions are instead duplicated from a template by a separate dedicated machine that is not triggered until the completion of the factory replication phase. This is closely analogous to actual cellular processes. [PhysOrg]

It took an engineer's eye to see this connection. Now, our understanding of bacterial replication is enriched accordingly, with no reference to natural selection. In fact, this revelation of the process creates new problems for neo-Darwinism: how could a self-replicating von Neumann machine emerge in piecemeal fashion, without all the parts, instructions, and "universal constructor" already present?

Materials Science

Meanwhile, the strongest biological substance known has come to light. This material can withstand 5 gigapascals of tension, equivalent to a string the width of spaghetti holding 3,000 half-kilogram bags of sugar, according to the BBC News. What is it? It's the radula, or tooth, of the humble limpet, a snail-like aquatic animal with a spiral shell. And who found it? An engineer. The University of Portsmouth explains:

Professor Asa Barber from the University's School of Engineering led the study. He said: "Nature is a wonderful source of inspiration for structures that have excellent mechanical properties. All the things we observe around us, such as trees, the shells of sea creatures and the limpet teeth studied in this work, have evolved to be effective at what they do.

"Until now we thought that spider silk was the strongest biological material because of its super-strength and potential applications in everything from bullet-proof vests to computer electronics but now we have discovered that limpet teeth exhibit a strength that is potentially higher."

Aha! the Darwinist says. See? Barber said they "have evolved to be effective at what they do." Upon reading the material, though, evolutionary theory had nothing to do with the findings. It was little more than a throwaway line that the professor uttered probably out of habit. He's an engineer, after all, who knows good design when he sees it:

"This discovery means that the fibrous structures found in limpet teeth could be mimicked and used in high-performance engineering applications such as Formula 1 racing cars, the hulls of boats and aircraft structures.

"Engineers are always interested in making these structures stronger to improve their performance or lighter so they use less material."

Barber's work involved testing the tensile strength of the limpet teeth with specially designed instruments. It was difficult work. The teeth are only a millimeter long, and very thin. The limpet uses its radula to scrape algae from the rocks on which it feeds. Barber's team found that, because the way the teeth are constructed with a mineral called goethite, its properties would scale: i.e., the same principles would work on larger sizes, since the strength of the material is not dependent on the size.

Finding out about effective designs in nature and then making structures based on these designs is known as 'bioinspiration'.

Professor Barber said: "Biology is a great source of inspiration when designing new structures but with so many biological structures to consider, it can take time to discover which may be useful."

"Bioinspiration" -- there's a neologism that's a keeper. Think of the prospects for finding more designs out there! As the BBC News article says, "We should be thinking about making our own structures following the same design principles." Good idea. Design is an inspiration to explore, discover, understand, then imitate.

Fear itself VI

Fear itself V

Darwin's finches for the prosecution.

Evolution Within Limits: Nature Study Identifies Genetic Basis for Galápagos Finch Beak Variation

Casey Luskin February 17, 2015 11:51 AM

 

 

Decades ago researchers Peter and Rosemarie Grant conducted painstaking research on finches in the Galápagos Islands. They found that during a drought period the seeds eaten by the finches became tougher, and those birds with bigger beaks were better able to survive and reproduce. After the drought ended, however, the seeds returned to their normal state and beaks also returned to their pre-drought sizes. As the Grants explained:

Effects of the droughts of 1977 and 1982 were approximately offset by selection in the opposite direction -- toward smaller body size -- in 1984-85. A relative scarcity of large seeds, together with an ample supply of small ones, favored small finches. Because the food supply on this island changes in composition and size from year to year, the optimal beak form for a finch is shifting in position, and the population, subjected to natural selection, is oscillating back and forth with every shift. Whether or not there is a net directional arrow through the oscillations is unclear and could be determined by a much longer study.

(Peter R. Grant, "Natural Selection and Darwin's Finches," Scientific American, pp. 82-82 (October, 1991).)

The finches thus provide us with an example of natural selection, specifically oscillating selection, but the example entails small-scale evolutionary change. Indeed, many of the finch species can interbreed, regardless of whether they have slightly different-sized beaks. As a paper in BioScience explains, the "finch species retain the ability to interbreed and produce viable, fertile hybrids." There is little doubt that these highly similar and genetically compatible finch species are closely related, but what is the genetic basis for the differences in the size and shape of finch beaks? A new paper in the journal Nature has identified a gene, ALX1, involved in helping to cause the different beak shapes. One variant of the ALX1 gene seems to be associated with pointed beaks, while the other variant is involved with blunted beaks.

But the Nature paper's authors also conducted a phylogenetic study that further confirms extensive interbreeding between the finch "species":

Phylogenetic analysis reveals important discrepancies with the phenotype-based taxonomy. We find extensive evidence for interspecific gene flow throughout the radiation. Hybridization has given rise to species of mixed ancestry. ... The discrepancies between phylogenies based on morphology and genome sequences may be due to convergent evolution and/or interspecies gene flow. ... [O]ur analysis of demographic history using the pairwise sequentially Markovian coalescent (PSMC) model was consistent with extensive interspecies gene flow among the ground finches, as they have maintained larger effective population sizes than the other species.

In other words, they had difficulty creating a gene-based phylogenetic tree because these species are so closely related that they still interbreed, obscuring the true phylogenetic signal. This evidence for interbreeding further reveals the small degree of evolutionary change that has taken place within the finches. As BBC News reports, some of these finch "species" really aren't even different species:

The most extensive genetic study ever conducted of Darwin's finches, from the Galápagos Islands, has revealed a messy family tree with a surprising level of interbreeding between species.

[...]

Prof Peter Keightley from the University of Edinburgh, though largely convinced by the results, was less surprised that the finches had interbred so extensively.

"These islands are pretty close together. So it's not surprising that they are flying from one island to the other," he said.

Some of the traditional species might not, in fact, be genuinely distinct, he added.

It turns out that these interspecies hybrids may be responsible for mixing producing different sizes of beaks. According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, there are different alleles of ALX1 in the population, and heterozygosity for the gene may lead to intermediate-sized beaks:

A lot of evolution is driven by random mutations. The process of natural selection favors mutations that provide some advantage, and organisms evolve in particular directions. But in the Galápagos, another mechanism was at play as well.

In their fieldwork, the Grants noticed that individuals of two different finch species would sometimes pair off, a process known as hybridization.

In theory, that should transfer genes from one population to another. But the evolutionary consequences of this were unknown.

The Nature study shows that the process of hybridization had indeed mixed the different variants of ALX1 and has thus played an important role in the evolution of Darwin's finches.

So can intelligent design make sense of this? What we may be looking at are variants of an allele that have been in this population of finches since long before they migrated to the Galápagos Islands. These variants can help cause pointed beaks, blunted beaks, or beaks of intermediate size and shape. Environmental conditions can cause the variants to increase or decrease their prevalence within the population of finches.

The bottom line is that we might be looking at variants of an allele that are designed to allow a population of finches to evolve different beak sizes and shapes within predefined limits. Of course work on the finches from an ID perspective could bear out this hypothesis, but one thing seems clear so far: the Galápagos finches don't show the unlimited creative capacity of the Darwinian mechanism, as popularly claimed, but instead only small-scale, very modest evolutionary change, the kind almost no one doubts.

Thought your kids were in school to acquire critical thinking skills?You dear sweet child,read on.

Survey Suggests Students Should Not be Allowed to "Make Up their own Minds" on Evolution

Casey Luskin February 9, 2011 5:43 AM | 

As we reported, the journal Science recently published a survey which underreports the number of Darwin-doubting science teachers, instead finding that 28% of teachers are "Advocates of evolutionary biology," 13% are "Advocates of creationism," and 60% are "Advocates of neither." (Strange that their percentages add up to 101%.) Discovery Institute in fact does not support mandating intelligent design, and does not support teaching creationism. Rather, we think teachers should teach the scientific controversy over neo-Darwinian evolution.

What's ironic about the survey is that someone who follows the advice of a different paper published in Science last year could never qualify as an "Advocate of evolutionary biology."

Last year Science published a paper by Jonathan Osborne titled, "Arguing to Learn in Science: The Role of Collaborative, Critical Discourse," which found that students learn science best when they learn "to discriminate between evidence that supports (inclusive) or does not support (exclusive) or that is simply indeterminate." According to Osborne's paper, it's vital to teach students what scientific critique looks like:

Critique is not, therefore, some peripheral feature of science, but rather it is core to its practice, and without argument and evaluation, the construction of reliable knowledge would be impossible.

(Jonathan Osborne, "Arguing to Learn in Science: The Role of Collaborative, Critical Discourse," Science, Vol. 328 (5977): 463-466 (April 23, 2010).)

In fact, Osborne's paper warns about presenting science as a "monolith of facts" or an "authoritative discourse":

Typically, in the rush to present the major features of the scientific landscape, most of the arguments required to achieve such knowledge are excised. Consequently, science can appear to its students as a monolith of facts, an authoritative discourse where the discursive exploration of ideas, their implications, and their importance is absent. Students then emerge with naive ideas or misconceptions about the nature of science itself....

All of this of course flies in the face of the teaching method endorsed by the survey, which recommends authoritatively telling students that "the broad consensus" is that "evolution is fact." If a teacher qualified as an "Advocate of evolution" by the criteria used in survey, they could never take the scientific approach recommended by Osborne's paper

Incredibly, this new Science survey claims that teachers who "teach the controversy" will "fail to explain the nature of scientific inquiry." The reality is precisely the opposite: teachers who teach evolution dogmatically as fact will fail to explain the nature of scientific inquiry.

The authors of the survey even go so far as to criticize a teacher who felt that "Students should make up their own minds" on evolution "based on their own beliefs and research." Their reasoning is that students would not be able to think through the issues:

But does a 15-year-old student really have enough information to reject thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers? This approach tells students that well-established concepts like common ancestry can be debated in the same way we debate personal opinions.

(Michael B. Berkman and Eric Plutzer, "Defeating Creationism in the Courtroom, But Not in the Classroom," Vol. 331:404-405 (January 28, 2011).)

Here are just a few reasons why their argument for dogmatism fails:

It's false to pretend that dissenting from the Darwinian consensus requires "rejecting" all peer-reviewed science or that dissenters simply have "opinions" but not evidence. There are peer-reviewed scientific papers which dissent from the majority viewpoint on topics like the efficacy of natural selection or the tree of life.

Evolution education deals with a fundamental question of humanity--"Where did we come from?" Yes, modern neo-Darwinian evolutionary biology is the majority viewpoint and students must learn about this viewpoint. But there are significant numbers of scientists who dissent from that viewpoint. From a purely humanistic standpoint, it seems unconscionable to withhold from students the fact that there are credible scientific views that dissent from the majority viewpoint on this fundamental question of humanity--even if those views happen to be in the minority right now.

If students can learn the evidence for a particular proposition of modern evolutionary theory, there's no in principle reason they could not learn about evidence against it. Students don't have to sift through thousands of scientific papers to learn about the debate. A well-trained teacher can synthesize the material, spend a couple weeks explaining the standard neo-Darwinian consensus view, and then cover the scientific controversy over neo-Darwinian evolution in one or two lectures. If Osborne's educational theories are valid, students will understand the topic better under this approach.

As we've seen, science education theorists find that students learn science best when they study different sides of a scientific debate. Scientific elites praise the importance of inquiry-based science education -- with all of its critical thinking, skepticism, and consideration of alternative explanations -- but unfortunately jettison such beneficial educational philosophies when it comes to teaching evolution.

Bloodsport III

The Watchtower Society's commentary on the Beast of revelation Ch.13.

What Is the Seven-Headed Wild Beast of Revelation Chapter 13?

The Bible’s answer

The wild beast with seven heads introduced at Revelation 13:1represents the worldwide political system.

• It has authority, power, and a throne, which point to its being a political entity.—Revelation 13:2.
• It rules over “every tribe and people and tongue and nation,” so it is greater than a single national government.—Revelation 13:7.
• It combines features of the four beasts described in the prophecy atDaniel 7:2-8, including the appearance of a leopard, the feet of a bear, a lion’s mouth, and ten horns. The beasts in Daniel’s prophecy are identified as specific kings, or political kingdoms, that rule in succession over empires. (Daniel 7:17, 23) Thus, the wild beast of Revelation chapter 13 represents a composite political organization.
• It ascends “out of the sea,” that is, from the turbulent masses of mankind that are the source of human governments.—Revelation 13:1; Isaiah 17:12, 13.
• The Bible says that the number, or name, of the beast—666—is “a man’s number.” (Revelation 13:17, 18) That expression indicates that the beast of Revelation chapter 13 is a human entity, not a spirit or demon entity.

Even though nations may agree on few things, they unite in their determination to maintain their authority rather than submit to the rule of God’s Kingdom. (Psalm 2:2) They will also join forces to battle God’s armies commanded by Jesus Christ at Armageddon, but this war will result in the nations being destroyed.—Revelation 16:14, 16; 19:19, 20.

“Ten horns and seven heads”

Certain numbers are used symbolically in the Bible. For example, ten and seven represent completeness. The key to understanding the specific meaning of the “ten horns and seven heads” of the beast ofRevelation chapter 13 is an “image of the wild beast” identified later in Revelation—a bright-red beast that has seven heads and ten horns. (Revelation 13:1, 14, 15; 17:3) The Bible says that the seven heads of this red beast mean “seven kings,” or governments.—Revelation 17:9, 10.

Likewise, the seven heads of the beast of Revelation 13:1 represent seven governments: the primary political powers that have dominated through history and have taken the lead in oppressing God’s people—Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome, and Anglo-America. If we conclude that the ten horns represent all sovereign states, small and large, then the diadem, or crown, on each horn shows that each nation rules concurrently with the primary political power of the time.