A fuse for the Cambrian explosion.

A Thousand Dickinsonia Specimens Don’t Change the Ediacaran Story
Evolution News | @DiscoveryCSC

Dickinsonia is one of the enigmatic creatures classed in the Ediacaran biota, a group of Precambrian macrofossils taking its name from the type section in the Ediacaran hills of South Australia. Growing from an inch to several feet long, this air-mattress-like creature has been variously interpreted as anything from a fungus to an animal, according to Stephen Meyer in Darwin’s Doubt (see Figure 4.1 on p. 80).

Most paleontologists have concluded, Meyer says, that whatever it was, Dickinsonia was not an ancestor to the bilaterian animals that appeared in the Cambrian explosion, having lacked the essential traits that characterize bilaterians, such as a head, gut, sensory organs, or limbs (see pp. 81-86). It’s not even clear that it has bilateral symmetry at all, or the triploblastic structure (three distinct tissue layers; see p. 93) characteristic of true animals.

Three researchers from the University of California, Riverside, went to Australia and examined a thousand specimens of Dickinsonia. Did they find anything to change its status as a possible ancestor? The spin-prone NASA rag Astrobiology Magazine tries to make it seem so, announcing  “New Study Sheds Light on Earth’s First Animals.”  They include a large color picture of the creature.

More than 550 million years ago, the oceans were teeming with flat, soft-bodied creatures that fed on microbes and algae and could grow as big as bathmats. Today, researchers at the University of California, Riverside are studying their fossils to unlock the secrets of early life.

In their latest study, published today in the journal PLOS ONE, Scott Evans, a graduate student in the Department of Earth Sciences, and Mary Droser, a professor of paleontology, both in UCR’s College of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, show that the Ediacaran-era fossil animal Dickinsonia developed in a complex, highly regulated way using a similar genetic toolkit to today’s animals. The study helps place Dickinsonia in the early evolution of animal life, and showcases how the large, mobile sea creature grew and developed. [Emphasis added.]
But what the article asserts in these opening paragraphs, it undermines at the end, showing that Dickinsonia could not have been in the evolutionary chain to the phyla that appeared in the Cambrian explosion (530-525 million years ago). They conclude:

The study showed that Dickinsonia’s development, and particularly that of the modules, was complex and systematic to maintain the oval shape of the animal. The accumulation of new modules, by a process called terminal addition, suggests that Dickinsonia developed in a related way to bilaterians, a complex group that display bilateral symmetry, including animals ranging from flies and worms to humans. However, the researchers do not believe Dickinsonia was ancestrally related to bilaterians, since it lacked other features that most bilaterians share, most notably a mouth, gut and anus.

“Although we saw some of the hallmark characteristics of bilateral growth and development, we don’t believe Dickinsonia was a precursor to today’s bilaterians, rather that these are two distinct groups that shared a common set of ancestral genes that are present throughout the animal lineage,” Evans said. “Dickinsonia most likely represents a separate group of animals that is now extinct, but can tell us a lot about the evolutionary history of animals.”
What can it tell about the evolutionary history of animals, however, if it (1) was not a precursor, (2) lacked the notable features of bilaterian animals, and (3) grew by “terminal addition” of new modules? Snowflakes and bubble mats can do that. Let’s see if the paper in PLOS ONE can shed any more light.

The Ediacara Biota represents the oldest fossil evidence for the appearance of animals but linking these taxa to specific clades has proved challenging. Dickinsonia is an abundant, apparently bilaterally symmetrical Ediacara fossil with uncertain affinities. We identified and measured key morphological features of over 900 specimens of Dickinsonia costata from the Ediacara Member, South Australia to characterize patterns in growth and morphology. Here we show that development in Dickinsonia costata was surprisingly highly regulated to maintain an ovoid shape via terminal addition and the predictable expansion of modules. This result, along with other characters found in Dickinsonia suggests that it does not belong within known animal groups, but that it utilized some of the developmental gene networks of bilaterians, a result predicted by gene sequencing of basal metazoans but previously unidentified in the fossil record. Dickinsonia thus represents an extinct clade located between sponges and the last common ancestor of Protostomes and Deuterostomes, and likely belongs within the Eumetazoa.
Did they find genes? No. Did they observe developmental gene networks? No. Did they find “stomes” (mouths) on these creatures? No. The connection to Protostomes (first mouth) and Deuterostomes (two mouths) is all inference. They had nearly a thousand of these creatures to look at, and only inferred that they lie somewhere between sponges and animals. And yet they admit that whatever Dickinsonia was, it went extinct.

Droser et al. place this creature within “an extinct lineage that split somewhere between sponges and the LCA [last common ancestor] of Protostomes and Deuterostomes,” meaning that it really has nothing to do with animals, which without exception have a mouth. For a transitional form, Dickinsonia is a pretty sad contender.

The highly regulated growth of Dickinsonia, along with features such as posterior addition, bilateral symmetry and organization around an anterior-posterior axis are characteristics found in bilaterians. However, most bilaterians are triploblastic and have a through gut and there is no evidence for the number of tissue layers or the presence of a mouth, anus or any type of gut in Dickinsonia. Some highly derived modern bilaterians do not have a through gut and many studies have demonstrated the importance of the secondary loss of characters in phylogenetic reconstructions, but it is unlikely that Dickinsonia is highly derived and our results suggest that it does not have the suite of characters necessary to be considered a crown group bilaterian.
If they had a better contender, they surely would offer it up. They do mention Kimberella as an incipient mollusk, and Helminthoidichnites as a hopeful bilaterian, acknowledging Graham Budd’s criticisms (Meyer, p. 85). But after combing through a thousand of these air mattress lookalikes, they can’t even bring themselves to postulate that Dickinsonia was a more complex (“derived”) animal that lost traits.

The only feature they try to attribute to evolution is apparent “highly regulated growth” of the organism to maintain its ovoid shape as it grows. But you can’t watch fossils grow, so that’s an inference, too. Nor can you watch fossils move, as they claim it did (again, by inference only, based on the slight difference between front and back ends). There’s no clear evidence of a second tissue layer, let alone a third. And they can’t even call the repeated structures “segments” which would presage a worm of some type. They call them “modules” instead. But do these modules really show a pattern of “highly regulated growth” and development?

We therefore conclude that the number of modules is not solely determined by overall size and that similarly sized specimens can have vastly different module numbers. The reasons for large differences in module number between specimens may simply be random…. This suggests that there was likely little functional significance in maintaining a specific number of modules with respect to size and highlights that conserving an ovoid shape and consistent length to width ratio was critical for D. costata.
What about the creature’s anatomy? Earlier reports “have suggested that Dickinsonia possessed complex internal structures,” but that idea got shot down, too:

No evidence for internal structures was observed in any specimens analyzed herein. All previous reports of features such as a through gut are likely due to deformation or the draping of Dickinsonia over irregular features present on the Ediacaran seafloor.
Perhaps that rules out claims of locomotion as well. We don’t see any evidence that Dickinsonia did much at all but sit there on the ocean floor. And if it grew, it didn’t grow like any other animal we know:

The plasticity of module number with respect to overall size between specimens of D. costata, despite the tight regulation on modular growth, suggests that module number is not a reliable proxy for age and that different specimens add and inflate modules at variable rates. This suggests that growth in Dickinsonia is fundamentally different from that of truly segmented animals.

We are not currently aware of any modern or extinct organism, segmented or otherwise, that grows in the same manner as D. costata. Any convergence between the growth of D. costata and modern organisms would likely reflect the importance of maintaining an ovoid shape and not phylogenetic ancestry.
Whatever similarities this creature might have had to other organisms, living or extinct, they chalk up to a familiar Darwinian magic wand, “convergent evolution.” It’s just out there, unique, distinct, unrelated — and extinct.

By the way, the paper never mentions a “genetic toolkit” that the NASA article bragged about. The authors only suggest that if the creature grew in a predictable way, it must have had “gene regulatory networks” like animals have. But if it did, it got those by convergent evolution, too, since it wasn’t on the line to the Cambrian animals.

In short, Dickinsonia doesn’t change the situation with the Cambrian explosion. We wonder if those putting out the money for this study are pleased with these pitiful results (the authors received funds from the NSF, NASA, National Geographic, and half a dozen other institutions). It’s worth knowing more about these creatures, but they don’t seem to offer any consolation for Darwinists.


The authors end by stating that more studies will be needed on other Ediacaran creatures in order “to gain further insight into the evolutionary history of early animals.” Translation: More funding, please. Meanwhile, Steve Meyer’s challenge stands.

War,Just and otherwise:The Watchtower Society's Commentary.

WAR:
A state of hostility accompanied by actions designed to subjugate or to destroy those viewed as the enemy. A number of Hebrew words involve waging war; one of these, from the verb root qa·ravʹ, means basically “come near,” that is, to fight. The Greek noun poʹle·mos means “war”; and the verb stra·teuʹo is from a root that refers to an encamped army.

The Bible says that Nimrod “went forth into Assyria,” which was evidently an act of aggression, into the territory of Asshur the son of Shem. There Nimrod built cities. (Ge 10:11) In Abraham’s day Chedorlaomer, king of Elam, subjected a number of cities (all apparently around the southern end of the Dead Sea) for a period of 12 years, forcing them to serve him. After they rebelled, Chedorlaomer and his allies warred against them, vanquishing the forces of Sodom and Gomorrah, taking their possessions, and capturing Abraham’s nephew Lot and his household. At that Abraham mustered 318 trained servants and, together with his three confederates, pursued Chedorlaomer and recovered the captives and the plunder. However, Abraham did not take any of the booty for himself. This is the first record of a war waged by a servant of God. Abraham’s warring to recover his fellow servant of Jehovah had Jehovah’s approval, for, on Abraham’s return, he was blessed by Melchizedek, priest of the Most High God.—Ge 14:1-24.

God-Ordained Warfare. Jehovah is “a manly person of war,” “the God of armies,” and “mighty in battle.” (Ex 15:3; 2Sa 5:10; Ps 24:8, 10; Isa 42:13) Not only has he the right as Creator and Supreme Sovereign of the universe but he is also obligated by justice to execute or authorize execution of the lawless, to war against all obstinate ones who refuse to obey his righteous laws. Jehovah was therefore just in wiping out the wicked at the time of the Flood, in destroying Sodom and Gomorrah, and in bringing destruction upon Pharaoh’s forces.—Ge 6:5-7, 13, 17; 19:24; Ex 15:4, 5; compare 2Pe 2:5-10; Jude 7.

Israel used as God’s executioner. Jehovah assigned the Israelites the sacred duty of serving as his executioners in the Promised Land to which he brought them. Prior to Israel’s deliverance from Egypt, the nation had not known warfare. (Ex 13:17) By victoriously directing Israel against “seven nations more populous and mighty” than they were, God magnified his name as “Jehovah of armies, the God of the battle lines of Israel.” This proved that “neither with sword nor with spear does Jehovah save, because to Jehovah belongs the battle.” (De 7:1; 1Sa 17:45, 47; compare 2Ch 13:12.) It also gave the Israelites the opportunity to demonstrate obedience to God’s commandments to the point of endangering their lives in God-ordained warfare.—De 20:1-4.

No aggression beyond the God-given limits. However, God strictly commanded Israel that they were not to engage in wars of aggression or conquest beyond the territory that he granted to them and that they were not to fight any nations except the ones he ordered them to fight. They were not to engage in strife with the nations of Edom, Moab, or Ammon. (De 2:4, 5, 9, 19) But they were attacked by these nations in later times and were forced to defend themselves against them in warfare. In this they had God’s help.—Jg 3:12-30; 11:32, 33; 1Sa 14:47.

When, during the period of the Judges, the king of Ammon tried to justify his aggressions against Israel by falsely charging Israel with taking Ammonite land, Jephthah refuted him by recalling the historical facts. Jephthah then proceeded to fight against these aggressors, on the principle that ‘every one whom Jehovah dispossesses before us we will dispossess.’ Jephthah would not relinquish an inch of Israel’s God-given land to any intruder.—Jg 11:12-27; see JEPHTHAH.

Sanctified warfare. Anciently, the fighting forces, before they entered battle, were customarily sanctified. (Jos 3:5; Jer 6:4; 51:27, 28) During warfare Israel’s forces, including non-Jews (for example, Uriah the Hittite, who was probably a circumcised proselyte), had to remain ceremonially clean. They could not have sexual relations, even with their own wives, during a military campaign. Accordingly, there were no prostitutes who followed Israel’s army. Moreover, the camp itself had to be kept clean from defilement.—Le 15:16, 18; De 23:9-14; 2Sa 11:11, 13.

When it was necessary to punish unfaithful Israel, those foreign armies bringing the destruction were viewed as ‘sanctified,’ in the sense that they were ‘set apart’ by Jehovah for the execution of his righteous judgments. (Jer 22:6-9; Hab 1:6) Similarly, those military forces (principally the Medes and Persians) who brought destruction on Babylon were spoken of by Jehovah as “my sanctified ones.”—Isa 13:1-3.

The false prophets in Israel, in their greediness, were said to “sanctify war” against anyone who did not put something into their mouths. Undoubtedly they sanctimoniously claimed divine sanction for their acts of oppression, which included sharing in the responsibility for the persecution and even the death of true prophets and servants of God.—Mic 3:5; Jer 2:8; La 4:13.

Conscription. At Jehovah’s command Israel’s able-bodied males 20 years old and upward were conscripted for military service. According to Josephus, they served up to the age of 50 years. (Jewish Antiquities, III, 288 [xii, 4]) The fearful and fainthearted were rejected because Israel’s wars were wars of Jehovah, and those displaying weakness of faith in fearfulness would tend to weaken the army’s morale. Exemptions were given to men who had just completed a new house, as well as to those who had planted a vineyard and had not used its fruitage. These exemptions were based on the right of a man to enjoy the fruitage of his work. The newly married man was exempt for one year. During this time the man might be able to have and to see an heir. Here Jehovah revealed his concern and consideration for the family. (Nu 1:1-3, 44-46; De 20:5-8; 24:5) The Levites, who took care of the service at the sanctuary, were exempt, showing that Jehovah considered the spiritual welfare of the people more important than military defense.—Nu 1:47-49; 2:32, 33.

Laws concerning assault and siege of cities. Jehovah instructed Israel as to military procedure in the conquest of Canaan. The seven nations of Canaan, named at Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, were to be exterminated, including women and children. Their cities were to be devoted to destruction. (De 20:15-17) According to Deuteronomy 20:10-15, other cities were first warned and terms of peace extended. If the city surrendered, the inhabitants were spared and put to forced labor. This opportunity to surrender, together with the assurance that their lives would be spared and their women would not be raped or molested, was an inducement to such cities to capitulate to Israel’s army, thus avoiding much bloodshed. If the city did not surrender, all males were killed. Killing the men removed danger of later revolt by the city. “The women and the little children” were spared. That “women” here no doubt means virgins is indicated by Deuteronomy 21:10-14, where prospective war brides are described as mourning for parents, not for husbands. Also, earlier, when Israel defeated Midian, it is specifically stated that only virgins were spared. Such sparing of only virgins would serve to protect Israel from false worship and no doubt from sexually transmitted diseases. (Nu 31:7, 17, 18) (As to the justice of God’s decree against the Canaanite nations, see CANAAN, CANAANITE [Conquest of Canaan by Israel].)

Food-producing trees were not to be cut down for siegeworks. (De 20:19, 20) Horses of the enemy were hamstrung during the heat of battle to incapacitate them; after the battle they undoubtedly were killed.—Jos 11:6.

Not All of Israel’s Wars Were Proper. Israel’s lapsing into a course of unfaithfulness was accompanied by conflicts that were little more than power struggles. This was the case with Abimelech’s warring against Shechem and Thebez in the time of the Judges (Jg 9:1-57), as well as Omri’s warfare against Zimri and Tibni, which led to his being firmly established in the kingship over the ten-tribe kingdom. (1Ki 16:16-22) Also, instead of relying on Jehovah for protection from their enemies, the Israelites began to trust in military might, horses and chariots. Thus, in the time of Isaiah, the land of Judah was “filled with horses” and there was “no limit to their chariots.”—Isa 2:1, 7.

Ancient War Strategy and Tactics. Spies were sometimes sent out ahead of the attack to ascertain conditions existing in the land. Such spies were not sent to initiate unrest, revolt, or subversive underground movements. (Nu 13:1, 2, 17-19; Jos 2:1; Jg 18:2; 1Sa 26:4) Special trumpet calls were employed for mustering forces, for war calls, and for signaling unified action. (Nu 10:9; 2Ch 13:12; compare Jg 3:27; 6:34; 7:19, 20.) On occasion forces were divided and deployed in flanking attacks, or in ambush and decoy operations. (Ge 14:15; Jos 8:2-8; Jg 7:16; 2Sa 5:23, 24; 2Ch 13:13) In at least one instance, at Jehovah’s direction, singers of praise to God were put in the vanguard, ahead of the armed forces. God fought that day for Israel, throwing the camp of the enemy into confusion so that the enemy soldiers killed one another.—2Ch 20:20-23.

Fighting was to a great extent hand to hand, man against man. A variety of weapons were used—swords, spears, javelins, arrows, slingstones, and so forth. During the conquest of the Promised Land, Israel did not rely on horses and chariots; their trust was in the saving power of Jehovah. (De 17:16; Ps 20:7; 33:17; Pr 21:31) Not until later times did the armies of Israel employ horses and chariots, as did the Egyptians and others. (1Ki 4:26; 20:23-25; Ex 14:6, 7; De 11:4) Foreign armies were sometimes equipped with war chariots having iron scythes extending from their axles.—Jos 17:16; Jg 4:3, 13.

War tactics changed during the course of the centuries. Generally, Israel did not concentrate on developing instruments of offensive warfare, though considerable attention was given to fortification. King Uzziah of Judah is noted for building “engines of war, the invention of engineers,” but these were primarily for the defense of Jerusalem. (2Ch 26:14, 15) In order to be able to attack the higher and weaker part of a city’s wall, the Assyrian and Babylonian armies, particularly, were known for their siege walls and their siege ramparts. These ramparts served as inclined planes up which towers with battering rams were brought; from these towers, the archers and slingers fought. Along with these were other forms of siege engines, including giant rock throwers. (2Ki 19:32; Jer 32:24; Eze 4:2; Lu 19:43) At the same time the defenders of the city attempted to hold off the attack by means of archers, slingers, as well as by soldiers who would throw firebrands from their walls and towers and from missile-throwing engines inside the city. (2Sa 11:21, 24; 2Ch 26:15; 32:5) In assaulting walled fortifications, one of the first things attempted was the cutting off of the city’s water supply, while the city about to be besieged often stopped up water sources around the city to deprive the attackers of their use.—2Ch 32:2-4, 30.

On defeating an enemy, the victors sometimes stopped up wells and springs in the area and spread stones over the ground, occasionally sowing the ground with salt.—Jg 9:45; 2Ki 3:24, 25; see ARMS, ARMOR; FORTIFICATIONS.

Jesus Foretells War. Jesus, the man of peace, observed that “those who take the sword will perish by the sword.” (Mt 26:52) He declared to Pilate that, had his Kingdom been of this world, his attendants would have fought to prevent his being delivered up to the Jews. (Joh 18:36) Yet he foretold that Jerusalem, because of rejecting him as the Messiah, would in time suffer siege and desolation, during which her “children” (inhabitants) would be dashed to the ground.—Lu 19:41-44; 21:24.

Shortly before his death, Jesus gave prophecies that applied to that generation and also to the time when his presence in Kingdom power would begin: “You are going to hear of wars and reports of wars; see that you are not terrified. For these things must take place, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom.”—Mt 24:6, 7; Mr 13:7, 8; Lu 21:9, 10.

Christ Wages War as “King of Kings.” The Bible reveals that the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ, with ‘all authority in heaven and on earth’ granted to him by his Father, will engage in a warfare that will destroy all of God’s enemies and establish everlasting peace, as his title “Prince of Peace” implies.—Mt 28:18; 2Th 1:7-10; Isa 9:6.

The apostle John had a vision of things to take place after Christ’s enthronement in heaven. The words of Psalms 2:7, 8 and 110:1, 2 had foretold that God’s Son would be invited to ‘ask of Jehovah the nations as his inheritance,’ and that Jehovah would respond by sending him forth to ‘go subduing in the midst of his enemies.’ (Heb 10:12, 13) John’s vision depicted a war in heaven in which Michael, that is, Jesus Christ (see MICHAEL No. 1), led the armies of heaven in a war against the Dragon, Satan the Devil. The outcome of that war was the hurling of the Devil and his angels to the earth. This war immediately followed the ‘birth of the male child’ who was to rule the nations with a rod of iron. (Re 12:7-9) A loud voice in heaven then announced: “Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ.” This brought relief and joy to the angels; but it presaged troubles, including wars, for the earth, as the declaration continued: “Woe for the earth and for the sea, because the Devil has come down to you, having great anger, knowing he has a short period of time.”—Re 12:10, 12.

After Satan was hurled to the earth, he made God’s servants on earth, the remaining ones of the ‘seed of the woman,’ “who observe the commandments of God and have the work of bearing witness to Jesus,” his chief target. Satan initiated warfare against them that included both a spiritual conflict and actual persecution, even resulting in death for some. (Re 12:13, 17) Succeeding chapters of Revelation (13, 17-19) describe the agents and instruments Satan uses against them, as well as the victorious outcome for God’s holy ones under their Leader Jesus Christ.

‘War of the great day of God Almighty.’ The 19th chapter of Revelation gives a view of the greatest war of all human history, surpassing anything that men have ever witnessed. Earlier in the vision it is called “the war of the great day of God the Almighty.” Aligned against Jehovah and the Lord Jesus Christ as the Commander of God’s armies, the hosts of heaven, are the symbolic “wild beast and the kings of the earth and their armies” assembled to the site of this war by “expressions inspired by demons.” (Re 16:14; 19:19) None of God’s earthly servants are pictured as having part in this battle. The earthly kings “will battle with the Lamb, but, because he is Lord of lords and King of kings, the Lamb will conquer them.” (Re 17:14; 19:19-21; see HAR–MAGEDON.) Following this fight, Satan the Devil himself is to be bound for a thousand years, “that he might not mislead the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended.”—Re 20:1-3.

With the conclusion of this war, the earth will enjoy peace for a thousand years. The psalm that declares “[Jehovah] is making wars to cease to the extremity of the earth. The bow he breaks apart and does cut the spear in pieces; the wagons he burns in the fire,” had initial fulfillment in God’s bringing peace to Israel’s land by wrecking the enemy’s war instruments. After Christ defeats the promoters of war at Har–Magedon, the extremity of this earthly globe will enjoy full and satisfying peace. (Ps 46:8-10) Persons favored with eternal life will be those who have beaten “their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning shears” and who do not “learn war anymore.” “For the very mouth of Jehovah of armies has spoken it.”—Isa 2:4; Mic 4:3, 4.

War threat forever ended. Revelation’s vision goes on to show that at the end of the thousand years Satan the Devil will be brought back from his binding in the abyss and will again induce many to come up to wage war against those remaining loyal to God. But no damage will be done, for ‘fire will come down out of heaven’ and devour these enemies, thereby removing all threat of war forever.—Re 20:7-10.

Christian Warfare. While the Christian does not engage in a physical war against blood and flesh (Eph 6:12), he is engaged in warfare nonetheless, a spiritual fight. The apostle Paul describes the war waged within the Christian between “sin’s law” and “God’s law,” or ‘the law of the mind’ (the Christian mind in harmony with God).—Ro 7:15-25.

This warfare of the Christian is an agonizing one, requiring the exertion of every effort for a person to come off winner. But he can be confident of victory through the undeserved kindness of God through Christ and the help of God’s spirit. (Ro 8:35-39) Jesus said of this fight: “Exert yourselves vigorously to get in through the narrow door” (Lu 13:24), and the apostle Peter counseled: “Keep abstaining from fleshly desires, which are the very ones that carry on a conflict [or, “are doing military service” (stra·teuʹon·tai)] against the soul.”—1Pe 2:11, Int; compare Jas 4:1, 2.

Against wicked spirits. In addition to this warfare against sin’s law, the Christian has a fight against the demons, who take advantage of the tendencies of the flesh by tempting the Christian to sin. (Eph 6:12) In this warfare the demons also induce those under their influence to tempt or to oppose and persecute Christians in an effort to get them to break their integrity to God.—1Co 7:5; 2Co 2:11; 12:7; compare Lu 4:1-13.

Against false teachings. The apostle Paul also spoke of a warfare that he and his associates were waging, in carrying out their commission as those appointed to care for the Christian congregation. (2Co 10:3) The congregation at Corinth had been wrongly influenced by presumptuous men called by Paul “false apostles” who, by giving undue attention to personalities, had caused divisions, sects, in the congregation. (2Co 11:13-15) They became, in effect, followers of men such as Apollos, Paul, and Cephas. (1Co 1:11, 12) The members of the congregation lost the spiritual viewpoint, that these men were merely representatives of Christ, unitedly serving the same purpose. They became fleshly. (1Co 3:1-9) They viewed men in the congregation ‘according to what they were in the flesh,’ their appearance, natural abilities, personalities, and so forth, instead of regarding them as spiritual men. They failed to recognize that God’s spirit was operating in the congregation, and that men such as Paul, Peter, and Apollos were accomplishing what they did by God’s spirit, for His glory.

Therefore, Paul was impelled to write them: “Indeed I beg that, when present, I may not use boldness with that confidence with which I am counting on taking bold measures against some who appraise us as if we walked according to what we are in the flesh. For though we walk in the flesh, we do not wage warfare according to what we are in the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful by God for overturning strongly entrenched things. For we are overturning reasonings and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God; and we are bringing every thought into captivity to make it obedient to the Christ.”—2Co 10:2-5.

Paul wrote to Timothy, whom he had left in Ephesus to care for the congregation there: “This mandate I commit to you, child, Timothy, in accord with the predictions that led directly on to you, that by these you may go on waging the fine warfare; holding faith and a good conscience.” (1Ti 1:18, 19) Not only did Timothy have before him conflicts because of sinful flesh and because of the opposition of the enemies of the truth but he also had to wage warfare against the infiltration of false doctrine and of those who would corrupt the congregation. (1Ti 1:3-7; 4:6, 11-16) His actions would fortify the congregation against the apostasy that Paul knew would occur after the apostles passed off the scene. (2Ti 4:3-5) So it was a real fight that Timothy had to wage.

Paul was able to say to Timothy: “I have fought the fine fight, I have run the course to the finish, I have observed the faith.” (2Ti 4:7) Paul had maintained his faithfulness to Jehovah and Jesus Christ by right conduct and service in the face of opposition, suffering, and persecution. (2Co 11:23-28) He had additionally discharged the responsibility of his office as an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, fighting the war to keep the Christian congregation clean and spotless, as a chaste virgin, and as “a pillar and support of the truth.”—1Ti 3:15; 1Co 4:1, 2; 2Co 11:2, 29; compare 2Ti 2:3, 4.

God’s material support of the Christian. In the warfare of the Christian, God views the Christian as His soldier and, therefore, provides him with the necessary material things. The apostle argues, with regard to the authority of one serving as a minister to others: “Who is it that ever serves as a soldier at his own expense?”—1Co 9:7.

Christians and Wars of the Nations. Christians have always maintained strict neutrality as to fleshly warfare between nations, groups, or factions of any kind. (Joh 18:36; Eph 6:12) For examples of the attitude of the early Christians in this respect, see ARMY (Those Known As Early Christians).

Other Uses. In the song of Barak and Deborah, after the victory over the army of Jabin, king of Canaan, a circumstance is recalled that sets forth a principle: “They [Israel] proceeded to choose new gods. It was then there was war in the gates.” (Jg 5:8) As soon as they forsook Jehovah for false worship, trouble came, with the enemy pressing at the very gates of their cities. This is in harmony with the psalmist’s declaration: “Unless Jehovah himself guards the city, it is to no avail that the guard has kept awake.”—Ps 127:1.

At Ecclesiastes 8:8, Solomon wrote: “There is no man having power over the spirit to restrain the spirit; . . . nor is there any discharge in the war.” In the day of death the dying person cannot restrain the spirit, or force of life, and keep it from returning to God the Giver and Source, so as to live longer. Dying humans cannot control the day of death and prevent it from ever reaching them. They cannot, by any human efforts, be discharged from the war that the enemy Death wages against all mankind without exception. Sinful man cannot get some other sinful man to substitute for him in death and thus enjoy a furlough from death. (Ps 49:6-9) Only through Jehovah’s undeserved kindness by means of Jesus Christ is relief possible. “Just as sin ruled as king with death, likewise also undeserved kindness might rule as king through righteousness with everlasting life in view through Jesus Christ our Lord.”—Ro 5:21.

Darwinism's unicorn(a simple beginning to life) keeps receding into the distance.

Bacteria perfected protein complexes more than 3.5 billion years ago.
Source:

Cell Press

Researchers are resurrecting ancient bacterial protein complexes to determine how 3.5-billion-year-old cells functioned versus cells of today. Surprisingly, they are not that different, reports a study published June 9 in Cell Chemical Biology. Despite a popular hypothesis that primordial organisms had simple enzyme proteins, evidence suggests that bacteria around 500 million years after life began already had the sophisticated cellular machinery that exists today.

Fossils of 3.5-billion-year-old bacteria are not available, but scientists can reconstruct what their enzymes may have looked like based on phylogenetic trees of proteins from living bacteria. Comparing the amino acid sequences of more than 50 bacteria helped to computationally generate the sequences for the protein subunits of an enzyme complex that was very likely similar to that found in the bacteria's last common ancestor. The researchers then produced this ancient enzyme complex to study its structure and function.

"There is a generally accepted theory (see bottom citation below) that states that very old enzymes were not as sophisticated as they are now," says senior author Reinhard Sterner of the Institute of Biophysics and Physical Biochemistry at the University of Regensburg in Germany. "But we used the method of ancestral sequence reconstruction to go back as far as possible in evolutionary time to show that the tryptophan synthase complex from the last bacterial common ancestor was sophisticated--characterized by the high enzymatic activity and communication between subunits seen in modern enzyme complexes."

"Our data and similar results that have been found by other people suggest that enzymes were already sophisticated 3.5 billion years ago, but this was a surprise because biological evolution started only about 4 billion years ago," says co-author Rainer Merkl, also at Regensburg. "We conclude that in this very early phase of biological evolution--between 4 billion and 3.5 billion years ago--we probably have primitive enzymes with low efficiency, but this 500 million years was enough time for these enzymes to become fully sophisticated."

What happened in that 500-million-year gap to place the evolutionary pressures on bacteria to make enzyme complexes is a mystery. Creating these structures is very difficult, as a complex involves multiple subunits that catalyze different reactions in isolation as well as in response to one another. Once formed, however, these complexes have not been seriously altered in billions of years of subsequent evolution, proving their efficiency.

Going forward, Sterner and his colleagues want to continue using the ancestral sequence reconstruction method to better understand the exact steps that led to the formation of the tryptophan synthase complex and its adaptation to specific habitats.

Story Source:

The above post is reprinted from materials provided by Cell Press. 

The best explanation for sophisticated engineering remains a skilled engineer/skilled engineers.

Understanding Cardiovascular Function: Beyond Irreducible Complexity

Howard Glicksman 

Editor's note: Physicians have a special place among the thinkers who have elaborated the argument for intelligent design. Perhaps that's because, more than evolutionary biologists, they are familiar with the challenges of maintaining a functioning complex system, the human body. With that in mind, Evolution News & Views is delighted to present this series, "The Designed Body." Dr. Glicksman practices palliative medicine for a hospice organization.

Our body comprises trillions of cells that must follow the laws of nature. These laws demand that to survive, our body must have enough water and that water must be properly distributed between the cells and the blood.

They also demand that water be lost from the body when it breathes (to obtain oxygen and get rid of carbon dioxide), perspires (to control its temperature), and forms urine (to get rid of toxic chemicals). Previously, as we've seen in this series, despite the imperative to lose water due to its metabolism, the body is able to follow the rules and take control of its water content by drinking fluids and conserving water loss from the kidneys.

This takes place through osmoreceptors, Anti-Diuretic Hormone (ADH), and the ability of ADH to stimulate the thirst center and specific ADH receptors in the kidneys. In my previous article I pointed out that this system must have had the capacity to provide the body of our ancient ancestors with the amount of water needed to live and reproduce. But what would have happened if this complex system failed to work properly?

Water makes up about 60 percent of the body by weight and the average adult has a total of about 42 liters. Our cells must keep their volume and chemical content within a narrow range. This ability is directly related to the body's total water content. A water loss of about 5 percent (two liters) results in a dry mouth, increased thirst, and fatigue. If this isn't corrected and progresses to 10 percent (four liters), then extreme thirst, headache, and moderate sluggishness and weakness take place. A loss of 15 percent (sxi liters) results in heart flutter, dizziness, and problems with concentration. With a water loss of 20 percent (eight liters) there comes confusion and lethargy, which can lead to coma. And at about 25 percent water loss (ten liters), death follows from dehydration.

At complete rest the body loses about one liter of water daily due to respiration, perspiration, and urine formation. That's why, when a debilitated person stops all intake, he usually dies from dehydration in about ten days.

The gastrointestinal system readily absorbs water, and the kidneys filter water out of the circulation at a rate of about 7.5 liters/hour (180 liters/day). If none of this filtered water were to be taken back into the body, we would die in about 90 minutes. The tubules in the first part of the kidney automatically take back about 90 percent of the filtered water. However, that still leaves the remaining 18 liters of water that is filtered out daily.

If our ancestors lacked osmoreceptors, ADH, or ADH receptors, just to stay alive at complete rest would have required them to take in 18 liters of water per day. This means that every hour of every day of every year of their existence (probably not very long), they would have had to empty their bladder while at the same time drinking 750 mL (26 oz) of water. Obviously, the absence of osmoreceptors, or ADH, or ADH receptors is incompatible with life.

When most people hear the word diabetes, they think of diabetes mellitus, the "sugar disease." The term diabetes refers to diuresis or excessive urination. The term mellitus refers to honey or sweetness. A person with diabetes mellitus passes excessive amounts of sweet urine.

However, there is another, less common, condition that is also called diabetes, in which the person passes excessive amounts of urine that is bland, tasteless, or insipid. Diabetes insipidus (DI) takes place when there is a deficiency in the effect of ADH within the body. This manifests as passing at least four liters of urine daily, but the more severe the deficiency the more urination takes place.

Diabetes insipidus occurs from a reduced production of ADH in the hypothalamus or posterior pituitary gland (central or neurogenic DI) or a reduced response by the ADH receptors in the kidneys (nephrogenic DI). Without treatment it is difficult to remain very active while at the same time being able to maintain adequate total water content. Today, there is a treatment for DI called desmopressin, which is inhaled through the nose.

However, DI is not the only medical condition that exists in relationship to ADH. Just as not having enough of a response to ADH can cause debility and death, so too can having too much. The Syndrome of Inappropriate ADH (SIADH) is a condition, often due to cancer or brain injury, in which, due to excessive ADH activity, the body holds on to too much water.

This leads to a significant drop in the body's total chemical concentration and makes water move into the brain cells by osmosis. This can lead to cerebral edema and brain malfunction resulting in lethargy, weakness, and confusion that can rapidly progress to seizures, coma, and death. Fortunately, once SIADH is diagnosed there is medical treatment available that can prevent debility and death.

Being able to control the body's water content is a matter of life and death. So, in explaining how life came into being, it's important to remember a few things.

Human life would be impossible without the presence of osmoreceptors, ADH, and ADH receptors. As Michael Behe might say, the system the body uses to control its water content is irreducibly complex. Evolutionary biology needs to explain how all of these parts came together as a functioning system.

Moreover, as I've often said in this series, when it comes to life and death, real numbers have real consequences. The presence of osmoreceptors, ADH, and ADH receptors is not good enough to explain how the body controls its water content. The osmoreceptors have to respond fast and well enough to give the body proper warning. The posterior pituitary gland has to send out the right amount of ADH, not too much and not too little. Finally, the ADH receptors have to respond in the right way as well.

So, while irreducible complexity is a good indicator of intelligent design, in maintaining life, an irreducibly complex system must also have natural survival capacity. By this I mean the system must know what is needed to survive within the laws of nature and then do that naturally.

Now that you understand how the body controls its water content to make sure it has enough blood in the circulation, it's time to move on. Life is a bit more complicated than evolutionary biologists would have us believe, isn't it? In addition to water, there's another very important chemical the body has to control to maintain its blood volume. What is it? For that we'll have to wait until next time.

Why the big bang continues to be a big bother to materialists.

Big Bang: Put Simply, the Facts Are Wrong
Denyse O'Leary

Typing “Big Bang Theory” into a search bar links us immediately to the long-running (debut 2007),immensely popular CBS sitcom, a post-modern look at the lives of Caltech physicists. The conventional meaning of the term, our universe’s origin starting with a small singularity currently pegged at 13.8 billion years ago, is a mere second thought.

Even “relativity”  cannot match that pop culture success: The first hit I tried offered to define the term, as if that really matters.

But the Big Bang is unpopular among cosmologists. It survives on evidence alone. And sadly, evidence matters much less than it used to.

Science historian Helge Kragh  tells us that astronomer Fred Hoyle coined the term “big bang” in 1949: “Ironically… to characterize the kind of theory he much disliked and fought until the end of his life… As Hoyle said in an interview in 1995: ‘Words are like harpoons. Once they go in, they are very hard to pull out.'” In 1949, he had described the theory as “irrational.”

But in 1965, the evidence of aftershocks (the cosmic microwave background) made the irrational theory an apparent fact. In that year, the New York Times announced “Signals Imply a ‘Big Bang’ Universe,” which certainly helped introduce the term to a large public.

Kragh tells us, “Many people feel that ‘big bang’ is an unfortunate name, not only because of its association with a primordial explosion, but also because it is such an undignified label for the most momentous event ever in the history of the universe.”

Undignified, possibly. But that is hardly the only reason the detractors didn’t (and don’t) like it. Arthur Eddington (1882-1944)  exclaimed in 1933, “I feel almost an indignation that anyone should believe in it — except myself.” Why? Because “The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural.” Others chimed in, making it clear that the principal problem is not with the evidence, then or now, but with obvious conclusions.

As the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy  sniffs, “A naive or ideological reading of twentieth century cosmology might count big bang cosmology as providing new support for theism, and alternatives such as steady-state cosmology as atheistic backlashes.” Yes, possibly. The entry conveniently demonstrates the very point it seeks to dismiss: The half-century war against the Big Bang is not going well for the warriors.

We are now told that there is more to the universe than the  Big Bang. and that, with the help of physicist Sean Carroll, we can  speculate wildly  as to what it was like before the Big Bang. A recent theory relies on a  quantum fluid  of “hypothetical massless particles.” Or a holographic mirage from another dimension.

It all sounds like a guy explaining why he can’t pay his rent. Only the last sentence matters.

On the target problem.

Are the fossils on Darwinists' side in the design debate?

"Fossils. Fossils. Fossils." Does Ken Miller Win?

Casey Luskin 

Ken Miller was recently quoted in a campus news article saying, "We have the fossils. ... We win." Professor Miller's logical fallacy was pointed out years ago by those who attempted to clarify reasoning in paleontology, systematics, and evolutionary biology, and it led some scientists (like Colin Patterson) to the conclusion that a paleontological pattern may support or falsify an evolutionary hypothesis, but it can never absolutely prove one (i.e. fossils can't make Darwinism positively "win"). As a result, some scientists (e.g., Brower, 2000) proposed a strict separation between paleontology and systematics on the one hand, and evolutionary theory on the other. Unfortunately, this clear-thinking approach has been largely abandoned or ignored by most paleontologists and evolutionary biologists. Those who are ignorant of this fallacy don't realize that pattern observations are independent of process hypotheses. (For instance, just because I know the sun "rises" everyday does not mean my pet theory about its origin must be correct.) Rather than following the approach of authorities like Colin Patterson, Professor Miller seems to draw his amusing talking points on evolution from comedian Lewis Black, whom Jonathan Wells recounts in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design makes the following authoritarian argument for Darwinism: "I don't have to argue [evolution] any more. Fossils. Fossils. Fossils. I win.'' 

The campus news article stated that Miller "demonstrated the 23 intermediate species that have been discovered as evolutionary stepping stones between land mammals and swimming mammals," and called whales "the poster children for macroevolution." I would have loved to have been there to see Miller "demonstrat[e]" all "23 intermediate species." That sounds a lot more impressive than University of Michigan whale paleontology expert Philip Gingerich's admission that currently the "poster children" merely have "fossils illustrating three or four steps that bridge the precursor of whales to today's mammals." Indeed, Kevin Padian noted that these "poster children" fossils have "distinguishing characteristics, which they would have to lose in order to be considered direct ancestors of other known forms." My suspicion is that Professor Miller didn't delve into too many details, but rather used the fossil name-dropping approach to discussing alleged intermediates between land-mammals and whales. I have described this approach as follows:

[John] Wise and [Pia] Vogel also mention "whale-like tetrapods" and "tetrapod-like whales," name-dropping a long string of fossil names but leaving the reader with little, if any, information about this alleged evolutionary transition. ... So how good an example is this "poster child"?

Philip Gingerich admits that "[w]hales have not been collected on a fine enough time scale to see rapid change. This will be revealed through more fieldwork. So far we have fossils illustrating three or four steps that bridge the precursor of whales to today's mammals." To be fair, there are some fossils in this field with cetacean features, but some of the fossils cited by Wise and Vogel are land mammals that do not explain how whales become aquatic. For example, Wise and Vogel mention Pakicetus, a full-fledged land-mammal [whose only real claim to belonging in the alleged whale series is the fact that it had] ear-bones like a whale. Full-fledged land mammals don't provide much evidence when one is trying to document the evolution of fully-aquatic whales from land-mammals. So Wise and Vogel name-drop Ambulocetus. But this fossil also had strong load-bearing legs with "large hind limbs and enormous feet," a "long, muscular body," and a pelvis "like that of a land mammal" (Gingerich, 2001). These two fossils don't look like a "walking whale" (as they were called in National Geographic). Instead, Wise & Vogel subsequently name-drop Rodhocetus: it probably spent more time in the water than Ambulocetus, and did not swim like a whale, but had large feet and hands. One expert said Rodhocetus probably swam like Ambulocetus: "an otter-like pelvic paddler" or alternatively, that it had "[t]runk and limb proportions" that "are most similar to those of the living, highly aquatic, foot-powered desmans." Of course, desmans are a type of European mole that do just fine walking on land. Are the whales walking yet?

But let's acknowledge that theses fossils do have some skeletal characteristics which appear intermediate between the features of land-mammals and whales. Have Darwinian paleontologists made their case? The aforementioned bird evolution expert, Alan Feduccia, observes that "the evolution of whales (the 'poster child' for macroevolution) from terrestrial ungulates is well documented at < 10 million years." Think about that for a moment. Whales, with all of their complex adaptations for aquatic life evolved from a "primitive little mammal" (Steven Stanley, The New Evolutionary Timetable, pg. 93) to a full-fledged whale in less than ten million years. Whales have a long generation time, meaning that there were perhaps only a few million generations at best to allow for the change to add up. If they had a generation time as short as 5 years, Haldane's dilemma predicts that only a few thousand mutations could become fixed into an evolving population during that time period. (See Walter ReMine, The Biotic Message.) [In other words, the fossil record permits dramatically insufficient time to convert a land-mammal into a whale.]

Wise and Vogel can name-drop whatever fossils they like, but if the amount of time allowed by the fossil record for this evolutionary transition is too short to accommodate the vast genetic and morphological changes that must have taken place, critical thinkers have good reasons to be skeptical of this evolutionary story. The exceedingly short timescale of the alleged evolution of whales from land mammals is a major problem with this Neo-Darwinian story, but this point is never mentioned by Wise and Vogel as they name-drop their supposed fossil evidence.

Never mind the science,Darwin defenders continue to struggle with basic English.

Correcting Disinformation on Academic Freedom Legislation
David Klinghoffer | @d_klinghoffer

Our colleague Sarah Chaffee, who is Program Officer for Education and Public Policy for the Center for Science & Culture, has an excellent  excellent piece up at CNS News, correcting some of the rampant misrepresentations of the content of academic freedom legislation around the country. She charitably calls them misconceptions.

There are several misconceptions that come up year after year in the media about academic freedom bills. This year, with legislation (bills and resolutions) and science standards reviews in Texas, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Indiana, Louisiana and Alabama, was no exception.
The issue centers on what the legislation protects and what it doesn’t. Academic freedom is not about teaching creationism or intelligent design.

First, creationism. Concerns regarding creationism in legislation are unfounded, as the Supreme Court has said that creationism is a religious doctrine, and therefore can’t be taught in public schools. And obviously if science standards included creationism, they would be considered unconstitutional and immediately brought to court. Academic freedom bills that follow our model legislation don’t include creationism. In fact, they have a provision regarding non-promotion of religion or non-religion in case a law happens to come before a confused judge. As a result, laws in Louisiana (2008) and Tennessee (2012) haven’t been challenged in court in the years they have been in place.

Second, teaching of intelligent design is not a concern. K-12 teachers in public schools only have the ability to teach what is in the curriculum. The Constitution does not grant them academic freedom or free speech rights in the performance of their job, and court decisions are consistent with this. Academic freedom legislation is very, very limited legislation that authorizes teachers to discuss the scientific strengths and weaknesses of scientific topics already in the curriculum without having to fear losing their jobs. Teachers cannot bring in a new theory like intelligent design. It is not in the curriculum anywhere in the United States. The bill does not apply. If teachers in Louisiana and Tennessee had been using the laws as covers to teach intelligent design, we would likely have seen students or families complaining, and that picked up in the media. There have not been such reports. And even if there were a rogue teacher who tried to teach intelligent design, they would find the law did not protect them.
I’ve noticed that misrepresentations of this legislation are often accompanied by citations of the Darwin-lobbying group National Center for Science Education (NCSE). In fact, while I haven’t made a formal study of it, my impression is that that is almost always the case.

Last week, for example, we cited an article for Nature  that mischaracterized the resolutions in Alabama and Indiana, saying they “would give educators license to treat evolution and intelligent design as equally valid theories.” Which is absolutely not true.

Sure enough, in the very next paragraph, writer Erin Ross quotes Glenn Branch of the NCSE, brandishing their favorite scare word (“The strategies of creationists have gotten more sophisticated”). In a fairly short article, Ross adduces the authority of the NCSE in no fewer than 7 of 14 paragraphs.


You have to hand it to these people. As champions of disinformation, with science and education reporters all but taking dictation, they are pretty impressive.

Among the walking dead

The world's merchants of death continue laughing all the way to the bank.

Mammals began there ascent prior to dino extinction say scientists.

Mammals began their takeover long before the death of the dinosaurs
Source:

University of Southampton

New research reports that, contrary to popular belief, mammals began their massive diversification 10 to 20 million years before the extinction of the dinosaurs.

The study, involving Elis Newham from the University of Southampton, questioned the familiar story that dinosaurs dominated their prehistoric environment, while tiny mammals took a backseat, until the dinosaurs (besides birds) went extinct 66 million years ago, allowing mammals to shine.

Elis Newham, PhD student in Engineering and the Environment and co-author of the study, which is published Proceedings of the Royal Society B, said: "The traditional view is that mammals were suppressed during the 'age of the dinosaurs' and underwent a rapid diversification immediately following the extinction of the dinosaurs. However, our findings were that therian mammals, the ancestors of most modern mammals, were already diversifying considerably before the extinction event and the event also had a considerably negative impact on mammal diversity."

The old hypothesis hinged upon the fact that many of the early mammal fossils that had been found were from small, insect-eating animals -- there didn't seem to be much in the way of diversity. However, over the years, more and more early mammals have been found, including some hoofed animal predecessors the size of dogs. The animals' teeth were varied too.

The researchers analysed the molars of hundreds of early mammal specimens in museum fossil collections. They found that the mammals that lived during the years leading up to the dinosaurs' demise had widely varied tooth shapes, meaning that they had widely varied diets. These different diets proved key to an unexpected finding regarding mammal species going extinct along with the dinosaurs.

Not only did mammals begin diversifying earlier than previously expected, but the mass extinction wasn't the perfect opportunity for mammal evolution that it's traditionally been painted as. Early mammals were hit by a selective extinction at the same time the dinosaurs died out -- generalists that could live off of a wide variety of foods seemed more apt to survive, but many mammals with specialised diets went extinct.

The scientists involved with the study were surprised to see that mammals were initially negatively impacted by the mass extinction event. "I fully expected to see more diverse mammals immediately after the extinction," said lead author David Grossnickle, a Field Museum Fellow and PhD candidate at the University of Chicago. "I wasn't expecting to see any sort of drop. It didn't match the traditional view that after the extinction, mammals hit the ground running. It's part of the reason why I went back to study it further -- it seemed wrong."

The reason behind the mammals' pre-extinction diversification remains a mystery. Grossnickle suggests a possible link between the rise of mammals and the rise of flowering plants, which diversified around the same time. "We can't know for sure, but flowering plants might have offered new seeds and fruits for the mammals. And, if the plants co-evolved with new insects to pollinate them, the insects could have also been a food source for early mammals," he said.

Grossnickle notes that the study is particularly relevant in light of the mass extinction the earth is currently undergoing. He said: "The types of survivors that made it across the mass extinction 66 million years ago, mostly generalists, might be indicative of what will survive in the next hundred years, the next thousand."

Story Source:

The above post is reprinted from materials provided by University of Southampton. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.

Why multiverse speculation leaves some cold.

A Cold Spot In Space — “Evidence” of a Multiverse?
David Klinghoffer | @d_klinghoffer

Cosmic fine tuning, with physics and chemistry conspiring to permit the existence of creatures such as ourselves, is one of best-recognized pieces of evidence for intelligent design. To this, the hypothesis of a multiverse is materialism’s only response.

According to this line of reasoning, or imagining, our universe reflects only a lucky roll of the dice. A very, very, very lucky roll, which, however, is just to be expected if reality sports not one but a possibly infinite number of universes. Some universe was bound to get lucky, and it was ours.

It’s the single dreamiest, most unsupported idea in all of science, making Darwinian evolution look like a really solid bet by comparison. What’s wanted is real evidence for the multiverse, any at all, and that seems doomed to go on lacking ad infinitum.

Trumped up evidence is nevertheless a regular feature of popular science journalism. The latest: a headline in The Guardian, “Multiverse: have astronomers found evidence of parallel universes?”  Adding the question mark is prudent, since the answer, to be truthful, is No.

Author Stuart Clark got hold of a press release from the Royal Astronomical Society, which he wheels out after an introduction heavy with jokey references to Brexit, Trump, the alt-right, and cat videos.

It sounds bonkers but the latest piece of evidence that could favour a multiverse comes from the UK’s Royal Astronomical Society. They recently published a study on the so-called ‘cold spot’. This is a particularly cool patch of space seen in the radiation produced by the formation of the Universe more than 13 billion years ago.

The cold spot was first glimpsed by NASA’s WMAP satellite in 2004, and then confirmed by ESA’s Planck mission in 2013. It is supremely puzzling. Most astronomers and cosmologists believe that it is highly unlikely to have been produced by the birth of the universe as it is mathematically difficult for the leading theory — which is called inflation — to explain.

This latest study claims to rule out a last-ditch prosaic explanation: that the cold spot is an optical illusion produced by a lack of intervening galaxies.

One of the study’s authors, Professor Tom Shanks of Durham University, told the RAS, “We can’t entirely rule out that the Spot is caused by an unlikely fluctuation explained by the standard [theory of the Big Bang]. But if that isn’t the answer, then there are more exotic explanations. Perhaps the most exciting of these is that the Cold Spot was caused by a collision between our universe and another bubble universe. If further, more detailed, analysis … proves this to be the case then the Cold Spot might be taken as the first evidence for the multiverse.” [Emphasis added.]
Count the instances of speculative language in those last four sentences. “Can’t entirely rule out…If that isn’t the answers…Perhaps…If further, more detailed, analysis…proves…[M]ight be taken as the first evidence…”

It’s “Heady stuff,” Clark exclaims. That’s one way of putting it. The paper in question, though, says just this (“Evidence against a supervoid causing the CMB Cold Spot”):

If not explained by a ΛCDM ISW effect the Cold Spot could have more exotic primordial origins. If it is a non-Gaussian feature, then explanations would then include either the presence in the early universe of topological defects such as textures (Cruz et al. 2007) or inhomogeneous re-heating associated with non-standard inflation (Bueno Sa ́nchez 2014). Another explanation could be that the Cold Spot is the remnant of a collision between our Universe and another ‘bubble’ universe during an early inflationary phase (Chang et al. 2009, Larjo & Levi 2010). It must be borne in mind that even without a supervoid the Cold Spot may still be caused by an unlikely statistical fluctuation in the standard (Gaussian) ΛCDM cosmology.
In this way, based ultimately on a couple of parenthetically referenced papers from 2009 and 2010, a “cold spot” in space answers one of the ultimate questions that have ever puzzled human beings, tipping the scales toward a universe, or multiverse, without design or purpose. As of the present moment, in the quest to explain away ultra-fine tuning, this is the best kind of stuff that materialism has got to offer.

It’s all the most absurd axe-grinding: building your case against a person or idea you don’t like (intelligent design, in this case) by gathering rumors, dreams, and guesses, disregarding common sense and objective evidence, since the conclusion you wish to reach, that you are bound to reach, is already pre-set.


So materialism goes on its merry way, largely unchallenged, with the media as its bullhorn. If scientists advocating the theory of intelligent design ever went before the public with conjectures as weak as this, they would be flayed alive.