Paul Johnson on the patron saint of the master race.

Remembering Paul Johnson’s Assessment of Darwin

Michael Flannery.

Editor’s note: The wonderful historian and journalist Paul Johnson died today at age 94. His 2012 biography Darwin: Portrait of a Genius provoked discussion and disagreement at Evolution News when it was published. We offer science historian Michael Flannery’s review below.

An eminent historian and author of numerous bestsellers, Paul Johnson has just published a book that is provoking hysterical responses. The book is Darwin: Portrait of a Genius. Writing at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern calls it an “effort to smear evolution.” Stern complains, “He [Johnson] got it horribly, almost comically wrong.” But Stern isn’t laughing, and he concludes that “no thoughtful reader could possibly tolerate Johnson’s stunning intellectual dishonesty.” Similarly, Rowan Hooper, writing for the New Scientist (posted at Culture Lab), called the book “ludicrous . . . a vendetta, an agenda-driven hatchet job.”

Why all the fuss? What is “horribly wrong” and who is driving the “agenda”? Anyone familiar with the controversial nature of Darwin’s theory should immediately step back and at least ask, Who exactly is wielding the hatchet?

Johnson’s work is not strictly speaking a biography; it is a historian’s assessment of modern evolutionary theory and the man behind it. It takes the form not of an exhaustive account of the life and work of Charles Darwin but rather of an essay, a 151-page essay to be precise. There is much value in a work of this kind. After all, few but the most committed specialist or obligated graduate student would plod through Janet Browne’s 1,040-page (not counting references and index!) two-volume biography of the man. More serviceable is Adrian Desmond and James Moore’s Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist, but at 677 pages of text it too can be a daunting task. While a careful reading of both (especially the latter) will offer permanent rewards, the considered opinion of a seasoned historian on the importance and impact of Darwin’s theory of evolution, stripped of the minutiae, has real value.

Explaining Life’s Diversity

As Johnson emphasizes, Darwin produced an explanation for the diversity of life (common descent by means of natural selection) that was transformative of how people viewed themselves and the world. It was an idea whose time had come. From its publication on November 24, 1859, the Origin of Species quickly became the must-read volume for much of England, and not just the elite. The accession of five hundred copies by Mudie’s circulating library (an extraordinarily large order) helped to introduce Darwin to the rising middle class. In fact, Johnson correctly notes that Mudie’s enthusiastic acquisition and distribution of the Origin was tantamount to society’s seal of approval.

Despite the popularity of Darwin’s magnum opus, Johnson further explains that his complete theory was really contained in three books. First, of course, was the Origin (his best, a succinct and accessible exposition of his theory), then in 1871 the Descent of Man (the explicit connection of his evolutionary principles to humanity), and finally one year later his Expression of the Emotions (an odd compilation whose purpose was to provide “evidence” that man was different from animal by degree not kind).

Where Origin succeeded, Descent and Expressions failed. Darwin’s handling of human attributes was superficial and, when comparing mankind with other species, often naïvely anthropomorphic.

Much of Descent, writes Johnson, consisted of “rambling stuff of no scientific value whatever” (p. 105) while other parts merely served to justify racial stereotypes. Darwin’s handling of sexual selection when applied to Homo sapiens was patronizing and patriarchal. The reason that the Descent was such an inferior production, Johnson astutely observes, is that Darwin was a poor anthropologist. He “did not bring to his observation of humans the same care, objectivity, acute notation, and calmness he always showed when studying birds and sea creatures, insects, plants, and animals. He jumped to conclusion and believed gossip . . .” (p. 29). Darwin’s Expression book wasn’t any better, a strange collection of extrapolations of animal reactions to human emotions augmented with “photographs of hysterics, lunatics, savages, and other interesting mug shots” (p. 102).

Two Important Points

All of this may have passed with varying degrees of reviewer tolerance but for two important points made by Johnson. First, he links Darwin’s theory to the most unseemly aspects of social Darwinism. It’s not that Darwin is personally responsible for this; but the book proposed an idea that took on a life of its own. As Johnson puts it:

Origin is a book that, with total success, embodies an exciting idea and had a devastating intellectual and emotional impact on world society. The word devastating is accurate: It destroyed many comfortable assumptions, thus clearing space for new concepts and ideas to spring up in almost every subject. It acted like a force of nature itself, and by the end of January 1860, when the second edition sold out, it was quite beyond Darwin’s control.

Darwin’s idea of life emerging from the wholly random activity of natural selection driven by chance and necessity (emphasizing domestic breeding as a primary example and proof of this process) paved the way for eugenics, forced sterilizations, and even the “racial hygiene” of Nazi Germany. Richard Weikart has written in depth on these themes in From Darwin to Hitler and Hitler’s Ethic, but Johnson also brings up the influence of social Darwinism (direct or indirect) on the thought of Mao Tse-tung, Stalin, and Pol Pot, among others.

Social Darwinism Comes to America

As for its tragic effects in America, one need only read Samuel J. Holmes’s comments in 1939 to appreciate the influence of American eugenics on the eve of Nazi expansion and its overt Darwinian connection. Harry Bruinius has estimated that forced sterilizations of the “unfit” in America during the pre-World War II years may be modestly estimated at 65,000. Iowa-born Harry Laughlin would become America’s leading eugenicist, and his enthusiasm for “racial betterment” was matched only by his admiration for Germany in pursuing it. It was not by mere whimsy that Heidelberg University awarded him an honorary doctorate for his contributions to “race hygiene” in 1936 (see Bruinius, Better for All the World: The Secret History of Forced Sterilization and America’s Quest for Racial Purity).

Darwin’s apologists can engage in indignant handwaving but they cannot refute these sad facts. But their reaction is expected. Such is the response of ideologues faced with the baring of their favored patron saint’s gospel and its consequences.

Here is Johnson’s second offense. He correctly objects to 

the enthusiasm of the Darwinian fundamentalists, who over the last few decades have sought to give Darwin a quasi-divine status and to abuse those who subject him and his work to the continuing critical scrutiny that is the essence of true science. Darwin was the first to admit his limitations, and . . . they were numerous and sometimes important.

A Few Flaws

There are a few flaws in Johnson’s treatment. For example, he claims Wallace first read Thomas Malthus’s Essay on Population about the same time as Darwin did in 1836, but this is doubtful as Wallace would have been only 13 years old. Wallace states in his autobiography My Life that he read it in the town library at Leicester in 1844. More serious is Johnson’s assertion that Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace were poor mathematicians (in fact, having once been a surveyor, Wallace was exceptionally good in math and geometry) and that their uncritical evaluation of Malthus’s poor statistical analysis caused them to accept a flawed economic “law” that claimed food supplies rise arithmeticallywhile population increase geometrically.

According to Johnson, this fit “the horror scenario” of Darwin’s view of nature’s struggle, a view that Johnson believes Wallace shared. But Johnson is apparently unfamiliar with how Wallace actually incorporated Malthus into his own evolutionary theory. I have pointed out that Wallace read Malthus quite differently from Darwin (Alfred Russel Wallace: A Rediscovered Life, p. 63).

Johnson too readily lumps Wallace together with Darwin’s theory. Actually, Wallace presented a teleological view of evolution and of humanity’s place that was strikingly different from Darwin’s. Another error is Johnson’s mention at several points in the book of Darwin’s opposition to vaccination. This is simply false. Darwin did write in the Descent that vaccination helped to preserve weak members of society and thus permitted them to “propagate their kind.” Nevertheless, Darwin himself was a fastidious vaccinator when it came to his own children, and he never supported the growing and powerful anti-vaccination movement in Victorian England.

Johnson also errs in stating that Darwin handled the God question in the Origin with “fine judgment and exquisite tact” (p. 82). If duplicity may be counted as complementary to judgment and tact then perhaps this assessment may stand, but there is little question that Darwin was less than honest here. He told Joseph Hooker in a letter dated March 29, 1863, of his regret that he had “truckled to public opinion & used Pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really meant ‘appeared’ by some wholly unknown process.” For promotional reasons, however, he never removed the “Pentateuchal term of creation” from any subsequent edition. While this leaves Johnson’s appraisal dubious, it does substantiate his claim that Darwin had “stealthy self-promoting instincts” (p. 92).

Paul Johnson at His Best 

Despite these missteps, Johnson’s analytic powers are at their best when he is assessing the impact of Darwinian theory on society and indeed on Darwin himself. Darwin’s disciples can bemoan the connection all they want, but the materialistic chance-driven world ushered in by their Down House hero had devastating human consequences. “In the twentieth century,” Johnson concludes, “it is likely that over 100 million people were killed or starved to death as a result of totalitarian regimes infected with varieties of social Darwinism” (p. 136).

On a personal level the evolutionary theory that Darwin spent much of his life fostering — his “child” — weighed heavily on him in later years. Darwin’s genius — what “genius” there was — came from his powers of observation, not his ability to think abstractly or for that matter particularly deeply. Johnson astutely observes that Darwin “deliberately shut his eyes to the ultimate consequences of his work, in terms of the human condition and the purpose of life or the absence of one. Though he sometimes, in his published works, put in a reassuring phrase, his private views tended to be bleak” (pp. 144-145). It was a fate that his “Bulldog Defender” Thomas Henry Huxley also met over the question of morality in a blind, purposeless nature. Nihilism haunted them both.

The reviewers that insist this work is “ludicrous,” a “smear,” or a “hatchet job” are wrong; it is none of these. It is a book that follows some excellent and courageous scholars like Jacques Barzun, Gertrude Himmelfarb, R. F. Baum, Stanley Jaki, Phillip Johnson, and Benjamin Wiker in suggesting that Darwin’s evolutionary theory is built upon questionable premises and has had a deleterious effect upon every society it has touched. The Darwinian fundamentalists hate to admit it, but more than twenty years after attorney Phillip Johnson’s Darwin on Trial, the relentless questioning continues.

This time a different Johnson examines the witness. Darwin: Portrait of a Genius was certainly titled in a spirit of irony, but nonetheless it represents an interesting and valuable brief to an ever-expanding minority opinion.

 

 while population increase geometrically.

 

Yet another episode of Darwinism's real life horror serial: return of the fossil record.

 Fossil Friday: Fossil Hyraxes and the Abrupt Origin of Hyracoidea

Günter Bechly 

This Fossil Friday features the giant hyrax Titanohyrax andrewsi from the Early Oligocene of Fayum in Egypt (Tabuce 2016), because today we look into the origins of the placental mammal order Hyracoidea. This order only includes the herbivorous Afro-Arabian hyraxes that look rather like marmots even though they are believed to be close relatives of elephants and manatees. Whereas the five living species of the single surviving family Procaviidae look very similar, fossil hyraxes especially in the Paleogene were much more diverse with five extinct families (Geniohyiidae, Namahyracidae, Pliohyracidae, Sagatheriidae, and Titanohyracidae), sometimes subsumed in a single paraphyletic family Pliohyracidae. These included forms from the size of a mouse to that of a rhino (Tabuce 2016), which occupied very different ecological niches (Rasmussen & Simons 2000). The strange genus Rukwalorax described by Stevens et al. (2009), based on a single tooth from the Late Oligocene of Tanzania, could represent another extinct family and the oldest small-bodied hyracoid from East Africa. The Paleogene fossil record of hyraxes is surprisingly rich and diverse (Rasmussen 1989, Fischer 1992: table 1, Tabuce et al. 2008, Barrow et al. 2010: fig. 16, Rasmussen & Gutiérrez 2010).

The possibly oldest fossil record of Hyracoidea is represented by an isolated molar tooth of Seggeurius spec. from the earliest Eocene of the Ouled-Abdoun basin in Morocco (Gheerbrant et al. 2003, Asher & Seiffert 2010: fig. 46.2, Seiffert 2010a), which is dated to 55.8 million years. The second oldest find is Seggeurius amourensis from the middle Ypresian (ca. 52 mya) El Kohol Formation of the southern Atlas in Algeria (Mahboubi et al. 1986, Court & Mahboubi 1993, Seiffert 2010a, Benoit et al. 2016). Some of the other oldest fossils of Hyracoidea were also found in the Early Eocene of Algeria at Gour Lazib (Sudre 1979, Court & Mahboubi 1993, Adaci et al. 2007, Tabuce et al. 2001, 2011, Seiffert 2010a), which have been dated to a late Ypresian / early Lutetian age (ca. 52-46 mya) and include the species Megalohyrax gevini, Microhyrax lavocati, and Titanohyrax mongereaui. Titanohyrax tantulus from the Early Eocene of Chambi in Tunisia (Hartenberger et al. 1985, Court & Hartenberger 1992, Hartenberger et al. 2001) is of about the same age (Barrow et al. 2010, Seiffert 2010a). Numerous other very old hyraxes have been found in Late Eocene (Early Priabonian) layers of the Fayum Depression in Egypt (Barrow et al. 2010), such as the 37 million-year-old Dimaitherium, and the Late Eocene (Lutetian and Bartonian) of Sperrgebiet in Namibia (Pickford et al. 2008, Pickford 2015).

Abrupt and Diverse

We can conclude that hyraxes appeared abruptly and with a surprising diversity about 56 million years ago in the very window of time when most other orders of placental mammals appeared for the first time as well. There are no fossils that show an assumed gradual development of hyraxes from Late Cretaceous stem eutherians via stem afrotherians etc. The diversity was most developed very early in the Middle to Late Eocene and is comparatively small today, which is about the opposite of what should be expected in a Darwinian scenario. Tabuce et al. (2011) therefore admitted: “To conclude, the diversity of hyracoids in the first part of the Maghrebian Eocene is remarkable and surprising at such an early age.” Words like “surprising” are code in the technical evolutionary literature for facts that disagree with Darwinian expectations and predictions, to avoid clearly stating the embarrassing fact of the matter.

Hyraxes were initially wrongly believed to be related to rodents. Since George Cuvier’s (1884: 120) time until relatively recently, hyraxes have often been considered to be more closely related to the odd-toed ungulates (Perissodactyla) in a group called Altungulata or Pantomesaxonia (e.g., Fischer 1986, 1992, Fischer & Tassy 1993, Prothero & Schoch 1989, McKenna & Bell 1997, Halliday et al. 2015), while other researchers instead have followed George Gaylord Simpson (1945) in considering them as close relatives of manatees and elephants in a group called Paenungulata (Sale 1960). Studies disagreed about the precise position of hyraxes, with most studies suggesting a basal position, while others suggested a closer relationship with either elephants (Sale 1960) or more rarely with sea cows (Seiffert 2010b, Benoit et al. 2016). Modern phylogenomic studies confirmed the monophyly of Paenungulata and placed them in the Afrotheria clade of African mammals (Asher et al. 2003, Nishihara et al. 2005, Seiffert 2003, 2007, Asher & Seiffert 2010, O’Leary et al. 2013, Cooper et al. 2014, Heritage et al. 2020). Among the very few anatomical features that might support Afrotheria (Tabuce et al. 2007, 2008) is the increased number of thoracolumbar vertebrae (Sánchez-Villagra et al. 2007) and the lack of a scrotum, but the latter similarity is somewhat incongruent as it is absent in the aardvarks, which are supposed to be nested within afrotherians. Recently, genetic evidence has been found that indeed suggests that the reduction of the testicular descent happened independently within Afrotheria (Sharma et al. 2018).

Not Based on Common Ancestry

Once again, anatomical similarity turns out not to be based on common ancestry. This is supported even more by the striking fact that there are three groups of mammals that independently produced a hyracoid-like morphology, so that they were initially misidentified as hyraxes:

The Eocene early Hippomorpha (“horses”) like Hyracotherium.

The fossil elephant shrew family Miohyracidae (see Bechly 2022).

The family Archaeohyracidae of the South American ungulate clade Notungulata. A recent study by Avilla & Mothé (2021) suggested that notungulates are indeed related to afrotherian hyracoids, but this result was immediately disputed by Kramarz & MacPhee (2022), who found them nested within the unrelated Boreoeutheria instead. See why I got personally frustrated with phylogenetics as a wannabe science?

Of course, it is only we “nitpicking” intelligent design proponents who point out such incongruences, while Darwinists generally see no problem at all. The theory must be correct, therefore any conflicting evidence must be wrong and explained away, following the Procrustean solution of shoehorning the data until they fit.

Next Fossil Friday we will look into the early fossil history of another member of the Afrotheria, the order Sirenia, which includes manatees and dugongs.

Why we can know that the engineering is real

Wesley smith asks: is your body engineered?

Evolution News

With host Wesley Smith, a new episode of the Humanize podcast explores the human body. Is your body “engineered” or did it evolve through impersonal and random processes over countless millions of years of natural selection? And what difference does the answer to that question make? 

Wesley’s guests are the authors of Your designed body, the new book that explores the complexity of the human physical form, not just from a biological, but also, intriguingly, an engineering perspective. As the famous atheist proselytizer and biologist Richard Dawkins has written, “However many ways there may be to be alive, it is certain that there are vastly more ways of being dead…” In other words, as the authors note, “Life’s margin of error is small,” and requires an intricate, complex, and integrated systems to maintain life. These could not have arisen by mere chance, no matter the time allowed, but must have been engineered to accomplish such myriad and sophisticated tasks.

Whatever your views on how life came to be — whether by creation, intelligent design, or via random evolutionary forces — this is a fascinating and provocative conversation you will not want to miss. Download the podcast or listen to it here.

Steve Laufmann is a public speaker, author, computer scientist, and engineering consultant in the design of enterprise-class systems, with expertise in the difficulties of changing complex systems to perform new tasks. He was a founding member of the International Foundation for Cooperative Information Systems (IFCIS), and has published many juried papers and book chapters on information commerce and related topics. Several years ago, he began to apply his expertise to the study of living systems. He leads the Engineering Research Group at Discovery Institute.

Dr. Howard Glicksman is a primary care and hospice physician with more than forty years of practice in clinical and hospital settings. He is the author of The Designed Body series for Evolution News.

Another one of the fossil record's numerous explosions v. Darwinism

The Dinosaur “Explosion”

 Cornelius G Hunter

As Though They Were Planted There

In the famed Cambrian Explosion most of today’s animal phyla appeared abruptly in the geological strata. How could a process driven by blind, random mutations produce such a plethora of new species? Evolutionist Steve Jones has speculated that the Cambrian Explosion was caused by some crucial change in DNA. “Might a great burst of genetic creativity have driven a Cambrian Genesis and given birth to the modern world?” [1] What explanations such as this do not address is the problem of how evolution overcame such astronomical entropic barriers. Rolling a dice, no matter how creatively, is not going to design a spaceship.

The Cambrian Explosion is not the only example of the abrupt appearance of new forms in the fossil record, and the other examples are no less easy for evolution to explain. Nor has the old saw, that it’s the fossil record’s fault, fared well. There was once a time when evolutionists could appeal to gaps in the fossil record to explain why the species appear to arise abruptly, but no more. There has just been too much paleontology work, such as a new international Study on dinosaurs published this week, confirming exactly what the strata have been showing all along: new forms really did arise abruptly.

 The new study narrows the dating of the rise of dinosaurs in the fossil record. It confirms that many dinosaur species appeared in an “explosion” or what “we term the ‘dinosaur diversification event (DDE)’.” It was an “explosive increase in dinosaurian abundance in terrestrial ecosystems.” As the press release explains,

First there were no dinosaur tracks, and then there were many. This marks the moment of their explosion, and the rock successions in the Dolomites are well dated. Comparison with rock successions in Argentina and Brazil, here the first extensive skeletons of dinosaurs occur, show the explosion happened at the same time there as well.

As lead author Dr Massimo Bernardi at the University of Bristol explains, “it’s amazing how clear cut the change from ‘no dinosaurs’ to ‘all dinosaurs’ was.”

There just isn’t enough time, and it is another example of a failed prediction of the theory of evolution.

World war one redux(complete with mustard gas)?

The Iran v. Iraq war.

<iframe width="932" height="524" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bZjJpH34G1g" title="Iran-Iraq War: The Modern Day Holy War" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe> 

On the origins of our natural satellite.

The new science of moon  formation.

<iframe width="932" height="524" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wnqPqV6DdFQ" title="The NEW SCIENCE of Moon Formation" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe> 

On the great war.

What is a woman? Well don't ask the red cross.

Darwinism's narrative re:mitochondria takes it on the chin?

Rewrite the Textbooks (Again), Origin of Mitochondria Blown Up

Cornelius G Hunter  

There You Go Again

Why are evolutionists always wrong? And why are they always so sure of themselves? With the inexorable march of science, the predictions of evolution, which evolutionists were certain of, just keep on turning out false. This week’s failure is the much celebrated notion that the eukaryote’s power plant—the mitochondria—shares a common ancestor with the alphaproteobacteria. A long time ago, as the story goes, that bacterial common ancestor merged with an early eukaryote cell. And these two entities, as luck would have it, just happened to need each other. Evolution had just happened to create that early bacterium, and that early eukaryote, in such a way that they needed, and greatly benefited from, each other. And, as luck would have it again, these two entities worked together. The bacterium would just happen to produce the chemical energy needed by the eukaryote, and the eukaryote would just happen to provide needed supplies. It paved the way for multicellular life with all of its fantastic designs. There was only one problem: the story turned out to be false.

The story that mitochondria evolved from the alphaproteobacteria lineage has been told with great conviction. Consider the Michael Gray 2012 paper which boldly begins with the unambiguous truth claim that “Viewed through the lens of the genome it contains, the mitochondrion is of unquestioned bacterial ancestry, originating from within the bacterial phylum α-Proteobacteria (Alphaproteobacteria).”

There was no question about it. Gray was following classic evolutionary thinking: similarities mandate common origin. That is the common descent model. Evolutionists say that once one looks at biology through the lens of common descent everything falls into place.

Except that it doesn’t.

Over and over evolutionists have to rewrite their theory. Similarities once thought to have arisen from a common ancestor turn out to contradict the common descent model. Evolutionists are left having to say the similarities must have arisen independently.

And big differences, once thought to show up only in distant species, keep on showing up in allied species.

Biology, it turns out, is full of one-offs, special cases, and anomalies. The evolutionary tree model doesn’t work.

Now, a new Paper out this week has shown that the mitochondria and alphaproteobacteria don’t line up the way originally thought. That “unquestioned bacterial ancestry” turns out to be, err, wrong.

The paper finds that mitochondria did not evolve from the currently hypothesized alphaproteobacterial ancestor, or from “any other currently recognized alphaproteobacterial lineage.”

The paper does, however, make a rather startling claim. The authors write:

our analyses indicate that mitochondria evolved from a proteobacterial lineage that branched off before the divergence of all sampled alphaproteobacteria.

That is a startling claim because, well, simply put there is no evidence for it. The lack of evidence is exceeded only by the evolutionist’s confidence. Note the wording: “indicate.”

The evolutionist’s analyses indicate this new truth.

How can the evolutionists be so sure of themselves in the absence of literally any evidence?

The answer is, because they are evolutionists. They are completely certain that evolution is true. And since evolution must be true, the mitochondria had to have evolved from somewhere. And the same is true for the alphaproteobacteria. They must have evolved from somewhere.

And in both cases, that somewhere must be the earlier proteobacterial lineage. There are no other good evolutionary candidates.

Fortunately this new claim cannot be tested (and therefore cannot be falsified), because the “proteobacterial lineage” is nothing more than an evolutionary construct. Evolutionists can search for possible extant species for hints of a common ancestor with the mitochondria, but failure to find anything can always be ascribed to extinction of the common ancestor.

This is where evolutionary theory often ends up: failures ultimately lead to unfalsifiable truth claims. Because heaven forbid we should question the theory itself.

Planet of the monkeys?

Monkeys, Not Humans, Likely Made Ancient Brazilian Tools

 Evolution News 

There’s a danger in looking too hard for evidence of our ancient ancestors. Sometimes we could be seeing things that aren’t there. One group of stone tools from 50,000 years ago could, it is now suggested, have been made by monkeys:

Excavations at Pedra Furada, a group of 800 archaeological sites in the state of Piauí, Brazil, have turned up stone shards believed to be examples of simple stone tools. Made from quartzite and quartz cobbles, the oldest ones appear to be up to 50,000 years old, which would put them among the earliest evidence of human habitation in the Western Hemisphere.

However, the tools also bear a striking resemblance to the stone tools currently made by the capuchin monkeys at Brazil’s Serra da Capivara National Park. 

SARAH CASCONE, “ANCIENT STONE TOOLS ONCE THOUGHT TO BE MADE BY HUMANS WERE ACTUALLY CRAFTED BY MONKEYS, SAY ARCHAEOLOGISTS” AT ARTNET (JANUARY 3, 2023) THE PAPER IS OPEN ACCESS.

But there’s a twist. Back in 2016, a similar point was raised at Nature:

In January, archaeologist Tomos Proffitt was examining a set of stone artefacts that his colleague Michael Haslam had brought to him. Some of the quartz pieces looked like sharpened stone tools made by human relatives in eastern Africa, some 2–3 million years ago.

But Haslam told Proffitt that the artefacts had been made the previous year by capuchin monkeys in Brazil. “I was pretty gobsmacked,” he says. “I did my PhD looking at hominin stone tools. I’ve learnt how to make these things. I was looking at this material, and it looked like it had been made by humans.” …

The capuchins make the fragments unintentionally while bashing rocks into dust, the researchers find. Some scientists say that the results call into question whether some stone tools have been incorrectly attributed to hominins — including 3.3-million-year-old artefacts from Kenya that are the oldest on record. 

EWEN CALLAWAY, “MONKEY TOOLS RAISE QUESTIONS OVER HUMAN ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD ” AT NATURE (OCTOBER 19, 2016) THE PAPER REQUIRES A FEE OR SUBSCRIPTION.

Not Even Tools 

The twist is that those artifacts were not even tools. The monkeys were producing them accidentally…

Many life forms shape and use objects as tools: These include crows, dolphins, octopuses, alligators, and ants.

The casualty in this case is the contention — attractive to many researchers, of course — that humans were living in the Americas 50,000 years ago based on the presence of what are thought to be tools:

Coupled with the lack of other evidence of human habitation from 50,000 years ago, such as concrete traces of dietary remains or hearths — charcoal at the site could have originated from naturally occurring fires — the tools’ resemblance to rock fragments created by monkeys calls into question the likelihood that humans were responsible for their creation.

The new findings could have a major impact on our understanding of when the first humans arrived in the Americas. 

SARAH CASCONE, “ANCIENT STONE TOOLS ONCE THOUGHT TO BE MADE BY HUMANS WERE ACTUALLY CRAFTED BY MONKEYS, SAY ARCHAEOLOGISTS” AT ARTNET (JANUARY 3, 2023) THE PAPER IS OPEN ACCESS.

A Calendar in the Mix?

We need to be clear about what part of the archeological record is under question. Another current dispute, for example, turns on whether the dots that accompany many Ice Age paintings from 20,000 years ago are evidence of a lunar calendar. It’s quite likely that the series of dots and symbols represent some form of record-keeping or communication. There may or may not be a lunar calendar in the mix but there is no possibility that these artworks were created by monkeys. We know that we are in a human world here. We just aren’t sure what its inhabitants were trying to say. 

If we are going to offer theories about ancient humans, it is best to be on ground as sure as that.

Darwinism's quest for a simple beginning rolls on.

Centrobin Found to be Important in Sperm Development

Cornelius G Hunter  

Numerous, Successive, Slight Modifications 

Proteins are a problem for theories of spontaneous origins for many reasons. They consist of dozens, or often hundreds, or even thousands of amino acids in a linear sequence, and while many different sequences will do the job, that number is tiny compared to the total number of sequences that are possible. It is a proverbial needle-in-the-haystack problem, far beyond the reach of blind searches. To make matters worse, many proteins are overlapping, with portions of their genes occupying the same region of DNA. The same set of mutations would have to result in not one, but two proteins, making the search problem that much more tricky. Furthermore, many proteins perform multiple functions. Random mutations somehow would have to find those very special proteins that can perform double duty in the cell. And finally, many proteins perform crucial roles within a complex environment. Without these proteins the cell sustains a significant fitness degradation. One protein that fits this description is centrobin, and now a new study shows it to be even more important than previously understood.

Centrobin is a massive protein of almost a thousand amino acids. Its importance in the division of animal cells has been known for more than ten years. An important player in animal cell division is the centrosome organelle which organizes the many microtubules—long tubes which are part of the cell’s cytoskeleton. Centrobin is one of the many proteins that helps the centrosome do its job. Centrobin depletion causes "strong disorganization of the microtubule network" and Impaired cell division .

Now, a New study shows just how important centrobin is in the development of the sperm tail. Without centrobin, the tail, or flagellum, development is “severely compromised.” And once the sperm is formed, centrobin is important for its structural integrity. As the paper concludes:

Our results underpin the multifunctional nature of [centrobin] that plays different roles in different cell types in Drosophila, and they identify [centrobin] as an essential component for C-tubule assembly and flagellum development in Drosophila spermatogenesis.

Clearly centrobin is an important protein. Without it such fundamental functions as cell division and organism reproduction are severely impaired.

And yet how did centrobin evolve?

Not only is centrobin a massive protein, but there are no obvious candidate intermediate structures. It is not as though we have that “long series of gradations in complexity” that Darwin called for:

Although the belief that an organ so perfect as the eye could have been formed by natural selection, is enough to stagger any one; yet in the case of any organ, if we know of a long series of gradations in complexity, each good for its possessor, then, under changing conditions of life, there is no logical impossibility in the acquirement of any conceivable degree of perfection through natural selection.

Unfortunately, in the case of centrobin, we do not know of such a series. In fact, centrobin would seem to be a perfectly good example of precisely how Darwin said his theory could be falsified:

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case.  

Darwin could “find out no such case,” but he didn’t know about centrobin. Darwin required “a long series of gradations,” formed by “numerous, successive, slight modifications.”

With centrobin we are nowhere close to fulfilling these requirements. In other words, today’s science falsifies evolution. This, according to Darwin’s own words.

Let there be light

 The wave nature of light

<iframe width="932" height="524" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/N85ft9WUlVQ" title="Chemistry and Our Universe: How it All Works | Wave Nature of Light | The Great Courses" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>

These cavemen were men of letters?

Possible Cave “Proto-Writing” Challenges Slow Evolution of Human Consciousness

Denyse o'Leary  

London-based wood carving conservator Ben Bacon has, with academic colleagues, shaken up Ice Age paleontology by demonstrating that the marks on the 20,000-year-old cave paintings of animals found across Europe could be interpreted as a lunar calendar timing reproductive cycles:

Prof Paul Pettitt, of Durham University, said he was “glad he took it seriously” when Mr Bacon contacted him.

“The results show that Ice Age hunter-gatherers were the first to use a systemic calendar and marks to record information about major ecological events within that calendar.” 

NEWS, “LONDONER SOLVES 20,000-YEAR ICE AGE DRAWINGS MYSTERY” AT BBC (JANUARY 5, 2023) THE PAPER IS OPEN ACCESS.

Bacon had spent many hours both on the Internet and in the British Library, studying the paintings, looking for repetitive numerical patterns — something we would expect to find more often in a calendar than in other types of record-keeping. A collaboration took place among Bacon, two Durham University profs, and one from University College London then working out birth cycles for similar animals today. Thus, the BBC reports, “they deduced that the number of marks on the cave paintings was a record, by lunar month, of the animals’ mating seasons.”

Of the 800 sequences of dots analyzed, no sequence contained more than 13 dots, which suggested to the researchers the 13 months of the lunar year. They also “found strong correlations between the number of marks and the lunar months in which the specific animal is known to mate.” (Live Science) The frequent “Y” sign was, they believe, connected to giving birth:

A Statistical Analysis

After conducting a statistical analysis of the database, Bacon and his colleagues were amazed to find that their lunar calendar seems to hold up well with the patterns.

“Overall, there is a remarkable degree of correlation between the numbers of lines/dots in sequences with and without Y and the position of Y and the mating and birthing behaviors of our analytical taxa,” the researchers said in the study. “Our data do not explain everything, but even taking imprecision and regional variability into account, the degree of support for our hypothesis is striking.” 

BECKY FERREIRA, “A TOTAL AMATEUR MAY HAVE JUST REWRITTEN HUMAN HISTORY WITH BOMBSHELL DISCOVERY” AT VICE (JANUARY 5, 2023)

Other researchers are not convinced, however:

Melanie Chang, a paleoanthropologist at Portland State University who was not involved in the study, told Live Science in an email that she agrees with the researchers’ assessment that “Upper Palaeolithic people had the cognitive capacity to write and to keep records of time.” However, she cautioned that the researchers’ “hypotheses are not well-supported by their results, and they also do not address alternative interpretations of the marks they analyzed.” 

KRISTINA KILLGROVE, “20,000-YEAR-OLD CAVE PAINTING ‘DOTS’ ARE THE EARLIEST WRITTEN LANGUAGE, STUDY CLAIMS. BUT NOT EVERYONE AGREES.” AT LIVE SCIENCE (DECEMBER 5, 2022)

The Big News

No doubt the paleontology community will be debating the exact significance of the marks for some time. For now, the big news is the fact that such ancient humans were apparently communicating via symbolic record-keeping as well as art ten thousands or more years earlier than we have thought:

It would be hard to overstate the magnitude of this discovery, assuming it passes muster in the wider archaeological community. It would rewrite the origins of, well, writing, which is one of the most important developments in human history. Moreover, if these tantalizing symbols represent an early calendar, they offer a glimpse of how these hunter-gatherers synchronized their lives with the natural cycles of animals and the Moon.

In short, if the new hypothesis is accurate, it shows that our Paleolithic ancestors “were almost certainly as cognitively advanced as we are” and “that they are fully modern humans,” Bacon told Motherboard. It also means “that their society achieved great art, use of numbers, and writing” and “that reading more of their writing system may allow us to gain an insight into their beliefs and cultural values,” he concluded. 

BECKY FERREIRA, “A TOTAL AMATEUR MAY HAVE JUST REWRITTEN HUMAN HISTORY WITH BOMBSHELL DISCOVERY” AT VICE (JANUARY 5, 2023)

The researchers, who plan further publications in this area, are careful to call their find “proto-writing” rather than “writing” because it simply marks seasonal patterns. If they or others were to find inscriptions or apparent histories, that would be an even more significant development.

The find certainly challenges the idea that human consciousness underwent a long, slow evolution in recent millennia. It was mainly the technology that evolved, it seems.

You may also wish to read: Why is Neanderthal art considered controversial? It makes sense that whenever humans started to wonder about life, we started to create art that helps us think about it. Science writer Michael Marshall reports that some researchers are accused of banning others from taking samples that would prove a Neanderthal was the artist.

Some more on the business of war.

 

An architectural icon examined.

The Chrysler building

<iframe width="932" height="524" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Cif0FA1jHpo" title="Architect Breaks Down Hidden Details Of The Chrysler Building | Architectural Digest" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe> 

Lamarck's revenge?

 On Lamarck

Cornelius G Hunter

In the twentieth century Lamarckian Inheritance was an anathema for evolutionists. Careers were ruined and every evolutionist knew the inheritance of acquired characteristics sat right along the flat earth and geocentrism in the history of ideas. The damning of Lamarck, however, was driven by dogma rather than data, and today the evidence has finally overcome evolutionary theory.

Indeed there is much contemporary discussion, observations and critical analysis consistent with this position led by Corrado Spadafora, Yongsheng Liu, Denis Noble, John Mattick and others, that developments such as Lamarckian Inheritance processes (both direct DNA modifications and indirect, viz. epigenetic, transmissions) in evolutionary biology and adjacent fields now necessitate a complete revision of the standard neo-Darwinian theory of evolution or “New Synthesis " that emerged from the 1930s and 1940s.

Indeed, we now know of a “plethora of adaptive Lamarckian-like inheritance mechanisms.

””

Samuel Clarke on the trinity.

 Stanford Encycloedia

In his lifetime, Clarke was infamous for his view of the trinity, and he sparked a vociferous debate (Ferguson 1974, 59–149; Pfizenmaier 1997, 179–216). Clarke was not officially censured (but nearly so), but it surely prevented his rising to higher office. Clarke’s writing on the trinity are relevant for understanding his other metaphysical positions, especially his identification of “person” with intelligent, acting agent rather than with a particular substance, which has not been sufficiently reconciled with his account of personal identity as wrapped up with an immaterial soul.

In Christian theology, God is represented as tripartite—three persons but one God. In the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, in use in England during Clarke’s lifetime, one of the liturgies draws from the Athanasian Creed, which includes the following discussion of the Trinity: “For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son: and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one… So the Father is God, the Son is God : and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods: but one God.” In his position as a cleric, Clarke was required to subscribe to this formulation. In 1712, against the advice of his friends, he published The Scripture-Doctrine of the Trinity, in which he diverged from what his opponents considered the plain sense of this formulation. The Scripture-Doctrine of the Trinity begins by collecting all the passages of the New Testament that relate to the Trinity. It then sets out a series of 55 propositions regarding the Trinity, each supported by references to the texts collected in the first section and writings from the early Christian church. However, the biblical texts do not primarily discuss God’s metaphysical attributes, according to Clarke, but ascribe dominion to God (W 4.150; Snobelen 2004, 265–275). The third section relates these propositions to the Anglican liturgy. This approach reflects Clarke’s general expectation that the correct theological doctrines are found in the Bible, are endorsed by the early church, and are compatible with reason. Through hundreds of years of what he considered bad metaphysics, the correct and intelligible doctrine of the trinity had become obscured, and Clarke hoped to return to a pre-Athanasian understanding of the trinity.

Clarke’s position in The Scripture-Doctrine of the Trinity was labeled by his opponents as “Arian,” “Socinian,” and “Sabellian.” Although they were commonly used as abusive terms for anyone holding non-traditional or anti-trinitarian views, they also have more precise meanings. An Arian holds that the Son (the second person of the Trinity) is divine but not eternal; he was created by God the Father out of nothing before the beginning of the world. A Socinian holds that the Son is merely human and was created at or after the conception of Jesus. A Sabellian holds that the Son is a mode of God. In the precise use of the terms, Clarke is none of these. Unlike the Arians, Clarke affirmed that the Son is co-eternal with the Father and not created (W 4.141). (Pfizenmaier 1997 provides further textual and historical arguments that Clarke should not be classified as an Arian.) From this it also follows that, contra the Socinians, the Son existed before the conception of Jesus. Unlike the Sabellians, Clarke denied that the Son was a mode of the Father. (This would have been very problematic given that he sometimes claimed that space is a mode of God.) Clarke’s claimed ignorance about substance made him reluctant to declare that the Father and the Son were the same divine substance, but the Son is endowed by the Father with all of the power and authority of the Father. He also called the manner of the Son’s generation from the father “ineffable.” So while Clarke denied that the trinity was a “mystery,” he did believe that the manner in which the Father’s power is communicated to the Son is “after a manner to us unknown” (Proposition 35; 4.159).

Clarke affirms that each member of the trinity is a person, but only the Father is self-existent, which means that the Father by essence (rather than by “office”) has a property that the Son does not. His views are best described as subordinationist but he could also be called a unitarian, in at least some senses of the term (Tuggy 2014; 204–205). See especially Prop. 25 (W 4.150); Prop. 27 (W 4.151); and Prop. 34 (“The Son, whatever his metaphysical essence of substance be, and whatever divine greatness and dignity is ascribed to him in scripture; yet in this he is evidently subordinate to the Father, that he derives his being, attributes, and powers, from the Father, and the Father nothing from him”; 4.155). To the Father alone are ascribed “independence and supreme authority” (Proposition 27; 4.151). Every other attribute and power that can be ascribed to the Father can also be ascribed to the Son, “but the titles ascribed to the Son, must always carry along with them the idea of being communicated or derived” (4.153).

David Berlinski :Ace Darwin Skeptic on Darwinism v. Maths

David Berlinski on Darwinism.

<iframe width="932" height="524" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7mV3tnPhytg" title="David Berlinski on evolution" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe> 

Darwinism's fall of Rome moment at hand?

Will an Engineering Paradigm Supplant Darwinism?

David Coppedge  

The heyday of Darwinism may be coming to an end. Its summer of dominance after neo-Darwinism arose and conquered every field of biology led to an autumn of colorful just-so stories, and now a Narnian rule, where it is always winter and never Christmas. Evolutionary biologists repeat the old dogmas with less and less creative insight, as if cranking out expected boilerplate in a spirit of drudgery. But like a waft of a slightly less-cold breeze, with a slightly higher sun in the sky, hints of a new paradigm may be signaling that biology is about to turn over a new leaf.

One such tender shoot of greenery appeared in Science Magazine, where Maria Clara Zanellati and Sarah Cohen wrote a perspective piece titled, “The endosome as engineer.” It’s an example of an ever-so-slight tendency in mainstream journals — perhaps too early to call a trend — that ignores Darwinism completely while warming up to the engineering paradigm. It is often done without voicing the name of the Enemy, intelligent design.

A hallmark of eukaryotic cells is that they are compartmentalized into membrane-bound organelles. This allows for the spatial separation of biochemically incompatible processes. Nevertheless, organelles must work together for the cell to function. There has been increasing interest in organelle communication at membrane contact sites — where two organelles are anchored in close apposition by “tether” proteins. These contact sites allow the exchange of materials and information between cellular compartments. Intriguingly, organelles can also influence one another’s abundance and morphology. Most studies have focused on the role of the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) in shaping other organelles. However, on page 1188 of this issue, Jang et al. show that the endosome can reengineer ER shape in response to changing nutrient levels, which in turn affects the morphology and function of additional organelles.

The word “engineering” appears briefly in the above-referenced paper by Jang et al., but only in regard to the scientists who engineered the cell lines and their genomes. Still, significantly, evolution was notable for its absence, while engineering terms were used to describe what the endosome is doing: rewiring, signaling, orchestration, function, program, coordination, and regulation.

It’s Logical

Another paper, in Science Advances, is almost comical in its dissing of Darwinism. The paper is all about logic, using the word 18 times. Authors Sun and Horrigan from Baylor College of Medicine describe “A gating lever and molecular logic gate that couple voltage and calcium sensor activation to opening in BK potassium channels.” Sounds like what an IT engineer might do. Here’s their only mention of evolution:

The logic gate–like integration of V and Ca2+ signaling by the YFF pathway is a potentially unique mechanismthat raises many interesting questions regarding its physiological role and evolution. While we cannot speculate about the latter, the most obvious role of the mechanism is to enhance both V- and Ca2+-dependent coupling, and it may also act paradoxically to simplify the physiological response to V and Ca2+, as discussed below.

Forward they proceed into engineering language, leaving Darwinism behind, mumbling in his beard about what “seems to me.” Sun and Horrigan are more interested in couplings and sensors:

In conclusion, our results suggest that coupling mechanisms can be indirect and distributed and that resolving these mechanisms requires structure-function analysis that can distinguish changes in coupling from changes in sensor or gate equilibria, as well as structural information in different states to distinguish static and dynamic interactions.

Nature Feeling the Warmth, Too?

Norman Lockyer founded the journal Nature in the days of the X Club to promote Darwinism. The first issue had a frontispiece by Thomas Huxley, and in the first year there were half a dozen articles “urging Darwin’s scheme, two of which were written by Darwin himself” (Browne, p. 248). That was in 1869. As everyone knows, the Nature Publishing empire proceeded to dominate the journal business and continues its “polemic purpose” in support of materialist science.

Recently, however, at Scientific Reports, one of Nature’s open-access journals, three scientists wrote a Darwin-free editorial on “3D Genome Organization.” Like the paper described above, this editorial portrays biological engineering without using the word. More importantly, it promotes interdisciplinary research focused on how genomes achieve structure-function relationships from a linear sequence. This opens doors for engineering-based research that scientists weary of Darwinism might find attractive.

We are still a long way from understanding how 3D genome organization is linked precisely to genome function. A concerted multi-disciplinary effort is needed to develop new tools and computational prediction methods, multi-target chromatin imaging techniques in live-cells, and efficient manipulation methods for 3D genome structures. These efforts should be accompanied by the collection of 3D genome data from different diseased and healthy cells and tissues in humans, as well as a range of model organisms. Our increased knowledge of 3D folding of the genome will lead to a better appreciation of the regulatory potential of the linear genetic sequence. 3D genome organization emerges as a cell type specific epigenetic mechanism and gives us clues about the regulatory effect of the non-coding genome in the 3D context. This understanding will allow for enhanced interpretation of genetic variants and their potential phenotypic effects. Finally, such studies will bring new 3D insights into diagnostics and therapies for different conditions including cancer, developmental diseases, ageing, and related disorders.

One can almost sense the excitement at the potential of looking at genomics with an engineer’s eyes.

Disruptors Needed

Nature complained this month that “‘Disruptive’ science has declined — and no one knows why.” Max Kozlov explained, “The proportion of publications that send a field in a new direction has plummeted over the last half-century.” Kozlov gropes for reasons for it. A related paper by Park, Leahey and Funk in the same issue likewise comes to no firm conclusion. All they can suggest are possible ways to stir the embers and ignite something exciting.

Understanding the decline in disruptive science and technology more fully permits a much-needed rethinking of strategies for organizing the production of science and technology in the future.

One factor they ignore is the stupor of consensus. In biology, the aging Darwinian consensus has stifled fresh, disruptive thinking outside the box. Many scientists have contented themselves with describing whatever complex phenomenon is under investigation by saying with a ho-hum that it “evolved” to do what it does. To this day, though, nobody has witnessed a new organ or programmed system come into being by Darwin’s mutation/selection “mechanism” (as if “mechanism” can properly be applied to products of mindless processes). 

People do, by contrast, witness new products coming from engineers. Intelligent minds possess foresight and creativity that can find elegant solutions to problems. That’s what life does. The engineering paradigm is explicitly and effectively applied within the intelligent design community, such as in the new book Your Designed Body by an engineer and an MD. Their interdisciplinary collaboration achieves credible understanding: the body looks designed because it is designed in ways that would make human engineers envious.

Discovery Institute leads the world in design-based initiatives, events, and publications. If the engineering paradigm succeeds in bringing a new leaf to biology after the long Darwinian winter, DI may not get the credit it deserves. It is still hard for scientists to overtly embrace intelligent design because the Darwin empire’s punishment of all who stray from the consensus is legendary. But if, after a century of Darwin’s reign of terror, with its racism, eugenics, meaninglessness, ugliness, and censorship, an engineering-theoretic paradigm offers a new way of doing research, it promises to bring not only superior understanding of how life works, but with it untold practical benefits to the whole world — not the least of which might be great pleasure and satisfaction at rediscovering purpose at the root of life. 

 

On origin of life science's spectacular fail re:design denial.

The mystery of life's origin.

<iframe width="932" height="524" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Eefw0Dnv_Ic" title="The Mystery of Life's Origin -- Dr. Stephen Meyer" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe> 

On the prehuman singularity.

 Cosmologist Frank Tipler on the Singularity Atheists Try To Evade

Evolution news 

On a classic ID the Future episode we hear commentary on the singularity from distinguished cosmologist Frank Tipler, co-author of The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. The singularity in question isn’t the supposed future singularity imagined by transhumanists, but the evidentially well-supported singularity at the foundation of the Big Bang. The equations are clear, says Tipler, as are their implications: among its many arresting features, the Big Bang singularity had an existence outside of space and time, was intrinsically infinite, and was not subject to any laws of physics. Atheists today still resist this conclusion, Tipler says, but only this conclusion has experimental support, and the negative implications for atheism are hard to miss.Download the podcast or listen to it here. 

On the zombies prowling Darwinism's badlands.

 Icons of evolution

<iframe width="932" height="699" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/te3aShKST1A" title="A Critique of Darwinist Icons (Icons of Evolution)" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Phillip Johnson cross examines Darwinism.

On Darwinism's gradualism(or lack thereof) problem.

 Diversity of Life

Cornelius G Hunter

But the origin of life is just the beginning of evolution’s problems. For science now suggests evolution is incapable of creating the diversity of life and all of its designs:

Before the extensive sequencing of DNA became available it would have been reasonable to speculate that random copying errors in a gene sequence could, over time, lead to the emergence of new traits, body plans and new physiologies that could explain the whole of evolution. However the data we have reviewed here challenge this point of view. It suggests that the Cambrian Explosion of multicellular life that occurred 0.54 billion years ago led to a sudden emergence of essentially all the genes that subsequently came to be rearranged into an exceedingly wide range of multi-celled life forms - Tardigrades, the Squid, Octopus, fruit flies, humans – to name but a few.

As one of the authors writes, “the complexity and sophistication of life cannot originate (from non-biological) matter under any scenario, over any expanse of space and time, however vast.” As an example, consider the octopus.

Octopus

First, the octopus is an example of novel, complex features, rapidly appearing and a vast array of genes without an apparent ancestry:

Its large brain and sophisticated nervous system, camera-like eyes, flexible bodies, instantaneous camouflage via the ability to switch colour and shape are just a few of the striking features that appear suddenly on the evolutionary scene. The transformative genes leading from the consensus ancestral Nautilus (e.g., Nautilus pompilius) to the common Cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis) to Squid (Loligo vulgaris) to the common Octopus (Octopus vulgaris) are not easily to be found in any pre-existing life form.

But it gets worse. As Darwin’s God has explained, The Cephalopods demonstrate a highly unique level of adenosine to inosine mRNA editing. It is yet another striking example of lineage-specific design that utterly contradicts macroevolution:

These data demonstrate extensive evolutionary conserved adenosine to inosine (A-to-I) mRNA editing sites in almost every single protein-coding gene in the behaviorally complex coleoid Cephalopods (Octopus in particular), but not in nautilus. This enormous qualitative difference in Cephalopod protein recoding A-to-I mRNA editing compared to nautilus and other invertebrate and vertebrate animals is striking. Thus in transcriptome-wide screens only 1–3% of Drosophila and human protein coding mRNAs harbour an A-to-I recoding site; and there only about 25 human mRNA messages which contain a conserved A-to-I recoding site across mammals. In Drosophila lineages there are about 65 conserved A-sites in protein coding genes and only a few identified in C. elegans which support the hypothesis that A-to-I RNA editing recoding is mostly either neutral, detrimental, or rarely adaptive. Yet in Squid and particularly Octopus it is the norm, with almost every protein coding gene having an evolutionary conserved A-to-I mRNA editing site isoform, resulting in a nonsynonymous amino acid change. This is a virtual qualitative jump in molecular genetic strategy in a supposed smooth and incremental evolutionary lineage - a type of sudden “great leap forward”. Unless all the new genes expressed in the squid/octopus lineages arose from simple mutations of existing genes in either the squid or in other organisms sharing the same habitat, there is surely no way by which this large qualitative transition in A-to-I mRNA editing can be explained by conventional neo-Darwinian processes, even if horizontal gene transfer is allowed. 

Another look at Darwinism '" simple beginning" issues.

 Origin of Life

Cornelius G Hunter

Regarding origin of life studies, which try to explain how living cells could somehow have arisen in an ancient, inorganic, Earth, the paper explains that this idea should have long since been rejected, but instead it has fueled “sophisticated conjectures with little or no evidential support.”

the dominant biological paradigm - abiogenesis in a primordial soup. The latter idea was developed at a time when the earliest living cells were considered to be exceedingly simple structures that could subsequently evolve in a Darwinian way. These ideas should of course have been critically examined and rejected after the discovery of the exceedingly complex molecular structures involved in proteins and in DNA. But this did not happen. Modern ideas of abiogenesis in hydrothermal vents or elsewhere on the primitive Earth have developed into sophisticated conjectures with little or no evidential support.

In fact, abiogenesis has “no empirical support.”

independent abiogenesis on the cosmologically diminutive scale of oceans, lakes or hydrothermal vents remains a hypothesis with no empirical support

One problem, of many, is that the early Earth would not have supported such monumental evolution to occur:

The conditions that would most likely to have prevailed near the impact-riddled Earth's surface 4.1–4.23 billion years ago were too hot even for simple organic molecules to survive let alone evolve into living complexity 

In fact, the whole idea strains credibility “beyond the limit.”

The requirement now, on the basis of orthodox abiogenic thinking, is that an essentially instantaneous transformation of non-living organic matter to bacterial life occurs, an assumption we consider strains credibility of Earth-bound abiogenesis beyond the limit.

All laboratory experiments have ended in “dismal failure.” The information hurdle is of “superastronomical proportions” and simply could not have been overcome without a miracle.

The transformation of an ensemble of appropriately chosen biological monomers (e.g. amino acids, nucleotides) into a primitive living cell capable of further evolution appears to require overcoming an information hurdle of superastronomical proportions, an event that could not have happened within the time frame of the Earth except, we believe, as a miracle. All laboratory experiments attempting to simulate such an event have so far led to dismal failure.

The question of the millennium: Can we talk about this?

Listen: Dr. Jay Bhattacharya on COVID-19 as One of the Most Divisive Events in American History

 Evolution news

The COVID-19 pandemic has been one of the most politically and culturally divisive events in American history. Which seems odd. Usually, a universal external threat unites societies and rallies populations to focus on the common foe. Instead, American society fractured into different tribes, which often coincided with our preexisting political factionalism.

Adding to our woes, the proper approach to scientific inquiry and policy makers’ relationship with the expert class became badly skewed. Once an orthodoxy was declared by the World Health Organization or the Center for Disease Control, government leaders, the mainstream media, and Big Tech circled the wagons to prevent dissenting views from being aired — and even seeking to punish those with differing opinions.

And we now know that action was taken to suppress heterodox voices. On a new episode of the Humanize podcast, Wesley Smith’s guest is one of those caught in this cultural oppression. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, making his second appearance on the podcast, is a Professor of Health Policy at Stanford University and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economics Research. He directs Stanford’s Center for Demography and Economics of Health and Aging. Download or listen to the podcast here