Science's place in modern society:idol or instrument?

The Human Cost of Coercive Science

John G. West

 

Did lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic actually work? That’s the question a study recently released by a research center at Johns Hopkins University attempted to answer. 

Authored by three economists, the “meta-analysis” sought to evaluate the effectiveness of lockdowns to reduce deaths from COVID-19 deaths. The study defined a lockdown as any “compulsory, non-pharmaceutical intervention,” and it synthesized and analyzed results from two dozen other studies. The economists reached a startling conclusion: “lockdowns have had little to no effect on COVID-19 mortality.” To be more specific, “lockdowns in Europe and the United States only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 0.2% on average” and shelter-in-place orders in particular “were also ineffective, only reducing COVID-19 mortality by 2.9% on average.” 

Following “The Science”

This new study is far from the the final word on the effectiveness of lockdowns. Perhaps these economists are wrong. But at least they are beginning to ask the right questions. If we are serious about following “the science,” it makes sense to ask what the evidence actually shows about what works and what doesn’t.

But there is another question that needs to be asked as well: Even if lockdown policies were shown to have significantly reduced mortality, did their benefits outweigh their costs? 

To answer that question, we need to know not only the impact lockdowns had on COVID-19 mortality, but also their impact on crime rates, unemployment, education, child development, suicides, mental health, and deaths from other causes. We also need to consider the impact on intangible goods such as free speech and religious liberty. This is a point I tried to make in a talk I originally gave in May 2020, later posted on YouTube. It was also a central point of the 2020 book The Price of Panic by Discovery Senior Fellows Douglas Axe and Jay Richards along with William Briggs, one of the first major books to address COVID-19 public policies. 

Calculating the Costs

Unfortunately, we have just begun to scratch the surface of calculating the real costs of lockdowns and related measures. Which brings to me to the nightmare still being experienced by Melissa Henderson in Blairsville, Georgia.

Melissa is a single mom with five kids. To support her family, she needs to work. But when the lockdowns came in 2020, her daycare provider shut down. So she had to find another solution, and she asked her 14-year-old daughter Linley to babysit. One day Melissa’s four-year-old son went out to play with his neighbor friend. It took a few minutes for Linley to notice, because she was doing online schooling. By that time, the neighbor had called 911. 

To be clear, it is legal for youth as young as 13 to babysit in Georgia. That didn’t stop the police from arresting Melissa (handcuffs and all) and putting her in jail. Fortunately, her ex-husband bailed her out. Melissa was eventually charged with a crime that could send her to prison for a year. Her case has been dragging on now for nearly two years. The police and prosecutors seem like characters right out of Les Misérables. 

How Many Melissas?

Of course, the officials who imposed Georgia’s lockdown did not intend to deprive Melissa of her ability to support her family. Nor did they intend for her to be abusively prosecuted. But it happened nonetheless. 

How many other Melissas are there, people hurt in serious ways by the lockdown policies? I don’t know. What I do know is this: Until we have a full accounting of all the Melissas there are, we won’t really know how effective — or costly — the lockdowns were.

Lockdowns were imposed on society in the name of science, although the actual scientific basis of many of the measures employed was unclear at best. But there is nothing scientific in avoiding an honest discussion of their actual results.

American socialism: A case study.

On spaceship earth's forcefield.

 

Solar Activity Reveals a Different Kind of “Privilege”

Daniel Reeves

Did you experience anything unusual a couple of Wednesdays back? Perhaps a feeling of impending doom, or even just a slight change in mood? 

No? Well, then perhaps you are more privileged than you think. 

On Saturday, January 29, the sun — you know, that yellow dwarf star around which we orbit at over 100,000 kilometers per hour — decided to throw a violent tantrum resulting in an eruption of high energy particles and magnetism. The outburst reached earth’s atmosphere on Wednesday, February 2. This coronal mass ejection, and the resulting geomagnetic storm in our atmosphere, likely had indiscernible — if any — impact on your less-than-momentous hump day. Unless I missed something, it didn’t even merit a mention in the weather forecast. 

A “Milquetoast Outburst”

According to Hugh Lewis, a space debris expert at the University of Southampton cited in a New York Times article, this solar incident was actually mild compared to what we can expect approaching the year 2025. “As the sun gets more active, it releases an increasing amount of extreme ultraviolet, which gets absorbed into our atmosphere,” Lewis explains. “The expectation is that the atmospheric density is going to increase by one or two orders of magnitude. That’s a way bigger change compared to what we’ve just seen with this particular event.” Or, as Robin George Andrews writes for the Times, this was a “milquetoast outburst” compared to “a more potent solar scream [that] has the potential to inflict greater harm.” 

So…does this mean that the world is coming to an end? Should you drop out of school or quit your job, and enjoy your last few toasty years on this doomed planet?

Not so fast. As Andrews points out, we are simply ramping up to the peak of an 11-year-long cycle in which the sun undulates between hyperactive and quiescent states. This solar cycle, coinciding with the reversal of the sun’s magnetic field, has already reached a violent peak one or more times in your lifetime and, just like Wednesday’s incident, that has had negligible — if any — impact on your daily life.

Perhaps, like me, you’ve taken this fact for granted — that a fierce coronal mass ejection from the sun has little effect on life at the surface of the planet. In fact, it is one of many privileges that humanity accepts as a given, regardless of our ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic standing: the privilege of living on a planet that is astonishingly protected in the midst of an otherwise inhospitable cosmos.

Blissfully Unaware of Bombardment

Like you, I was blissfully unaware that our atmosphere was being bombarded, and only stumbled upon the fact a few days ago in the Times. The article, “Solar Storm Destroys 40 New SpaceX Satellites in Orbit,” focuses on the impact of the solar ejection on the latest satellites launched into space as part of Elon Musk’s high speed Internet project. The reporter concludes that “the incident highlights the hazards faced by numerous companies planning to put tens of thousands of small satellites in orbit to provide Internet service from space.” 

True, the fact that 40 of the 49 new satellites launched into the lower atmosphere on February 3 could be knocked out by a routine solar outburst is a reminder of the incredible challenges facing aerospace technology. That’s a $100 million loss in hardware and launch costs incurred by SpaceX, as estimated by Dr. Lewis in the article. 

But there’s far more at stake. Without the combined protective effect of our unique atmosphere and geomagnetic field — a relatively rare phenomenon in the observable universe — even a “milquetoast outburst” from the sun would be sufficient to destroy all life on earth.

Yet this brief article was the only mention of the occurrence that I could find either in the New York Times or a handful of other major news sites. It goes to show how most of us take our privileged planet for granted. Perhaps an occasional demonstration of our cosmic entitlements could also remind us of the privileges that we all share as a human species — privileges that are considerably greater than those that threaten to divide us.

And still yet even more on the patron saint of the master race.

 

Racism Serves Darwinism, Darwinism Serves Racism

Richard Weikart

 

Editor’s note: The following is excerpted from Chapter 1 of Richard Weikart’s new book, How Darwinism Influenced Hitler, Nazism, and White Nationalism.

When Darwin began compiling evidence for biological evolution in his notebooks in the late 1830s, he included human evolution in his ruminations. He indicated that when human races confront each other, they fight and struggle with each other for supremacy. He wrote that differences in intelligence usually settle this conflict, though in the case of black Africans, their “organization” (presumably meaning their immunity to diseases that ravaged Europeans who moved to Africa) gave them an advantage in their homelands. His comments here imply that he thought not only that some races are more intelligent than others, but also that blacks were inferior in their mental abilities.¹

Scientific Justification for Racism

Darwin’s racist and imperialist attitudes were conventional for his time, but his use of racism to defend his theory of human evolution buttressed those attitudes in the decades to follow by providing scientific justification for racism among many of Darwin’s followers. Racism was not just an incidental part of Darwin’s evolutionary theory. Rather Darwin considered racial inequality crucial evidence for his theory. In order to convince his contemporaries of his theory of evolution, he knew he needed to demonstrate the great variety within any given species, while minimizing the gap between different species. When applied to human evolution, this meant that Darwin had to stress human inequality on the one hand, and human proximity to apes on the other. Racism provided fodder for this argument, because Darwin placed the black Africans and Australian aborigines close to the apes in his racial hierarchy, while deeming the white Europeans far superior.

To be sure, when Darwin first published On the Origin of Species (1859), he mostly avoided the topic of human evolution. He understood that this was the most controversial part of his theory and that it would likely provoke resistance (as it did). As he explained 12 years later in the introduction to The Descent of Man, he had steered around the issue of human evolution “as I thought that I should thus only add to the prejudices against my views.”² Only in the closing paragraphs of Origin had he briefly mentioned that his theory would likely have ramifications for human origins. Thus, when Darwin mentioned “races” in the full title of his 1859 book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, he likely meant primarily varieties or sub-species of animals and plants, rather than human races. However, Darwin later clarified in The Descent of Man that he viewed human races as varieties or sub-species,³ so everything he wrote in Origin did indeed apply to humanity. Darwin confirmed this in The Descent of Man, for one of its stated goals was to show that the evolutionary processes that Darwin had explained in Origin had brought about the origins of humans, too. The Descent of Man, in other words, argues quite explicitly for “the preservation of favoured” human “races in the struggle for life.”

Highly Problematic Features

Darwin’s conception of the struggle for life, or, as he more often called it, the struggle for existence, had highly problematic features when applied to humans. Darwin’s signature theory of natural selection through the struggle for existence was based on Thomas Robert Malthus’s population principle, which stated that humans (and other organisms) tend to reproduce faster than their food supply can increase. This implies that humans (and other species) are destined for mass death, since the food supply can never keep up with the ever-growing population. Darwin argued that because most organisms perish in their quest for limited resources, they are locked in an inescapable competition for those resources. This competition is most intense among members of the same species because they are competing for the same niche.

Despite the huge death toll resulting from the struggle for existence, Darwin considered it a positive force nonetheless, because it produced evolutionary progress. It weeded out the weak, sickly, and less capable — the “unfit” — while the “fit” survived and reproduced. In the last sentence of his chapter on “Struggle for Existence” in The Origin of Species, Darwin stated, “When we reflect on this struggle, we may console ourselves with the full belief, that the war of nature is not incessant, that no fear is felt, that death is generally prompt, and that the vigorous, the healthy, and the happy survive and multiply.” Then, in the next-to-the-last sentence of the book, he stated, “Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows.”⁴ When applied to humans, this would mean that humans are contending with their fellow humans for scarce resources in a competition-to-the-death. The fittest humans will survive and reproduce, while the less fit will die.

Three Main Objectives of the Work

In The Descent of Man Darwin confirmed that he thought race played a central role in this struggle, so racism is not an incidental element of the book. Darwin explained from the outset the three main objectives of the work: 1) investigate whether humans are descended from some other animals; 2) explain the process of human evolution; and 3) describe “the value of the differences between the so-called races of man.”⁵ Of the seven chapters covering human evolution, one is entitled, “On the Races of Man,” and racial themes also emerge in many of the other chapters. 

Toward the beginning of the book’s second chapter, “Comparison of the Mental Powers of Man and the Lower Animals,” Darwin insisted that certain races were mentally inferior to others:

Nor is the difference slight in moral disposition between a barbarian, such as the man described by the old navigator Byron, who dashed his child on the rocks for dropping a basket of sea-urchins, and a Howard or Clarkson; and in intellect, between a savage who does not use any abstract terms, and a Newton or Shakspeare [sic]. Differences of this kind between the highest men of the highest races and the lowest savages, are connected by the finest gradations. Therefore it is possible that they might pass and be developed into each other.⁶

Howard and Clarkson, incidentally, were leaders in the British abolitionist movement, and Darwin considered them the epitome of moral goodness. They were, of course, Europeans, as were Newton and Shakespeare, and clearly Darwin was identifying them as “the highest men of the highest races,” in contrast to the “lowest savages.” Thus, Darwin buttressed his theory of human evolution by asserting that Europeans were not only intellectually superior, but also higher on the scale of morality. This is highly ironic, of course, because these allegedly morally superior Europeans were at the time exterminating the supposedly morally inferior natives of the Americas, Australia, and elsewhere. Darwin apparently had no conscience about genocide, since he saw nothing amiss about allegedly morally superior people killing off those they deem inferior.

He considered the intellectual superiority of Europeans so self-evident that he wrote in a later chapter, “The variability or diversity of the mental faculties in men of the same race, not to mention the greater differences between the men of distinct races, is so notorious that not a word need here be said.”⁷ Despite its apparent obviousness (to him), however, later in the same chapter he did write more about it. He trotted out scientific evidence for intellectual disparities among races that he (and many other European scientists) considered compelling: the difference in their cranial capacities. 

According to the data cited by Darwin, the Europeans have the largest cranial capacities at 92.3 cubic inches, while Asians have 87.1 cubic inches, and Australians have only 81.9 cubic inches.⁸ The lesson appeared unarguable: Europeans have greater intellectual abilities than do other races. Darwin used this same line of evidence to argue that women are intellectually inferior to men. (It should be noted that cranial capacity measurements cited above turned out to be inaccurate and misleading, and the relationship between cranial capacity and intelligence has been found to be neither straightforward nor well correlated.⁹) Later, when discussing the gap between present-day humans and simians, Darwin mentioned that the gap would only increase as the “savage races” were exterminated, because the black Africans or Australian aborigines were currently the closest races to the gorilla, which he considered the highest of the ape species.¹⁰

A Racial Struggle for Existence

In a four-page section “On the Extinction of the Races of Man,” Darwin explained that the primary cause of the extinction was a racial struggle for existence, which results in the decimation of weaker tribes and races. He claimed that the disappearance of ancient races was not the result of environmental factors or adverse circumstances. Rather, he averred, “Extinction follows chiefly from the competition of tribe with tribe, and race with race.” Though disease may aid some people in these racial competitions, direct killing is also involved, because “when one of two adjoining tribes becomes more numerous and powerful than the other, the contest is soon settled by war, slaughter, cannibalism, slavery, and absorption.” Darwin thought that in most cases the so-called civilized peoples were winning this bloody contest: “When civilised nations come into contact with barbarians the struggle is short, except where a deadly climate gives its aid to the native race.”¹¹

What shouldn’t be overlooked here is that from Darwin’s perspective, this pattern of natural selection by racial extermination was the path to human progress.

Notes

1. Darwin, Charles Darwin’s Notebooks, 537.
2. Darwin, Descent, 1:1.
3. In The Descent of Man chapter “On the Races of Man,” Darwin confirmed his belief that human races differ considerably, not only physically, but also in their mental capacities. For this reason, he considered races to be distinct sub-species. Darwin, Descent, 1:216, 227.
4. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species [1859] (London: Penguin, 1968), quotes at 129, 459.
5. Darwin, Descent, 1:3.
6. Darwin, Descent, 1:35.
7. Darwin, Descent, 1:109–110
8. Darwin, Descent, 145–146.
9. Daniel Graham, “A Bigger Brain Is Not Better,” Psychology Today, March 9, 2021, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/your-internet-brain/202103/bigger-brain-is-not-necessarily-better.
10. Darwin, Descent, 1:201.
11. Darwin, Descent, 1:238.

Designed evolution continues its ascent over evolved "design"?

 

New Study in Nature Showing “Non-Random” Mutation Spells Trouble for Neo-Darwinism

Casey Luskin

 

A correspondent asked me about a recent paper in the journal Nature, “Mutation bias reflects natural selection in Arabidopsis thaliana,” aka the commonly studied flowerweed, thale cress. The abstract states, “Since the first half of the twentieth century, evolutionary theory has been dominated by the idea that mutations occur randomly with respect to their consequences. Here we test this assumption with large surveys of de novo mutations in the plant Arabidopsis thaliana.” They show that “epigenome-associated mutation bias reduces the occurrence of deleterious mutations in Arabidopsis, challenging the prevailing paradigm that mutation is a directionless force in evolution.”

That mutation is “directionless” or “random” is a traditional axiom of evolutionary biology. My correspondent wanted to know what it means to consider that some mutations may be “non-random” after all. She supposed that she was asking a “dumb question.”

Exactly the Question to Ask

Actually, it’s not in the least a dumb question — it’s exactly the right question to ask! In the context of this paper, what “non-random” means is that mutations are less likely to occur in gene-coding DNA — especially in what they call “essential genes.” This overturns two standard assumptions of the modern theory of evolution.

In evolutionary biology, it’s generally thought that mutations are “random” in two respects:

1. Mutations occur with equal likelihood across the entire genome. So there’s no part of the genome that is MORE or LESS likely to experience mutations than any other part of the genome. This is supposed to mean mutations are not directed or concentrated, but in a sense are randomly distributed across the genome. 
2. Mutations occur without regard to the needs of the organisms, meaning they are random and not directed for or against what the organisms needs to survive. 

The Nature study found evidence against both (1) and (2). In Arabidopsis, some parts of the genome are LESS likely to experience mutations, and those parts of the genome that experience fewer mutations tend to be the REALLY important parts of the genome that you wouldn’t want to be mutated because in those sections, mutations would most likely break genes that are very important to the organism.

A Look at the Specifics

Now let’s get into more specifics. In the genomes of most higher organisms, only a small percentage of the DNA represents genes that encode proteins. The Nature study found that sections of the Arabidopsis genome that encode genes are LESS likely to experience mutations than the “intergenic” regions — the sections of the genome between genes that don’t encode proteins. They found that “the frequency of mutation was 58% lower in gene bodies than in nearby intergenic space.”

They further found that “essential genes,” such as those basic genes responsible for translation (e.g., converting the information in DNA into proteins), had even LOWER mutation rates compared to other genes that had more specialized functions.

Please also note this important point: The study was able to directly measure mutations after they occurred in the plant but before mutations could have been affected by natural selection, which might “weed out” certain mutations that have deleterious effects. So the authors think they have provided a true and accurate measure of mutations as they occur in the DNA.

Or to put it another way, mutations don’t occur randomly in the sense that some parts of the genome are less likely to experience mutations than other parts of the genome. Instead, mutations DO occur with respect to the needs of the organism. That is, in certain respects life seems to be designed to minimize mutations in the places where they would do the most damage to the organism’s basic functions.

Implications for Evolutionary Biology 

The implications for evolutionary biology are profound. If mutations aren’t equally distributed across the genome, and aren’t random with respect to the needs of the organism, then two basic tenets of the standard neo-Darwinian model are false. This also could spell trouble for neo-Darwinism because it suggests that mutation rates are lowest in areas where mutations would presumably be needed to foster evolution — i.e., they are lowest in the genes.

If mutation rates are low in the gene-coding DNA, then it will take even longer for new complex traits to arise by mutating functional genes. This exacerbates what Darwin-skeptics call the “waiting time” problem, where it takes too long for necessary mutations to arise — far longer than the amount of time allowed by the fossil record. 

Return of the Waiting-Time Problem

Intelligent design proponents have already identified the waiting time problem as a fundamental mathematical obstacle to neo-Darwinian evolution. Our colleagues published a paper in the Journal of Theoretical Biology last year, “On the waiting time until coordinated mutations get fixed in regulatory sequences,” which did mathematical modelling of the waiting time to generate traits requiring N mutations to provide an advantage. The paper found a serious challenge to neo-Darwinism:

[T]he fossil record is often interpreted as having long periods of stasis, interrupted by more abrupt changes and “explosive” origins. These changes include, for instance, the evolution of life, photo-synthesis, multicellularity and the “Avalon Explosion”, animal body plans and the “Cambrian Explosion”, complex eyes, vertebrate jaws and teeth, terrestrialization (e.g., in vascular plants, arthropods, and tetrapods), insect metamorphosis, animal flight and feathers, reproductive systems, including angiosperm flowers, amniote eggs, and the mammalian placenta, echolocation in whales and bats, and even cognitive skills of modern man. Based on radiometric dating of the available windows of time in the fossil record, these genetic changes are believed to have happened very quickly on a macroevolutionary timescale. In order to evaluate the chances for a neo-Darwinian process to bring about such major phenotypic changes, it is important to give rough but reasonable estimates of the time it would take for a population to evolve so that the required multiple genetic changes occur. [Internal citations omitted.]

Following the standards of the field, the study in Journal of Theoretical Biology adopted standard evolutionary assumptions that mutations are random — i.e., equally likely across the entire genome and occurring without respect to the needs of the organism. But the new study in Nature suggests that both these assumptions are false — and false in a way that probably makes it harder for neo-Darwinism to evolve new traits.

Transposons: ugly ducklings no more?

Cinderella Story? Transposons Gain New Respect

Evolution News @DiscoveryCSC

 

 

They’ve been called selfish. They’ve been labeled as parasites. They’ve been demonized as viral interlopers clogging up our chromosomes with useless copies, taking advantage of our replication mechanisms to perpetuate themselves. These characterizations of retrotransposons, retroviruses, and transposable elements (TEs), also called “jumping genes,” fit the Darwinian picture of entities in it for themselves, getting all they can at the expense of others, in a mindless race for fitness and survival. Recent studies indicate a changing attitude toward one of design. Though it’s too early to tell, TEs may turn out to be a Cinderella story — in line for restoration to the status of essential parts of our genomes, our health, and our lives.

“Myelin Is a Gift from Retroviruses”

Michael Denton has written about the big advantage myelin gives to neurons. “This design allows for what is termed ‘saltatory conduction,” he writes, “where the nerve impulse, instead of travelling sedately and continuously down the axon, jumps from node to node, vastly increasing the speed of transmission.” 

Now John Hewitt writes at Phys.org that “Myelin is a gift from retroviruses.” It’s not the only gift from these “opportunistic” elements that “make up over half our genome” —

Functional retrotransposons have been progressively implicated in all manner of things neurobiological.The maintenance of stem cell identity and mosaicism, incidence of neurological diseases and fusion of cells in the brain by sundry spike proteins are all now understood to be jobs for transposable elements. Writing in the bioRxiv preprint server, researchers have now discovered that vertebrate myelin likely originated when retrovirally derived elements inserted in the genome at key positions to trigger massive expression of their signature protein, Mbp (myelin basic protein). [Emphasis added.]

Hewitt continues to cast these TEs into evolutionary roles, but a design interpretation becomes possible when we compare his story with the fate of the junk DNA story. First there were a few examples found of function in the junk. Those numbers grew, to where now some believe all noncoding DNA is functional. In a previous article at Phys.org, Hewitt had admitted that the ENCODE results startled scientists into reconsidering the role of TEs. That project along with earlier studies showed that TEs were being translated, and appeared to be active in somatic cells, not just in germline cells.

Alongside these prodigious announcements was a parallel observation that much more of the genome is actually transcribed than had formerly been appreciated. Rather than just a few genes being expressed here or there, studies revealed that upwards of 80 percent of our entire genome is likely translated into some kind of RNA. With half a genome’s worth of retroviral additions, many of these transcriptions are undoubtedly retrotransposons one sort or another.

TEs: Enemies, Frenemies, or Friends?

More intimations of a change in attitude about transposons appeared this year. At The Scientist, Christie Wilcox wrote about “Adapting with a little help from jumping genes.” 

TEs, also called transposons or jumping genes, are often cast in a negative evolutionary light. And there is a reason for that: when these sequences insert themselves into new places in the genome, they can mess up genes or alter their expression. They’re sometimes called junk DNA, or worse, genomic parasites, the idea being that they would mutate their host genomes into oblivion if they weren’t almost always silenced by epigenetic modifications such as methylation. But recent research is illuminating the intricacies of TE function and adding texture to this simplistic model.

Wilcox quotes scientists who relate their changes in thinking. The trend these days is to see transposons less as “parasites” and more as “symbionts” that can cause benefit or harm, depending on where they land in the genome. For instance, by regulating genes near to their insertion points, they can “preadapt” an organism to changes in the environment. Here’s an interesting case involving one of evolution’s favorite icons, the peppered moth:

Arguably the most immediate and dramatic impacts TEs have on genomes occur when they insert into active genes. They can jump into coding regions, altering protein sequences, or they can insert into noncoding regions and alter gene splicing or expression. This is what happened in peppered moths, when a 22-kb TE inserted into the cortex gene and led to overproduction of melanin, turning dark the normally lightly bespeckled moths and improving their survival in polluted environments.

Notice the wholesale change in the story. (This is assuming that the dark moths land on blackened tree trunks, which as Jonathan Wells has documented, is factually incorrect; we’re just using Wilcox’s opinion as an indication of a change in attitude.) Instead of positing a random single-nucleotide mutation being selected blindly in the old neo-Darwinian way of thinking, a sequence of coded information is now used in the explanation. A Darwinist would have to argue that code able to help the moth just “happened” to pre-exist and landed in the right spot of a gene to turn it dark. It’s possible to imagine that, but more difficult to support as a blind process. Wilcox shares another case of preadaptation by a transposon:

Unlike point mutations, some TEs come preloaded with genetic motifs that may affect the expression of nearby genes. Certain populations of Drosophila carry the TE insertion FBti0019386, for example, which contains transcription factor binding sites that are activated during a bacterial infection and that increase expression of the immune-related gene Bin1. Flies carrying FBti0019386 are more likely to survive inoculation with a pathogenic strain of Pseudomonas.

One other example is that TEs may become activated by stress. This could indicate that they stand ready to assist the organism in hard times by regulating gene expression.

An Evolving Picture

Like Hewitt, Wilcox fits the new findings into an evolutionary narrative, but that slant may be difficult to maintain at the rate discoveries are coming in. Readers should recall how similar attempts were made to cast junk DNA and vestigial organs in Darwinian terms. In the end, it was function that won out, and design explanations were vindicated. Design theorists may be once again ahead of the curve in explaining these mysterious pieces of mobile code — mysterious, because questions remain that will continue to challenge both approaches:

“You can find transposable elements in virtually all the organisms that have been studied [genetically], from bacteria to eukaryotes,” notes evolutionary biologist Josefa González of the Spanish Research Council (CSIC). But while TEs are nearly universal throughout living organisms, their prevalence varies widely. In some organisms, TEs dominate, accounting for up to 90 percent of the genome, while in others, transposable elements make up only a fraction of the entire genetic code. When abundant, TEs can grow the size of the genome to enormous, unwieldy proportions that continue to baffle scientists.

The picture of TEs is changing from “selfish opportunists” to “occasional partners in regulation.” Basically, TEs are being described as larger versions of random mutations occasionally found to persist by natural selection. But can any Darwinian narrative be sustained, when the point of Darwinism is to imagine adaptation by sheer dumb luck? Why would a stretch of code many kilobases long, existing simply for its own replication, just happen to be useful to another organism? 

“If Something Works”

Recall Paul Nelson’s maxim, “If something works, it’s not happening by accident.” Humans have been reproducing since their appearance on earth. And yet still today, many healthy babies are born, with all their parts in working order, and many of those grow to be strong and athletic adults. If TEs making up half the human genome were so selfish and parasitic, how could that continue for many hundreds or thousands of generations with genomes filled with parasites? 

For over a decade, contributing authors at Evolution News have hinted that endogenous retroviruses and other mobile elements might have functions (McLatchie 2012, Luskin 2015, Hunter 2017, Luskin 2019). Yet questions remain about their quantities, distributions, and effects in organisms. Are the targets where TEs insert themselves random or purposeful? What happens when they cause disease — could those cases be due to broken processes? Why do proportions of TEs vary so widely between organisms? Is there a pattern in the distribution somewhere? The subject of gut biota has undergone a major rethink over the years; now, scientists understand that we have a profoundly necessary and complex relationship with our bacterial partners; sometimes they cause problems, but usually the relationship works. Could there be an analogous relationship with our TEs? 

The easy way out is to call it random. Now that pro-Darwin establishment scientists and reporters are increasingly admitting that TEs are not useless or selfish after all, design theorists can take a strong lead in proposing testable hypotheses that consider foresight and software engineering principles. Code that can jump around is code nonetheless.

Speciation vs. Darwinism.

Top Scientific Problems with Evolution: Speciation

Jonathan Wells

 

 

Editor’s note: We are delighted to present a series by biologist Jonathan Wells on the top scientific problems with evolution. This is the seventh entry in the series, excerpted from the new book The Comprehensive Guide to Science and Faith: Exploring the Ultimate Questions About Life and the Cosmos. Find the full series so far here.

We know that speciation has occurred because many new species have appeared in the history of life. Evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote, “Darwin called his great work On the Origin of Species, for he was fully conscious of the fact that the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”¹ According to evolutionary biologist Douglas Futuyma, speciation “is the sine qua non of diversity” required for evolution. Speciation “stands at the border between microevolution — the genetic changes within and among populations — and macroevolution.”²

But How Does Speciation Occur? 

Part of the problem is that the term species is notoriously difficult to define. A definition applicable to plants and animals won’t necessarily work for bacteria, and definitions applicable to living things won’t necessarily work for fossils. As of 2004, several dozen definitions were in use among biologists and paleontologists.³ The definition most often used by evolutionary biologists is the “biological species concept,” according to which species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.⁴

If species are defined this way, then in one sense speciation has been observed in the laboratory. Normally when two different species hybridize, either naturally or artificially, the hybrids are sterile because the maternal and paternal chromosomes are too dissimilar and cannot pair up in cell division. Occasionally, however, the hybrid undergoes chromosome doubling, or polyploidy. With matching sets of chromosomes that can undergo cell division, the hybrid may then be fertile and constitute a new species under the biological species concept. In the first decades of the 20th century, Swedish scientist Arne Müntzing used two plant species to make a hybrid that underwent chromosome doubling to produce hempnettle, a member of the mint family that had already been found in nature.⁵

Speciation by polyploidy is called secondary speciation to distinguish it from primary speciation — the splitting of one species into two. According to Douglas Futuyma, polyploidy “does not confer major new morphological characteristics…[and] does not cause the evolution of new genera” or higher levels in the biological hierarchy.⁶ So although secondary speciation by polyploidy has been observed in flowering plants, it is not the solution to Darwin’s problem. The solution would be primary speciation by variation and selection, which has not been observed.

Darwin and Incipient Species

In 1940, geneticist Richard Goldschmidt argued that “the facts of microevolution do not suffice for an understanding of macroevolution.” He concluded, “Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.”⁷

Darwin used the term incipient species to refer to a variety of one species he thought was in the process of becoming a new species: “I believe a well-marked variety may be justly called an incipient species.”⁸ But how can we possibly know whether two varieties (or races) are in the process of becoming separate species? Saint Bernards and Chihuahuas are two varieties of the dog species (Canis lupis familiaris) that, for anatomical reasons, do not interbreed naturally. Are they on their way to becoming separate species? The Ainu people of northern Japan and the !Kung of southern Africa are members of the human species (Homo sapiens sapiens). Although people from both groups could undoubtedly interbreed, without modern technology, which affords mass movement of people around the globe, they would be (for all practical purposes) reproductively isolated geographically, linguistically, and culturally. Are they therefore incipient species? Clearly, Darwin’s term incipient species is a theoretical prediction, not evidence.

Origin of a New Species?

We sometime read in the news media that scientists have finally observed the origin of a new species. Such cases, however, are invariably either examples of incipient speciation, or cases in which scientists have inferred from already-existing species how they might have split in the past.⁹ Observational evidence for primary speciation is still missing.

In 1992, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote, “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution’s smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.” Before Darwin, Thomson explained, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally. “Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, and “so do we.”¹⁰

In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote: 

Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest. 

They concluded, “The origin of species — Darwin’s problem — remains unsolved.”¹¹

Evidence of Primary Speciation

English bacteriologist Alan Linton went looking for evidence of primary speciation and concluded in 2001:

None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of twenty to thirty minutes, and populations achieved after eighteen hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another…Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic [e.g., bacterial] to eukaryotic [e.g., plant and animal] cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms.¹²

In 2002, evolutionary biologists Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan wrote, “Speciation, whether in the remote Galápagos, in the laboratory cages of the drosophilosophers [those who study fruit flies], or in the crowded sediments of the paleontologists, still has never been directly traced.”¹³ So evolution’s smoking gun is still missing.

Next, the concluding entry in the series, “Darwin’s One Wrong Argument.”

Notes

1. Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982), 403.
2. Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolution (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2005), 401.
3. Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2004), 25.
4. Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, 273; Coyne and Orr, Speciation, 26-35.
5. Arne Müntzing, “Cytogenetic Investigations on Synthetic Galeopsis tetrahit,” Hereditas 16 (1932), 105-154.
6. Futuyma, Evolution, 398.
7. Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1940), 8, 396.
8. Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, 1st ed., 52, http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?pageseq=67&itemID=F373&viewtype=side (accessed August 23, 2020).
9. Jonathan Wells, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design (Washington, DC: Regnery, 2006), 52-55.
10. Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,” American Scientist 85 (1997), 516-518.
11. Scott F. Gilbert, John M. Opitz, and Rudolf A. Raff, “Resynthesizing Evolutionary and Developmental Biology,” Developmental Biology 173 (1996), 357-372.
12. Alan H. Linton, “Scant Search for the Maker,” The Times Higher Education Supplement (April 20, 2001), Book Section, 29.
13. Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan, Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of Species (New York: Basic Books, 2002), 32.

Jonathan Wells

Esperanto: A brief history.

Esperanto (/ˌɛspəˈrɑːntoʊ/ or /ˌɛspəˈræntoʊ/)^[5][6] is the world's most widely spoken constructed international auxiliary language. Created by Polish ophthalmologist L. L. Zamenhof in 1887, it was intended to be a universal second language for international communication, or "the international language" (la lingvo internacia). Zamenhof first described the language in Dr. Esperanto's International Language (Unua Libro), which he published in five languages^[a] under the pseudonym "Doktoro Esperanto"; the word esperanto translates into English as "one who hopes."^[7] Zamenhof claimed that the grammar of the language could be learned in one hour, though this estimate assumed a learner with a background in European languages.

Within the range of constructed languages, Esperanto occupies a middle ground between "naturalistic" (imitating existing natural languages) and a priori (where features are not based on existing languages). Although Esperanto's vocabulary, syntax, and semantics derive predominantly from Standard Average European languages of the Indo-European group, its grammar is highly regular when compared to these languages, and as such it is considered an easy language to learn. The vocabulary derives primarily from Romance languages, with substantial contributions from Germanic languages. One of the language's most notable features is its extensive system of derivation, where prefixes and suffixes may be freely combined with roots to generate words, making it possible to communicate effectively with a smaller set of words.

Esperanto is the most successful international auxiliary language and the only such language with a population of native speakers, of which there are perhaps several thousand.^[1] Usage estimates are difficult, but two recent estimates put the number of active speakers at around 100,000.^[2] Concentration of speakers is highest in Europe, East Asia, and South America. Although no country has adopted Esperanto officially, Esperantujo ("Esperanto-land") is used as a name for the collection of places where it is spoken. The language has also gained a noticeable presence on the internet in recent years, as it became increasingly accessible on platforms such as Duolingo, Wikipedia and Google Translate.^[8][9] Esperanto speakers are often called "Esperantists" (Esperantistoj).

 

Designed Intelligence vs. Darwinism.

New Book, Animal Algorithms, Spells Fresh Trouble for Darwinism

Jonathan Witt@JonathanRWitt

 

In Animal Algorithms: Evolution and the Mysterious Origin of Ingenious Instincts author Eric Cassell explores the buzzing, migrating, web-spinning, and colony-building world of ingenious animals blessed with gobsmackingly impressive skills — in many cases, from birth. 

How do blind mound-building termites know passive heating and cooling strategies that dazzle skilled human architects? What taught the honeybee its dance, or its hive mates how to read the complex message of the dance? How do monarch butterflies known to fly thousands of miles to a single mountainside in Mexico, to a place they’ve never been before? 

The secret, according to author Eric Cassell: behavioral algorithms embedded in their tiny brains.

The Problem for Darwinists

But how did these embedded programs arise in the history of life? There’s the problem for evolutionists. “Specified complexity, irreducible complexity, and the Cambrian explosion are inexplicable from a Darwinian viewpoint,” comments Baylor University computer engineer and intelligent design theorist Robert J. Marks. “In this book, Cassell masterfully adds animal algorithms to the list.”

Several other specialists have praised the book, including an entomologist, a paleoentomologist, and a neurobiologist.

The entomologist, Malcolm Chisolm, describes it as an enjoyable read that is also very well-researched. Melissa Cain Travis, author of Science and the Mind of the Maker, calls it “a fascinating exploration,” and says, “Readers will come away with a clear understanding of why the algorithmic dances of organisms such as bees, ants, and butterflies pose an enormous challenge to the materialist evolutionary paradigm.” 

Cassell has degrees in biology and electrical engineering. Much of his professional work has focused on flight navigation systems, including GPS. He has done extensive consulting work for the FAA and NASA.

Learning from the Birds and the Bees

“I happened to read some articles about bird migration and was surprised about how they could navigate so accurately,” Cassel said in explaining what drew him into the study of animal navigation. “Having worked on aircraft navigation systems, I was intrigued to know what method the birds use.”

There was also a bee experiment from his undergraduate days. “We followed bees as they foraged in a field of flowers,” he says. “One conclusion from the experiment indicated that the bees, rather than searching for food in a random manner, were following a specific efficient strategy. That urged the question as to how an animal with such a small brain is able to do that.”

Animal Algorithms promises to delight many of Discovery Institute Press’s loyal fans as well as attract new readers — the sort who might have little interest in molecular biology and fossils but who are fascinated by the macro world of animal behavior. Cassell points to another group the book is well suited for: biologists and engineers eager to learn more about applying systems engineering principles to complex programmed animal behaviors.

Get your copy now.

Darwinism vs. The science.

 

Top Scientific Problems with Evolution: Natural Selection

Jonathan Wells

 

 

Editor’s note: We are delighted to present a series by biologist Jonathan Wells on the top scientific problems with evolution. This is the fifth entry in the series, excerpted from the new book The Comprehensive Guide to Science and Faith: Exploring the Ultimate Questions About Life and the Cosmos. Find the full series so far here.

In the Introduction to On the Origin of Species Darwin wrote, “I am fully convinced that species are not immutable.” He continued, “Furthermore, I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the main but not exclusive means of modification.”¹

But Darwin had no evidence for natural selection. In On the Origin of Species, the best he could offer was “one or two imaginary illustrations.”² So instead of direct evidence for natural selection, Darwin (who himself bred pigeons) based his argument on domestic breeding, or what is often called artificial selection. He noted that “the breeding of domestic animals was carefully attended to in ancient times,” and that “its importance consists in the great effect produced by the accumulation in one direction, during successive generations, of differences absolutely inappreciable by an uneducated eye.”³

The Origin of Species

Yet in all the years of domestic breeding, no one ever reported the origin of a new species, much less a new organ or body plan. In the 1930s, neo-Darwinian biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky used the word microevolution to refer to changes within existing species (such as those observed by domestic breeders), and the word macroevolution to refer to the origin of new species, organs, and body plans. He wrote,

There is no way toward an understanding of the mechanisms of macroevolutionary changes, which require time on a geological scale, other than through a full comprehension of the microevolutionary processes observable within the span of a human lifetime and often controlled by man’s will. For this reason we are compelled at the present level of knowledge reluctantly to put a sign of equality between the mechanisms of macro- and microevolution, and proceeding on this assumption, to push our investigations as far ahead as this working hypothesis will permit.⁴

Evidence for Natural Selection?

But a “working hypothesis” is not evidence. It wasn’t until the 1950s that British naturalist Bernard Kettlewell discovered what appeared to be the first evidence for natural selection. Peppered moths in the UK exist predominantly in two varieties: dark (“melanic”) and light. Before the 19th-century industrial revolution, melanic forms were rare or absent, but when smoke from industrial cities darkened nearby tree trunks, the melanic form became much more common. This phenomenon, called industrial melanism, was attributed to melanic moths being better camouflaged than light moths and thus less visible to predatory birds: in other words, to natural selection. 

Kettlewell captured some of each variety and marked them with a tiny spot of paint. Then he released them onto dark- or light-colored tree trunks. When he recaptured some the next day, he found that a significantly greater proportion of better-camouflaged moths survived. Kettlewell termed this this “Darwin’s missing evidence.”⁵ The story, usually illustrated with photos of light- and dark-colored peppered moths on light- and dark-colored tree trunks, was featured for decades in many biology textbooks as compelling evidence for evolution.⁶

The Habits of Peppered Moths

By the 1980s, however, it had become clear that peppered moths don’t normally rest on tree trunks in the wild. They fly by night and rest during the day in upper branches where they can’t be seen. By releasing moths onto tree trunks in the daytime, Kettlewell’s experiment failed to simulate natural conditions. It turned out that most textbook photographs had been staged by pinning dead moths on tree trunks or by placing live moths in unnatural positions and photographing them before they moved away.⁷

Better evidence for natural selection came from finches in the Galápagos Islands in the 1970s. The islands were home to what biologists listed as 13 different species of finches, and biologists Peter and Rosemary Grant and their colleagues studied one of these on a single island. The Grants and their colleagues kept detailed records of each finch species’ anatomy, including the length and depth of their beaks. When a severe drought in 1977 killed many of the islands’ plants, about 85 percent of the birds died. The Grants and their colleagues noted that the survivors had beaks that were, on average, 5 percent larger than the population average before the drought, presumably because the surviving birds were better able to crack the tough seeds left by the drought. In other words, the shift was due to natural selection. The Grants estimated that if a similar drought occurred every ten years, the birds’ beaks would continue to get larger until they would qualify as a new species in 200 years.⁸

The Arrival of the Fittest

When the drought ended and the rains returned, however, food was plentiful, and the average beak size returned to normal. No net evolution had occurred.⁹ Nevertheless, “Darwin’s finches” found their way into most biology textbooks as evidence for evolution by natural selection.¹⁰

So there is evidence for natural selection, but like domestic breeding, it has never been observed to produce anything more than microevolution. As Dutch botanist Hugo de Vries wrote in 1904, “Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest.”¹¹

For the arrival of the fittest, most modern evolutionary biologists rely on mutations.

 

 

Notes

1. Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, 1st ed., 6, http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?pageseq=21&itemID=F373&viewtype=side (accessed August 23, 2020).
2. Darwin, Origin of Species, 1st ed., 90, http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?pageseq=105&itemID=F373&viewtype=side (accessed August 23, 2020).
3. Darwin, Origin of Species, 1st ed., 32-34, http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?pageseq=47&itemID=F373&viewtype=side (accessed August 23, 2020).
4. Theodosius Dobzhansky, Genetics and the Origin of Species (New York: Columbia University Press, 1937), 12.
5. H.B.D. Kettlewell, “Darwin’s missing evidence,” Scientific American 200 (1959), 48–53.
6. Jonathan Wells, “Second Thoughts About Peppered Moths: This classical story of evolution by natural selection needs revising,” The Scientist 13 (May 24, 1999), https://www.discovery.org/a/590/ (accessed August 23, 2020); Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution (Washington, DC: Regnery, 2000), 137-157.
7. Judith Hooper, Of Moths and Men: Intrigue, Tragedy and the Peppered Moth (London, UK: Fourth Estate, 2002); Wells, Zombie Science, 63-66.
8. Peter T. Boag and Peter R. Grant, “Intense natural selection in a population of Darwin’s finches (Geospizinae) in the Galápagos,” Science 214 (1981), 82-85.
9. H. Lisle Gibbs and Peter R. Grant, “Oscillating selection on Darwin’s finches,” Nature 327 (1987), 511-513.
10. Wells, Icons of Evolution, 159-175.
11. Hugo de Vries, Species and Varieties, Their Origin by Mutation, 2d ed. (Chicago, IL: Open Court Press, 1906), 825-826, https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7234/7234-h/7234-h.htm (accessed August 23, 2020).

 

The fossil record refuses to play nice with Darwinian apologists.

 

Fossil Follies from Around the Science Literature

Evolution News @DiscoveryCSC

Darwin knew that the fossil record did not support his theory of gradual increase in complexity through time but hoped that new fossil discoveries would fill in the narrative. 170 years of collecting has not helped. The Cambrian explosion is perhaps the best-known mismatch, but there are others. Adding to the difficulty, different dating methods often conflict with each other.

Monkeying with the Data

It would have been convenient for evolutionists if Africa and South America had split after monkeys had evolved, but they didn’t. This left them with klutzy explanations of how Old World monkeys evolved in Africa after the split, and then got to South America to become New World monkeys. The common story now is that they rafted over on vegetation across the Atlantic — a curious speculation, considering that sea captains these days never witness monkey families rafting out in the mid-Atlantic without fresh water or food. 

In PNAS, Campbell et al. manage to pull widely different dates for two sites in eastern Peru closer together. They had to struggle, though, with disagreements between different dating methods for nearby sites. In any case, their work did not help get the monkeys across the ocean. Peru is very far inland from Brazil where a raft might have washed ashore, so time for migration must be factored in. Watching the evolutionists monkeying with the data and hiding their difficulties with euphemisms (“trans-Atlantic dispersal”) is entertaining if not pitiful.

Though anthropoids are rare in the Santa Rosa paleofauna, they are of outsized importance, as they potentially represent the oldest records of that clade in South America, and their inferred age would constrain scenariosfor the timing of the trans-Atlantic dispersal of stem platyrrhines from Africa. [Emphasis added.]

Footprints in the White Sands of Time

Speaking of America, evolutionary anthropologists will have to drastically revise the timeline of the first human arrivals in North America with the discovery of tens of thousands of human footprints, mostly of teenagers, at White Sands National Park, New Mexico. The problem is that they are being dated at 23,000 years old — about 40 percent earlier than the previous maximum date of 16,500 years for the time in which modern humans from Asia are thought to have crossed a land bridge at the Bering Strait into Alaska. (Note, too, that New Mexico is an additional 4,000 miles from the Bering Strait.) Bennett and Reynolds from Bournemouth University in the UK describe this upset in The Conversation — an upset in time as well as in expected behavior for products of evolution.

We tend to picture our ancestors engaged in life-or-death struggles — forced to battle the elements simply to survive. Yet the White Sands evidence is suggestive of a playful, relatively relaxed setting, with teenagers and children spending time together in a group.

Philosophically speaking, until now it was textbook truth that our species arrived in America not more than 16,500 years ago. If the radiocarbon dates of seeds found around the footprints are correct, the truth has evolved. When truth evolves, many connected concepts must also evolve.

The White Sands footprints provide unequivocal evidence that people were in the Americas at the height of the last glacial maximum, rather than some time after, as was previously thought. That’s a big deal for our understanding of the peopling of the Americas and the genetic composition of indigenous Americans.

The research has been published in Science by Bennett et al., “Evidence of humans in North America during the Last Glacial Maximum.” The BBC News quotes other researchers who are flummoxed by the findings. Gary Haynes at the University of Nevada calls the tracks “provocative” since they are so far south of the Bering land bridge. Does it imply that other people crossed even earlier? Did they move across the continent quickly? Where are their descendants? Dr. Andrea Manica at the University of Cambridge is even more confused.

“I can’t comment on how reliable the dating is (it is outside my expertise), but firm evidence of humans in North America 23,000 years ago is at odds with the genetics, which clearly shows a split of Native Americans from Asians approximately 15-16,000 years ago,” he told BBC News.

“This would suggest that the initial colonists of the Americas were replaced when the ice corridor formed and another wave of colonists came in. We have no idea how that happened.“

Another Instant Cambrian Predator

As noted here already, a large radiodont (related to the Cambrian predator Anomalocaris) was reported by Caron and Moysiuk in Royal Society Open Science. Named Titanokorys gainesi, it was found in the Marble Canyon area which is older than the Burgess Shale by 100,000 years. It dates at 508 million years. Titanokorys had a large head shield or carapace, raptorial appendages for digging or grasping prey, and teeth surrounding a circular mouth. Larger than some other similar species, this one could have reached 50 cm in length. Live Science shows a rotating artist conception of the impressive “helmet-headed sea monster” which was apparently a well-equipped swimming predator. The ease with which reporters ascribe magical powers to evolution needs serious correction. 

Life existed on Earth long before the Cambrian, but during the early part of that period — about 541 million to 530 million years ago — animal bodies got weird. During this boom time for evolution, known as the Cambrian explosion, species evolved and diversified at an unparalleled pace, producing creatures with daggerlike tails; spiny arms; Swiss-army-knife heads; mouths full of needles; and bodies that were so densely covered with bristles they resembled kitchen brushes.

Comb jellies (ctenophores) are also aggravating Darwin’s dilemma. Three scientists writing in The Conversation describe new specimens from Utah that are more complex than ones living today! Then they raise the hypothesis that these complex animals, with nerves, rows of bioluminescent cilia and muscles, are the first animals before sponges. After acknowledging the Cambrian explosion, they say of the Precambrian,

Before then, animals were very simple and largely microscopic, but in the geological blink of an eye, most of the modern phyla of animals (metazoans) appeared, including arthropods, molluscs and vertebrates.Ctenophores have long been thought to be near the base of the animal tree of life, resembling other primitive forms such as cnidarians (corals and jellyfish). Sponges look primitive because they lack a nervous system and organized tissues, and they only have a few cell types.

Ctenophores and cnidarians, despite their relative simplicity, are much more complex than sponges, so it was traditionally assumed that sponges were at the absolute base of the animal family tree — the “sponges-first hypothesis.”

However, some recent genomic studies have proposed that comb jellies are actually even lower on the family tree than sponges, a “ctenophores-first” hypothesis. This radical idea remains highly controversial because sponges have been assumed to be more primitive than ctenophores for more than 150 years.

Whoops, Wrong Date

For the last instance of fossil follies, an embarrassing retraction was made in the Darwinist literature that is quite comical in the scope of its correction. Not long ago, science news outlets were announcing a phenomenal find of animal burrows 1.2 billion years old — 400 million years older than the previous multicellular animal known, and nearly twice as old as the Ediacaran organisms that preceded the Cambrian explosion. Writing in New Scientist, reporter Jason Arunn Murugesu announces that the “Mystery of ancient burrows older than earliest animals has been solved.” 

By comparing the samples to other rocks and fossils in the area, and uranium-lead dating the minerals found in the burrows, the team estimated the holes were made 40 to 50 million years ago. The team found that the sandstone had subsequently hardened due to the arid conditions of the region, giving the impression that the burrows had been made much earlier than they actually were.

From 1.2 billion to 50 million years: that is some error! A correction this large, swinging from the Paleocene to the Eocene at the other end of the geological column, raises questions about scientists’ ability to interpret trace fossils. 

What should astound observers even more is the credulity of many scientists and reporters who had accepted the earlier date. Anthony Shillito at the University of Oxford called this a Darwin victory after the fact by remarking that the correction “fits much better with our current understanding of early animal evolution.” Given the ability of evolutionists to fit any data to the prevailing Darwinian narrative, one can only wonder about the degree of that “current understanding” in the first place.