Be grateful for your body's flawless design.

A Physician’s Fantastic Voyage through Your Designed Body 

 Evolution news 

On a new episode of ID the Future, Your Designed Body author and physician Howard Glicksman takes a close looks with Philosophy for the People podcast host Pat Flynn at Glicksman’s new book, co-authored with systems engineer Steve Laufmann. As Glicksman puts it, he and Laufmann consider not just how the human body appears but what it actually takes for it to work and not die, and what this implies for evolutionary theory.

Begin by piling up the layers of complexity in the human body — the layer upon layer of complex interdependent systems. Then ask hard questions about whether any blind and gradual evolutionary process could have kept our evolutionary ancestors alive at every generational stage as all this was gradually engineered by countless random mutations over millions of generations, beginning with the first single-celled organisms billions of years ago. Once one faces those hard questions without retreating to vague just-so stories about nature needing vision (or hearing or any number of other bodily functions) and therefore magically evolving it, at that point Darwinism’s story of gradual and blind evolution collapses. The explanation that is left standing, according to Glicksman, Laufmann, and Your Designed Body, is intelligent design. Download the podcast or listen to it here

Darwinism's failure as a predictive model XVIII

 Darwinism's Predictions 

Cornelius G Hunter 

Ever since Darwin the universal evolutionary tree has been a unifying principle in biology. Evolution predicted that this universal tree can be derived by arranging the species according to their similarities and differences. And as more data became available, particularly from the dramatic breakthroughs in molecular biology in the latter half of the twentieth century, expectations were high for the determination of this tree. As one paper explains, “Once universal characters were available for all organisms, the Darwinian vision of a universal representation of all life and its evolutionary history suddenly became a realistic possibility. Increasing reference was made to this universal, molecule-based phylogeny as the ‘comprehensive’ tree of the “entire spectrum of life” (O’Malley and Koonin) But those expectations were dashed: “By the mid-1980s there was great optimism that molecular techniques would finally reveal the universal tree of life in all its glory. Ironically, the opposite happened.” (Lawton)

 

As one study explained, the problem is so confusing that results “can lead to high confidence in incorrect hypotheses.” And although evolutionists thought that more data would solve their problems, the opposite has occurred. With the ever increasing volumes of data, incongruence between trees “has become pervasive.” (Dávalos) As another researcher explained, “Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves.” (Woese) These incongruities are not minor statistical variations and the general failure to converge on a single topology has some researchers calling for a relaxation from “tree-thinking.” (Bapteste, et. al.) Nor are these incongruities limited to protein-coding genes. As one research commented, “I’ve looked at thousands of microRNA genes, and I can’t find a single example that would support the traditional tree.” (Dolgin) 

These incongruities have forced evolutionists to filter the data carefully in order to obtain evolutionary trees. As one paper explains, “selecting genes with strong phylogenetic signals and demonstrating the absence of significant incongruence are essential for accurately reconstructing ancient divergences.” (Salichos and Rokas) But this raises the question of whether the resulting tree is real: “Hierarchical structure can always be imposed on or extracted from such data sets by algorithms designed to do so, but at its base the universal TOL [tree of life] rests on an unproven assumption about pattern that, given what we know about process, is unlikely to be broadly true.” (Doolittle and Bapteste). 

References 

Bapteste E., et. al. 2005. “Do orthologous gene phylogenies really support tree-thinking?.” BMC Evolutionary Biology 5:33.

 

Dávalos L., et. al. 2012. “Understanding phylogenetic incongruence: lessons from phyllostomid bats.” Biological Reviews Cambridge Philosophical Society 87:991-1024.

 

Dolgin, E. 2012. “Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution.” Nature 486:460-462.

 

Doolittle, W., E. Bapteste. 2007. “Pattern pluralism and the Tree of Life hypothesis.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104:2043-2049.

 

Lawton, G. 2009. “Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life.” New Scientist January 21.

 

O’Malley, M., E. Koonin. 2011. “How stands the Tree of Life a century and a half after The Origin?.” Biology Direct 6:32.

 

Salichos L., A. Rokas. 2013. “Inferring ancient divergences requires genes with strong phylogenetic signals.” Nature 497:327-331.

Woese C. 1998. “The universal ancestor.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 95:6854-6859. 

On the salt of the earth and the design Inference.

Salt of the Earth Regulates Habitability 

 David Coppedge 

nasa’s astrobiology program leans heavily on the assumption that any location where liquid water can persist is a potential place for life to emerge and evolve. consequently, those interested in the question of life beyond the earth have typically limited their searches to watery places. usually those were planets orbiting within their particular “continuously habitable zone” (chz), defined as the distance from the host star where h2o could remain in the liquid state for long periods of time. the chz has inner and outer radii with temperatures between 0 and 100°c, the freezing and boiling points for h2o. if a planet stays within the chz throughout its orbit, it is deemed “habitable” whether or not it has inhabitants.

later astrobiologists realized that other locations with liquid water exist. subsurface oceans of water are suspected on icy moons like europa at jupiter, enceladus at saturn, triton at neptune, and possibly a few others. because in situ investigation of those places are unlikely till far in the future, we will restrict our discussion to the orbital chzs. one caveat about habitable zones is that they can migrate. some types of host stars become hotter or cooler over time. the chz, correspondingly, will move outward or inward. 

Faint Young Sun 

Our own sun is thought to have been 20 percent cooler in its early history. As Earth could not have migrated inward to adjust, this creates a “faint young sun paradox” that astrobiologists must address in their models of life’s history on Earth. If a faint sun resulted in Earth orbiting outside the CHZ for a time, it could have become a giant “Snowball Earth” that could only melt back to normal with difficulty. A Snowball Earth could be a dead end; the high albedo of water ice would reflect more solar warmth back out to space. Some doubt it could ever recover. It’s best, therefore, to avoid snowball scenarios in models of Earth history.

A deeper dive into requirements for habitability shows that it is too simplistic to assume that being “in the zone” (CHZ) qualifies a planet for habitability. The right atmosphere, crustal composition, inclination, obliquity, rotation period, and other factors bear strongly on the question. Books such as The Privileged Planet, Rare Earth, and A Fortunate Universe have added to the list of requirements, including factors like stellar class, the avoidance of tidal locking, and presence of a stabilizing large moon. Most recently, Denton’s The Miracle of Man and the earlier books in his Privileged Species series have focused attention on essential chemical elements for life — over a dozen of them — that must be available near the surface of putative habitable planets. His book The Wonder of Water (see the video below) explains H2O’s many properties that benefit life. 

Climate Consequences 

And yet one property of water — its ion content — has been largely neglected by astrobiologists. Table salt (NaCl) is the most common ionic compound in sea water. Its ease of dissolving in water sets up electrical properties between its positive sodium (Na+) and negative chlorine (Cl–) ions. As a paper discussed below says, “Salt affects seawater density and ocean dynamics via direct mass effects and through its influence on charge density and ionic interactions with polar water molecules.” One effect of salinity is lowering the freezing point of water; this is the reason for salting roads in winter.

Sea water on Earth presently contains about 35g/kg of NaCl. Has this value remained constant throughout the history of the Earth? And does the concentration of salt in a planet’s oceans have any effect on its habitability? Surprisingly, the relationship between salinity and habitability has received scant attention till now. News from Purdue University announced that “salt may be the key to life on Earth and beyond.”

The composition of the atmosphere, especially the abundance of greenhouse gases, influences Earth’s climate. Researchers at Purdue University, led by Stephanie Olson, assistant professor of earth, atmospheric, and planetary sciences, have recently found that the presence of salt in seawater can also have a major impact on the habitability of Earth and other planets. 

The Purdue team modeled the effects of salinity and found that increases or decreases in ocean salt concentration have profound effects on habitability. Their paper, by Olson et al., “The Effect of Ocean Salinity on Climate and Its Implications for Earth’s Habitability,” was published open access in Geophysical Research Letters. 

The influence of atmospheric composition on the climates of present-day and early Earth has been studied extensively, but the role of ocean composition has received less attention. 

A major finding in the paper is that high salinity warms the climate by affecting ocean currents. This may answer, the authors believe, the faint young sun paradox: i.e., how our planet avoided the Snowball Earth scenario when the solar luminosity (solar energy per unit area, in watts per square meter) was 20 percent lower, according to theories of stellar evolution for G2 main sequence stars like our sun. 

We find that saltier oceans yield warmer climates in large part due to changes in ocean dynamics. Increasing ocean salinity from 20 to 50 g/kg results in a 71% reduction in sea ice cover in our present-day Earth scenario. This same salinity change also halves the pCO2 threshold at which Snowball glaciation occurs in our Archean scenarios. In combination with higher levels of greenhouse gases such as CO2 and CH4, a saltier ocean may allow for a warm Archean Earth with only seasonal ice at the poles despite receiving ∼20% less energy from the Sun. 

Ecological Consequences 

Too much salt, on the other hand, can be hostile to life. Watch plant roots bend to avoid salt in a news item from the University of Copenhagen. The Purdue authors did not consider the effects on organisms with 50g/kg NaCl (their highest model value). Some organisms are remarkably salt-tolerant now, but evolutionists do not think they began that way. The Dead Sea, with over 340 g/kg, is dead for a reason. Rising salinity in California’s Salton Sea has killed most of the fish that once attracted anglers to its shores (Desert Sun). On Mars, the pervasive concentration of perchlorate salts worries some astrobiologists about the possibility of life there. 

Other consequences of changes in salinity not discussed by the paper in detail include interactions with other ions and elements critical for life. Tinkering with salt is likely to cause unintended consequences.

Fine Timing 

The paper’s conclusions rest on assumptions that are difficult to test and are somewhat dubious. For instance, modeling high salt concentration initially to keep the planet from freezing under a cooler sun could appear like special pleading; how do they know salt concentrations did not start initially low instead, increasing as water eroded the continents? Do they have an experimental basis for presuming higher salinity in the past? They cite a couple of papers, but note that  

Archean salinity remains poorly constrained. Our goal is thus not to offer a definitive view of a single moment in Earth’s history; instead, our goal is simply to explore the response of the climate system to changing ocean salinity and to assess the potential significance of these effects in the context of reduced solar luminosity on early Earth. 

More important for a design view of the Earth is the relation between salinity and habitability. Is the value of 35g/Kg NaCl a “Goldilocks” value? Has the salinity value remained stable while life was present, but fluctuated, increased monotonically, or decreased prior to life’s appearance? If both questions yield affirmative answers, there might be evidence of fine timing to consider, a possible homeostasis in salt geology as well as salt biology. Notice the delicate balance that results from changes in salinity, according to the authors: 

Present-day seawater with a salinity of 35 g/kg freezes (and is most dense) at −1.9°C, and saltier oceans freeze at progressively lower temperatures. In combination, these three density effects may profoundly affect the density structure of the ocean, its circulation, and ocean heat transport to high latitudes with consequences for sea ice formation. Even small differences in sea ice formation may yield significant climate differences through interaction with the positive ice-albedo feedback. 

Then the authors point out that salinity is a dynamic value. It thus becomes crucial to understand the sources and sinks of salt. 

Sodium (Na+) and chlorine (Cl−) are the primary ions contributing to ocean salinity today. The residence times of Na+ and Cl− ions in the ocean are 80 and 98 Myr, respectively, much shorter than the age of the Earth. 

The authors point out that salinity also affects the concentration of atmospheric CO2. This becomes another complication not previously considered in climate models. Notice the word “coincidence” in this eye-opening statement: 

The salinity evolution of Earth’s ocean is not yet well constrained, but constant salinity through time would be a notable coincidence or imply some currently unknown feedback. Climate models that implicitly assume present-day salinity may thus yield misleading views of Earth’s climate history. 

The paper raises interesting new questions more than it provides definitive answers: 

It is thus unclear whether accounting for changes to sea salt aerosol in our model would have a large effect on climate and whether these effects would amplify or offset warming with increasing salinity in our model scenarios. The relationships between ocean salinity, atmospheric water vapor, cloud nucleation, precipitation patterns, and surface temperature on short and long timescales remain an exciting opportunity for future work. 

A Critical Role 

That’s enough quotation to point out the criticality of salt to habitability. Those interested in the details can follow the authors’ arguments in the paper. Suffice it to say that a planet designer would have had to regulate an additional factor — salt — to make it livable. Liquid water alone is not enough to maintain a CHZ. One cannot tinker recklessly with salt concentration without knocking a planet out of the Goldilocks zone. If the models require beginning with a cooler sun, was it a lucky coincidence to start with higher salinity to keep the Earth warm, then decrease it steadily as the sun brightened?

The Purdue research adds two factors to the list of requirements for habitability that Denton, Gonzalez, Richards and others have compiled: (1) fine tuning of salt concentrations for a stable climate, and (2) fine timing of salt dynamics under a changing solar constant. Maybe there is something new under the sun after all: the salt of the Earth.

The latest in our unending search for straight answers.

Exodus5:2ASV"And Pharaoh said, Who( Not what) is JEHOVAH...?"  

Can any trinitarian give us a straight answer to Pharaoh's querie?

Darwinism's failure as a predictive model.XVII

 Darwinism's predictions 

Cornelius G Hunter 

Just as evolution predicts that gene trees and species trees should be congruent, it also predicts that different gene trees should be congruent. In 1982 David Penny and co-workers tested this prediction. They wrote that “The theory of evolution predicts that similar phylogenetic trees should be obtained from different sets of character data.” Their character data came from five different proteins and they concluded “there is strong support from these five sequences for the theory of evolution.” (Penny, Foulds and Hendy) But in later years, as more genetic data became available, it was clear that different genes led to very different evolutionary trees. As one study explained, the sequences of genes, “often disagree and can seldom be proven to agree.” (Doolittle and Bapteste) It is now well understood that “Gene and genome trees conflict at many levels” (Haggerty, et. al.) and that “Incongruence between gene trees is the main challenge faced by phylogeneticists in the genomic era.” (Galtier and Daubin) For evolutionists this failed prediction will require more complicated models of evolutionary history. As Penny now writes, he is “not rejecting the tree per se but enriching the tree concept into a network.” (Penny) 

References 

Doolittle, W., E. Bapteste. 2007. “Pattern pluralism and the Tree of Life hypothesis.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104:2043-2049.

 

Galtier, N., V. Daubin. 2008. “Dealing with incongruence in phylogenomic analyses.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 363:4023-4029.

 

Haggerty, L., et. al. 2009. “Gene and genome trees conflict at many levels.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 364:2209-2219.

 

Penny, D. 2011. “Darwin’s Theory of Descent with Modification, versus the Biblical Tree of Life.” PLoS Biol 9:e1001096.

Penny, D., L. Foulds, M. Hendy. 1982. “Testing the theory of evolution by comparing phylogenetic trees constructed from five different protein sequences.” Nature 297:197-200.

Hope has fallen?

Bioethicist: Having Children Is Bad 

Wesley J. Smith 

This is the world of bioethics, the “experts” whom we are supposed to trust to guide public policy on a range of issues, from medical policy to environmental law.

We should not listen to a word the mainstreamers have to say — as this article telling us not to have children makes clear. From “Science Proves Kids are Bad for the Earth,” by Travis Reider, published at NBC Think: 

A startling and honestly distressing view is beginning to receive serious consideration in both academic and popular discussions of climate change ethics. According to this view, having a child is a major contributor to climate change. The logical takeaway here is that everyone on Earth ought to consider having fewer children. 

The Chinese Model 

Talk about shades of China family-planning theory. We must destroy much of what makes life worth living in order save the planet! 

The argument that having a child adds to one’s carbon footprint depends on the view that each of us has a personal carbon ledger for which we are responsible. Furthermore, some amount of an offspring’s emissions count towards the parents’ ledger. 

Whatcrap. We do not have to feel guilty for being alive. Moreover, children bring great joy into the world. They are the posterity to whom the future will belong and depend. They are the hope of the world, not environmental disasters. 

The Most Important Endeavor 

If I release a murderer from prison, knowing full well that he intends to kill innocent people, then I bear some responsibility for those deaths — even though the killer is also fully responsible. My having released him doesn’t make him less responsible (he did it!). But his doing it doesn’t eliminate my responsibility either.

Something similar is true, I think, when it comes to having children: Once my daughter is an autonomous agent, she will be responsible for her emissions. But that doesn’t negate my responsibility. Moral responsibility simply isn’t mathematical. . . .

Having a child imposes high emissions on the world, while the parents get the benefit. So like with any high-cost luxury, we should limit our indulgence.

No. Choosing to bring new life is not an environmental wrong. It is the best that life has to offer.

This is why I call it global-warming hysteria. And it’s an example of why I think most bioethics discourse pushes us away from policies and actions that make for a healthy and vibrant society.

Ps. Luke23:29NIV"For the time will come when you will say, ‘Blessed are the childless women, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed!’" 

For the record I believe that both the author and the mainstream bioethicists he vehemently opposes mean well but they both attacking the symptoms and not the disease.

 

Darwinism's failure as a predictive model XVI

 Darwinism's predictions 

Cornelius G Hunter 

Evolution predicts that genetic change drives evolutionary change. Genetic changes that confer improved fitness are more likely to be selected and passed on. All of this means that evolutionary trees based on comparisons of genes should be similar, or congruent, with evolutionary trees based on comparisons of the entire species. Simply put, gene trees and species trees should be congruent. But while this has often been claimed to be a successful prediction, it is now known to be false. As one study explained, “Perhaps most unexpected of all is the substantial decoupling, now known in most, although not all, branches of organismal life, between the phylogenetic histories of individual gene families and what has generally been accepted to be the history of genomes and/or their cellular or organismal host lineages.” (Ragan, McInerney and Lake)

 

The molecular and the visible (morphological) features often indicate “strikingly different” evolutionary trees that cannot be explained as due to different methods being used. (Lockhart and Cameron) Making sense of these differences between the molecular and the morphological features has become a major task, (Gura) so common that it now has its own name: reconciliation. (Stolzer, et. al.)

The growing gap between molecular analyses and the fossil record, concluded one researcher, “is astounding.” (Feduccia) Instead of a single evolutionary tree emerging from the data, there is a wealth of competing evolutionary trees. (de Jong) And while the inconsistencies between molecular and fossil data were, if anything, expected to be worse with the more ancient, lower, parts of the evolutionary tree, the opposite pattern is observed. As one study explained, “discord between molecular divergence estimates and the fossil record is pervasive across clades and of consistently higher magnitude for younger clades.” (Ksepka, Ware and Lamm) 

References 

De Jong, W. 1998. “Molecules remodel the mammalian tree.” Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 13:270-275.

 

Feduccia, A. 2003. “‘Big bang’ for tertiary birds?.” Trends in Ecology & Evolution 18:175.

 

Gura, T. 2000. “Bones, molecules...or both?.” Nature 406:230-233.

 

Ksepka, D. T., J. L. Ware, K. S. Lamm. 2014. “Flying rocks and flying clocks: disparity in fossil and molecular dates for birds.” Proceedings of the Royal Society B 281: 20140677.

 

Lockhart, P., S. Cameron. 2001 “Trees for bees.” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16:84-88.

 

Ragan, M., J. McInerney, J. Lake. 2009. “The network of life: genome beginnings and evolution.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 364:2169-2175.

Stolzer, M., et. al. 2012. “Inferring duplications, losses, transfers and incomplete lineage sorting with nonbinary species trees.” Bioinformatics 28 ECCB:i409–i415.

Between the magic kingdom and JEHOVAH's Kingdom.

On this classic ID the future, John West, author of Walt Disney and Live Action: The Disney Studio’s Live-Action Features of the 1950s and 60s, talks about Walt Disney’s life-long fascination with evolution. By exploring various messages embedded in Disney’s theme parks and animated features, from the Magic Skyway created for the 1964 World’s Fair to the 1948 animated film Fantasia, we see Disney’s recurring contemplation of evolution. Fantasia, in particular, provides an extended depiction of evolutionary history along with imaginatively rendered reflections on rationalism, materialism, and animism. At first blush Fantasia’s “Rite of Spring” seems to promote Darwinian materialism, but as West explains, a closer look reveals considerable nuance and ambiguity. On the Magic Skyway, animatronics were used to tell stories of ages past, from the age of the dinosaurs to the arrival of man. Disney’s presentation there skirted the origins of humans but, as West argues, the narration suggests that humanity is something qualitatively different, a message at odds with Darwinian materialism.

While we have you here, please consider an end-of-year gift to Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (CSC) to support this podcast and the culture-impacting work of intelligent design. The research and writing of CSC fellows such as Stephen Meyer, Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, Casey Luskin, and Ann Gauger are pushing back the darkness that is Darwinian materialism. The CSC’s work is also shining a light on the truth that nature is a work of genius and that we are, indeed, fearfully and wonderfully made. Click here to give 

Darwinism's failure as a predictive model XV

 Darwinism's predictions 

fundamental concept in evolutionary theory is the inheritance of genetic variations via blood lines. (Forbes) This so-called vertical transmission of heritable material means that genes, and genomes in general, should fall into a common descent pattern, consistent with the evolutionary tree. Indeed, such genes are often cited as a confirmation of evolution. But as more genomic data have become available, an ever increasing number of genes have been discovered that do not fit the common descent pattern because they are missing from so many intermediate species. (Andersson and Roger 2002; Andersson and Roger 2003; Andersson 2005; Andersson, Sarchfield and Roger 2005; Andersson 2006; Andersson et. al. 2006; Andersson 2009; Andersson 2011; Haegeman, Jones and Danchin; Katz; Keeling and Palmer; Richards et. al 2006a; Richards et. al 2006b; Takishita et. al.; Wolf et. al.)

 

This type of pattern is also found for genome architecture features which are sporadically distributed and then strikingly similar in distant species. In fact these similarities do not merely occur twice, in two distant species. They often occur repeatedly in a variety of otherwise distant species. This is so widespread that evolutionists have named the phenomenon “recurrent evolution.” As one paper explains, the recent explosion of genome data reveals “strikingly similar genomic features in different lineages.” Furthermore, there are “traits whose distribution is ‘scattered’ across the evolutionary tree, indicating repeated independent evolution of similar genomic features in different lineages.” (Maeso, Roy and Irimia) 

One example is the uncanny similarity between the kangaroo and human genomes. As one evolutionist explained: “There are a few differences, we have a few more of this, a few less of that, but they are the same genes and a lot of them are in the same order. We thought they’d be completely scrambled, but they’re not.” (Taylor)

 

It is now well recognized that this prediction has failed: “Vertical transmission of heritable material, a cornerstone of the Darwinian theory of evolution, is inadequate to describe the evolution of eukaryotes, particularly microbial eukaryotes.” (Katz) And these sporadic, patchy patterns require complicated and ad hoc scenarios to explain their origin. As one paper explained, the evolution of a particular set of genes “reveals a complex history of horizontal gene transfer events.” (Wolf et. al.) The result is that any pattern can be explained by arranging the right mechanisms. Features that are shared between similar species can be interpreted as “the result of a common evolutionary history,” and features that are not can be interpreted as “the result of common evolutionary forces.” (Maeso, Roy and Irimia)

 

These common evolutionary forces are complex and must have been created by evolution. They can include horizontal (or lateral) gene transfer, gene loss, gene fusion, and even unknown forces. For instance, one study concluded that the best explanation for the pattern of a particular gene was that it “has been laterally transferred among phylogenetically diverged eukaryotes through an unknown mechanism.” (Takishita et. al.) Even with the great variety of mechanisms available, there still remains the unknown mechanism. 

References 

Home

Introduction

Why investigate evolution’s false predictions?

Responses to common objections

Early evolution predictions

The DNA code is not unique

The cell’s fundamental molecules are universal

Evolutionary causes predictions

Mutations are not adaptive

Competition is greatest between neighbors

Molecular evolution predictions

Protein evolution

Histone proteins cannot tolerate much change

The molecular clock keeps evolutionary time

Common descent predictions

The pentadactyl pattern and common descent

Serological tests reveal evolutionary relationships

Biology is not lineage specific

Similar species share similar genes

MicroRNA

Evolutionary phylogenies predictions

Genomic features are not sporadically distributed

Gene and host phylogenies are congruent

Gene phylogenies are congruent

The species should form an evolutionary tree

Evolutionary pathways predictions

Complex structures evolved from simpler structures

Structures do not evolve before there is a need for them

Functionally unconstrained DNA is not conserved

Nature does not make leaps

Biological architecture predictions

Behavior

Altruism

Cell death

Conclusions

What false predictions tell us about evolution

Genomic features are not sporadically distributed

A fundamental concept in evolutionary theory is the inheritance of genetic variations via blood lines. (Forbes) This so-called vertical transmission of heritable material means that genes, and genomes in general, should fall into a common descent pattern, consistent with the evolutionary tree. Indeed, such genes are often cited as a confirmation of evolution. But as more genomic data have become available, an ever increasing number of genes have been discovered that do not fit the common descent pattern because they are missing from so many intermediate species. (Andersson and Roger 2002; Andersson and Roger 2003; Andersson 2005; Andersson, Sarchfield and Roger 2005; Andersson 2006; Andersson et. al. 2006; Andersson 2009; Andersson 2011; Haegeman, Jones and Danchin; Katz; Keeling and Palmer; Richards et. al 2006a; Richards et. al 2006b; Takishita et. al.; Wolf et. al.)

 

This type of pattern is also found for genome architecture features which are sporadically distributed and then strikingly similar in distant species. In fact these similarities do not merely occur twice, in two distant species. They often occur repeatedly in a variety of otherwise distant species. This is so widespread that evolutionists have named the phenomenon “recurrent evolution.” As one paper explains, the recent explosion of genome data reveals “strikingly similar genomic features in different lineages.” Furthermore, there are “traits whose distribution is ‘scattered’ across the evolutionary tree, indicating repeated independent evolution of similar genomic features in different lineages.” (Maeso, Roy and Irimia)

 

One example is the uncanny similarity between the kangaroo and human genomes. As one evolutionist explained: “There are a few differences, we have a few more of this, a few less of that, but they are the same genes and a lot of them are in the same order. We thought they’d be completely scrambled, but they’re not.” (Taylor)

 

It is now well recognized that this prediction has failed: “Vertical transmission of heritable material, a cornerstone of the Darwinian theory of evolution, is inadequate to describe the evolution of eukaryotes, particularly microbial eukaryotes.” (Katz) And these sporadic, patchy patterns require complicated and ad hoc scenarios to explain their origin. As one paper explained, the evolution of a particular set of genes “reveals a complex history of horizontal gene transfer events.” (Wolf et. al.) The result is that any pattern can be explained by arranging the right mechanisms. Features that are shared between similar species can be interpreted as “the result of a common evolutionary history,” and features that are not can be interpreted as “the result of common evolutionary forces.” (Maeso, Roy and Irimia)

 

These common evolutionary forces are complex and must have been created by evolution. They can include horizontal (or lateral) gene transfer, gene loss, gene fusion, and even unknown forces. For instance, one study concluded that the best explanation for the pattern of a particular gene was that it “has been laterally transferred among phylogenetically diverged eukaryotes through an unknown mechanism.” (Takishita et. al.) Even with the great variety of mechanisms available, there still remains the unknown mechanism.

 

References

 

Andersson, J., A. Roger. 2002. “Evolutionary analyses of the small subunit of glutamate synthase: gene order conservation, gene fusions, and prokaryote-to-eukaryote lateral gene transfers.” Eukaryotic Cell 1:304-310.

 

Andersson, J., A. Roger. 2003. “Evolution of glutamate dehydrogenase genes: evidence for lateral gene transfer within and between prokaryotes and eukaryotes.” BMC Evolutionary Biology 3:14.

 

Andersson, J. 2005. “Lateral gene transfer in eukaryotes.” Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences 62:1182-97.

 

Andersson, J., S. Sarchfield, A Roger. 2005. “Gene transfers from nanoarchaeota to an ancestor of diplomonads and parabasalids.” Molecular Biology and Evolution 22:85-90.

 

Andersson, J. 2006. “Convergent evolution: gene sharing by eukaryotic plant pathogens.” Current Biology 16:R804-R806.

 

Andersson, J., R. Hirt, P. Foster, A. Roger. 2006. “Evolution of four gene families with patchy phylogenetic distributions: influx of genes into protist genomes.” BMC Evolutionary Biology 6:27.

 

Andersson, J. 2009. “Horizontal gene transfer between microbial eukaryotes.” Methods in Molecular Biology 532:473-487.

 

Andersson, J. 2011. “Evolution of patchily distributed proteins shared between eukaryotes and prokaryotes: Dictyostelium as a case study.” J Molecular Microbiology and Biotechnology 20:83-95.

 

Haegeman, A., J. Jones, E. Danchin. 2011. “Horizontal gene transfer in nematodes: a catalyst for plant parasitism?.” Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions 24:879-87.

 

Katz, L. 2002. “Lateral gene transfers and the evolution of eukaryotes: theories and data.” International J. Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology 52:1893-1900.

 

Keeling, P., J. Palmer. 2008. “Horizontal gene transfer in eukaryotic evolution,” Nature Reviews Genetics 9:605-18.

 

Maeso, I, S. Roy, M. Irimia. 2012. “Widespread Recurrent Evolution of Genomic Features.” Genome Biology and Evolution 4:486-500.

 

Richards, T., J. Dacks, J. Jenkinson, C. Thornton, N. Talbot. 2006. “Evolution of filamentous plant pathogens: gene exchange across eukaryotic kingdoms.” Current Biology 16:1857-1864.

 

Richards, T., J. Dacks, S. Campbell, J. Blanchard, P. Foster, R. McLeod, C. Roberts. 2006. “Evolutionary origins of the eukaryotic shikimate pathway: gene fusions, horizontal gene transfer, and endosymbiotic replacements.” Eukaryotic Cell 5:1517-31.

 

Takishita, K., Y. Chikaraishi, M. Leger, E. Kim, A. Yabuki, N. Ohkouchi, A. Roger. 2012. “Lateral transfer of tetrahymanol-synthesizing genes has allowed multiple diverse eukaryote lineages to independently adapt to environments without oxygen.” Biology Direct 7:5.

 

Taylor, R. 2008. “Kangaroo genes close to humans,” Reuters, Canberra, Nov 18.

Wolf, Y., L. Aravind, N. Grishin, E. Koonin. 1999. “Evolution of aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases--analysis of unique domain architectures and phylogenetic trees reveals a complex history of horizontal gene transfer events.” Genome Research 9:689-710.

Time for mankind to take a shot at designed intelligence?

Can a Dog Be Bred to Be as Smart as a Human? 

Denyse O'Leary 

Within one hundred generations or roughly 600 years? That’s the project Payton Pearson, an electrical engineer who gives his affiliation as the Air Force Institute of Technology in Dayton, Ohio, has set himself: 

Artificial selection is a well-known phenomenon of selecting for certain physiological characteristics of various species of plants and animals, and it is something that human beings have been doing for thousands of years. A perfect example of this is the union and development of dogs under human stewardship since the beginning of the agricultural era of society. In that time, approximately 6,000 years [1], dogs have been artificially selected in such a way as to produce thousands of different breeds. From the stout Dachshund, a dog breed produced for the purpose of hunting den-dwelling animals, to the highly intelligent Border Collies who were bred to help sheep herders herd their flocks; the many different canine breeds have served humanity in a multitude of capacities for many generations. In this paper, using the concept of artificial selection,[1] it is determined with mathematical and statistical evidence how humans could artificially select for canine intelligence to such a degree as to produce canines with human levels of intelligence within a relatively short amount of time — 600 years. 

PAYTON PEARSON, “ARTIFICIALLY SELECTING FOR INTELLIGENCE IN DOGS TO PRODUCE HUMAN-LEVEL IQ WITHIN 100 GENERATIONS” AT FIGSHARE (SEPTEMBER 24, 2022) 

 Praise for the Border Collie 

He points to the Border Collie, considered to be among the most intelligent of breeds: 

If one were to roughly compare the extent to which Border Collies have had their intelligence improved, it equates to a dog with the intelligence of a three-year-old child, or about 40% more intelligent than an average dog—which is to say that an average Border Collie can be considered a genius of the dog world; this means they would equate to a human with an IQ of 140 or higher on average.

PAYTON PEARSON, “ARTIFICIALLY SELECTING FOR INTELLIGENCE IN DOGS TO PRODUCE HUMAN-LEVEL IQ WITHIN 100 GENERATIONS” AT FIGSHARE (SEPTEMBER 24, 2022) 

He rates the Border Collie as 35 in human IQ terms (the human average being 100) and sets out a program for selective breeding of smarter dogs, which readers may peruse at leisure. 

Up Front About His Goals 

Pearson writes:

The main barrier here, above all else, is the proper advertising and advocation for such cultural moves. Being that these ideas are seemingly taboo in so many cultural circumstances, the zeitgeist needs to be shifted as such, which is one of the primary purposes of this paper. 

PAYTON PEARSON, “ARTIFICIALLY SELECTING FOR INTELLIGENCE IN DOGS TO PRODUCE HUMAN-LEVEL IQ WITHIN 100 GENERATIONS” AT FIGSHARE (SEPTEMBER 24, 2022) 

As to the limitations of his methods: 

Converting the IQ from one species to another is difficult, and very much an imperfect science. 

PAYTON PEARSON, “ARTIFICIALLY SELECTING FOR INTELLIGENCE IN DOGS TO PRODUCE HUMAN-LEVEL IQ WITHIN 100 GENERATIONS” AT FIGSHARE (SEPTEMBER 24, 2022) 

We’ll come back to that in a minute. Also, 

If one looks at the Flynn Effect as measured in human populations [13], it has been empirically determined that average human IQ has been increasing by three points per decade for the last few hundred years, though it does appear to be slowing in current times, and with no well-understood reason. It could be for any number of possible exterior factors. Not only could there be coevolving factors slowing down the process, but it could also be the very exponential nature of IQ, and how its measured increase necessarily slows as the raw values increase. This would mean, perhaps, that IQ increases could be a measure of the efficiency of the cerebral cortex and how well-folded it is within its volume, rather than an increase in cranial volume itself, but in-depth discussion on anatomy is beyond the scope of this paper. 

PAYTON PEARSON, “ARTIFICIALLY SELECTING FOR INTELLIGENCE IN DOGS TO PRODUCE HUMAN-LEVEL IQ WITHIN 100 GENERATIONS” AT FIGSHARE (SEPTEMBER 24, 2022) 

Well, it’s too bad if anatomy is beyond the scope of the paper because it is a critical factor here. Would a dog brain support a human-like neurological capability? It would require major restructuring of the brain in an animal that is a canid, not a primate. If we can’t do it with chimpanzees, why should we think we can do it with dogs? 

The Flynn Effect 

About the Flynn effect in humans: It’s real but it is most likely the result of gradually improving standards of living, medical care, and schooling. People who are healthy, well-fed, and accustomed to learning might be expected to perform better on intelligence tests than their less fortunate ancestors. But, as Pearson notes, the process slows down because, like everything else — including dog intelligence — it can only go so far before it reaches a ceiling. 

Cultural advantages like a good science education might make people competent science teachers or researchers but it doesn’t turn them into Albert Einstein (1879–1955), Kurt Gödel (1906–1978), or Marilyn vos Savant. For the same reasons, Pearson may be able to breed a smarter dog but not a dog that thinks like a human.

In any event, human consciousness is famously the “Hard Problem of Consciousness.” We don’t even know what it is, exactly.

Thus, with dogs, we don’t know what we are aiming at and it is not clear in that case how multiplying generations will get us anywhere. 

Dogs Are Already Smart, as Animals Go 

All that said, the American Kennel Club advises that dogs are smarter than we think without any major changes anyway: “They can also understand more than 150 words and intentionally deceive other dogs and people to get treats, according to psychologist and leading canine researcher Stanley Coren, PhD, of the University of British Columbia.” (2009) Coren, who writes the “Canine Corner” column at Psychology Today, agrees with Pearson that Border Collies are the smartest dogs: “Border collies are number one; poodles are second, followed by German shepherds. Fourth on the list is golden retrievers; fifth, dobermans; sixth, Shetland sheepdogs; and finally, Labrador retrievers,” said Coren.

Here’s an attempted ranking of dog breeds by intelligence and other traits. 

Charles Fawole tells us at Pet Calculator (April 14, 2022), that there are three types of dog intelligence we can measure: Instinctive intelligence (for hunting, guarding, or herding, for example), which tends to be inherited based on the breed; adaptive intelligence, which is the dog’s individual ability to learn things on its own; and working/obedience intelligence, which is what a dog can do with instruction from humans. According to Fawole, the dog that takes the longest to learn commands is the Afghan hound. 

Incidentally, according to Jean Marie Bauhaus at Hills Bros, a pet food company site, large dogs are smarter than small ones: The suggested explanation is that the small dogs often have oddly shaped heads, which may interfere with brain development: “Meanwhile, mesocephalic dogs — those with average-shaped heads, like Labrador retrievers — tend to lack such specialization, which, according to researchers, may give them more cognitive flexibility that makes them better at learning new tasks.” (June 12, 2019)

 Reason and Moral Choice 

But comparisons with humans, as in “When comparing Border Collies to humans studies have shown that they show intelligence close to a 3-year-old child,” are off base. The child is becoming a creature with reason and moral choice and the dog isn’t. Keeping that in mind will help us navigate a complex living world more realistically. 

You may also wish to read: A science writer makes the case for plants as conscious beings. Annaka Harris, neuroscience and physics writer, starts by casting doubt on human consciousness. But if it’s true that we can’t trust the reasoning skills of our evolved brains to arrive at a correct answer, we are in no position to evaluate Harris’s own thesis.

The fossil record fossil recording some more.

Fossil Friday: The Giant Armadillo Glyptodon and the Abrupt Origin of Xenarthrans

Günter Bechly 

This Fossil Friday we continue our series on the origins of the various modern placental mammal orders. Our subject today is the order Xenarthra, which is endemic to the New World and divided into two suborders, Cingulata (armadillos and their extinct relatives, pampatheres and glyptodonts) and Pilosa (sloths and anteaters). Both suborders include examples of the extinct Pleistocene megafauna of America. The suborder Pilosa includes the giant ground sloths like the genus Megatherium, and the suborder Cingulata includes the car-sized giant armadillos of the genus Glyptodon. A complete skeleton of Glyptodon asper from the Pleistocene of Argentina is featured at the top of this article. This specimen is on display at the Natural History Museum of Vienna. With an age of only 1.5 million years it is very far from being the oldest representative of this order. A recent review article by De Iuliis (2018) commented that: 

These three clades and the differences between them reflect deep histories that reach back at least to the Paleocene and their fossil representation (of cingulates and sloths, but not vermilinguans) is exceptionally rich and diverse. 

So, let’s have a closer look at this rich fossil record of xenarthrans. Gaudin & Croft (2015: fig. 2) provided an excellent chart of the stratigraphic distribution of the xenarthran fossil record with up-to-date chronology of the South American Land Mammal Ages (SALMA). They concluded that ”no unambiguous Paleocene fossil xenarthran remains are known.” So what are the oldest fossils of this order known to science? 

Oldest Fossils of the Order 

The more primitive suborder Cingulata is indeed well represented in the Paleogene fossil record from South America (Sedor et al. 2022). The earliest known cingulate and arguably oldest fossil representative of Xenarthra is Riostegotherium yanei described by Oliveira & Bergqvist (1998) from the Itaboraí Basin in the Rio de Janeiro State of Brazil. This material was already mentioned by Scillato-Yané (1976) under the incorrect name Prostegotherium. There is also at least one other undescribed armadillo-like species from this locality and age (Cifelli 1983, Bergqvist et al. 2004, 2019). A thorough revision of the material by Bergqvist et al. (2004) confirmed the identification of Riostegotherium as oldest xenarthran remains (also see Bergqvist et al. 2019). 

Interestingly, Bergqvist et al. (2004) also observed that “shared similarities to palaeanodonts add support to the proposal that Palaeanodonta may have been ancestral to, or is the sister-taxon of Xenarthra”. Why is this interesting? Because the extinct Palaeanodonta a few years later turned out to be stem pangolins and both turned out to not be related to Xenarthra at all (e.g., Gaudin et al. 2009). This shows how the alleged connection between morphological similarity and phylogenetic relationship is rather a Darwinist myth that is upheld as convenient tool to promote the theory.

Anyway, there are also some problems with the dating of Riostegotherium: The deposits where it was found belong to the Itaboraian SALMA, which was was originally dated by Marshall (1985) to the middle Paleocene (63.6-61 mya), but this was indirectly inferred in the absence of radioisotopic or magnetostratigraphic datings. Bond et al. (1995) instead suggested a Paleocene/Eocene age of 60-57 mya, which was also accepted by Bergqvist et al. (2004, 2019). Gelfo et al. (2009) provisionally re-dated the Itaboraian SALMA to an Early Eocene age of 55.5-53.5 mya (Lower Ypresian). The seminal work of Woodburne et al. (2014) moved the dating even a bit younger to the Middle Ypresian about 53-50 mya, contemporaneous with the Early Eocene Climatic Optimum (EECO). Similarly, Gaudin & Croft (2015) suggested an age of 54-52 mya in their stratigraphic chart. Nevertheless, Bergqvist et al. (2019) mentioned that “study in progress by the senior author challenges this latter 

interpretation, suggesting that at least part of the fissures was formed and filled during the late Paleocene.” Therefore they just gave a vague Paleocene/Eocene age. Apparently the study in progress is not yet published to this day. Therefore, it cannot yet be excluded that Riostegotherium might be of Late Paleocene age after all.

Prior to the discovery of Riostegotherium, the oldest xenarthrans were astegotheriine armadillos from the Barrancan subage of the Casamayoran SALMA of Argentina, which was believed to be about 7 million years younger (Scillato-Yané 1976). According to Kay et al. (1999) “the Casamayoran SALMA was at least 18–20 m.y. younger than previously assumed”. Therefore, Dunn et al. (2013) and Ciancio et al. (2016) dated the Barrancan to a Middle Eocene (Lutetian-Bartonian) age of 41.7-39.0 mya, which was basically confirmed by Woodburne et al. (2014) with an estimate of 42-38.5 mya (also see Gaudin & Croft 2015).

Remains of the astegotheriine armadillos Stegosimpsonia sp. and Astegotherium dichotomus were recovered from Cañadón Vaca in Patagonia. The respective layers date to the older Vacan subage (as opposed to the younger Barrancan subage) of the Casamayoran SALMA from the early Middle Eocene about 46-44 mya (Cifelli 1985, Gaudin & Croft 2015, Ciancio et al. 2018, 2019).

The extinct armadillo taxa Peltephilidae and Astegotheriini are also known from the Riochican SALMA of Patagonia (Simpson 1948, McKenna & Bell 1997, Oliveira & Bergqvist 1998, Gelfo et al. 2010). The Riochican SALMA is interspersed between the older Itaboraian SALMA and the younger Casamayoran SALMA. It had been dated to a Late Paleocene age of 57-55.5 mya by Bond et al. (1995), but was later re-dated to be only about 49-48.5 mya (Ypresian, Early Eocene) according to Woodburne et al. (2014), and to 51-49.5 by Gaudin & Croft (2015).Armadillo remains of Pucatherium parvum and Noatherium emilioi have recently been described from the lower Lumbrera Formation in Northwestern Argentina (Fernicola et al. 2021), which the latter authors re-dated to the Early Eocene Climatic Optimum (Ypresian). This is older than previously believed, so that these armadillos could be contemporaneous with Riostegotherium if the re-dating of the Itaburaian by Woodburne et al. (2014) is correct (see above). 

Considerable Scientific Controversy 

Another recent discovery is a xenarthran metacarpal bone from the Late Eocene of Seymour Island in Antarctica (Davis et al. 2020). It was found in the Cucullaea I Allomember (TELM4) of the La Meseta Formation. The age of this formation is a matter of considerable scientific controversy, which I will discuss in great detail in a forthcoming technical paper on the waiting time problem in the origin of whales (Bechly et al. in prep.). Here it must be sufficient to note that an Early Eocene (Ypresian) age of 52-48 mya seems most likely and represents the consensus of most experts based on different lines of evidence (strontium isotopes, magnetostratigraphy, eustatic lowstands, dinoflagellate and mammalian biostratigraphy), while some dissenters are considering a younger Middle Eocene (Bartonian) age of about 40 mya mainly based on some dinoflagellate cysts.

The earliest fossil record for the suborder Pilosa is Pseudoglyptodon from the Priabonian-Bartonian (37.8 mya) of Argentina (Gaudin & Croft 2015). Within Pilosa there are two major subgroups: sloths (Folivora) and anteaters (Vermilingua). Ameghino (1895) described an astragalus of Proplatyarthrus longipes from the early Late Eocene (Mustersan SALMA), which could be the oldest folivoran, but unfortunately this specimen seems to be lost according to Pujos et al. (2021). The oldest other alleged sloth remains were from the Middle Eocene of Antarctica (Vizcaíano & Scillato-Yané 1995), but were disputed and considered to be an undetermined mammal by MacPhee & Reguero (2010). Pseudoglyptodon sallaensiswas described by Engelmann (1987), based on a mandible fragment from the Oligocene Salla Beds (Deseadan SALMA) of Bolivia, which also yielded other armadillo fossils (Billet et al. 2011). As already mentioned 

before, Pseudoglyptodon is commonly considered to be the oldest folivoran, but its possibly not a sloth in the strict sense (Pujos & De Iuliis 2007). Due to its peculiar characteristics and fragmentary preservation it remains enigmatic (Pujos & De Iuliis 2007, Pujos et al. 2021). Engelmann (1987) gave an age of 25-28 mya, which agrees with modern datings of the Deseadan SALMA to 29.4-24.2 mya (Dunn et al. 2013). McKenna et al. (2006) described new material of Pseudoglyptodon from the Late Eocene-Early Oligocene (Tinguirirican SALMA, 33.6-31.3 mya, Dunn et al. 2013) of Chile and the Late Eocene of Cerro Blanco in Argentina (Mustersan SALMA), and recognized this genus as the sister group of all other sloths. Nevertheless, Varela et al. (2019) commented: “However, as Pseudoglyptodon presents many convergences with cingulates, we cannot rule out its position to be an artifact of our limited knowledge of this taxon.” The Mustersan SALMA was traditionally considered to be of Middle Eocene age, then considered to be postdating 35-36 mya (Kay et al. 1999); but ultimately recognized as early Late Eocene with an age estimates of 38.2-38 mya (Dunn et al. 2013), and 37.9-36.5 mya (Woodburne et al. 2014, Gaudin & Croft 2015). Consequently, the Argentine material 

of Pseudoglyptodon indeed represents the oldest known fossil pilosans and likely the oldest sloths as well.

Some other very early fossil remains that are unequivocally referable to sloths are a Megalonychidae from the Early Oligocene (ca. 35 mya) of Puerto Rico (MacPhee & Iturralde Vinent 1995) and Patagonia (Carlini & Scillato-Yané_2004).

What About Anteaters? 

The oldest fossil record of anteaters is an undescribed vermilinguan from the Early Miocene Colhuehuapian SALMA (20 mya) of Patagonia (Carlini et al. 1992, Gaudin & Branham 1998, Gaudin & Croft 2015). This implies a 30 million year ghost lineage of undocumented existence (Delsuc et al. 2001). The oldest described vermilinguan is Protamandua rothi from the Early to Middle Miocene Santacruzian of Patagonia (Ameghino 1904, Hirschfeld 1976, Patterson et al. 1992, Gaudin & Branham 1998). According to Gaudin & Croft (2015) it is about 18 million years old, but PaleoDB gives a range of 17.5-11.608 mya. We see that in most cases even the most modern radiometric methods provided quite different and fuzzy datings of the fossil outcrops. This does not mean that all the datings are completely wrong, but it shows that we should not place too much confidence in the current consensus concerning precise dates and possible evolutionary scenarios that are based upon them.

This also holds for so-called molecular clock datings, which place the origin of armadillos around the K/Pg boundary (Delsuc et al. 2001, 2004, Presslee et al. 2019). For Darwinists this would necessarily require an even earlier origin for the order Xernarthra in the Late Cretaceous. Too bad, this is of course strongly contradicted by the fossil record and the total absence of any Cretaceous crown group placental mammals. Should we dare to consider the possibility that something is wrong with the Darwinist assumptions? Heaven forbid!

An Abrupt Appearance 

Anyway, we can conclude from the discussion above that the order Xenarthra appeared abruptly in the Lower Eocene about 53 million years ago, only 3 million years after the oldest fossils of our own order Primates, which we discussed last week. Carlini & Scillato-Yané (2004) made a revealing admission: 

The absence of most major groups of Xenarthra in South American mammal-bearing sediments of Late Cretaceous and Early Paleocene age is the greatest enigma in the study of this Superorder. 

I totally agree and can only note that this of course only emphasizes the abruptness of their appearance in the fossil record.

Xenarthra is one of the four major clades of placental mammals recognized in modern phylogenetic systematics. The three others are Afrotheria, Euarchontoglires, and Laurasiatheria. Next Fossil Friday we will look at a member of the African mammal clade Afrotheria, i.e., the aardvark order Tubulidentata and its fossil relatives.

P.S.: I have already discussed the misidentified alleged European anteater Eurotamandua from the Eocene Messel Pit in a previous Fossil Friday article (Bechly 2022).

 

The designed intelligence of birds

 Capabilities of Migrating Birds Deserve Awards and Recognition 

David Coppedge 

Kids used to collect baseball cards passionately, trading them among their friends in hopes of getting the most famous players in their collections. They admired the photos of their heroes in action on the front side and memorized the player’s stats (batting average, RBIs, home runs) printed on the back. Might I suggest a product for some design-friendly entrepreneur? Animal Cards! Pack attractive cards in gum candies and let the youngsters chew on some intelligent design facts while having fun collecting and trading. 

A good starter set would feature migrating birds. These are true champions of long-distance flight, navigation, and endurance that leave many sports heroes far behind. Here are some flyers worthy of recognition on Bird Cards.

Common Whitethroat 

The common whitethroat (Curruca communis) is a small dusky-colored warbler that summers in Europe and winters in Africa, Arabia, or Pakistan. Its low weight (14 grams), plain appearance, and scratchy voice belie its migratory prowess. 

Two ornithologists from the University of St. Andrews, with a colleague in Nigeria, outfitted 40 of the birds with geologgers weighing only half a gram and recorded their flight paths. These lightweight contenders were measured traveling 5,000 km in just 52 days, including 2,000 km nonstop across inhospitable barriers like the Sahara Desert and the Mediterranean Sea. How’s that for a home run? The scientists published the stats in PLOS ONE:

Departures from breeding grounds took place between July and August in a south-westerly direction. During spring migration individuals travelled longer distances at faster rates making its overall duration shorter than autumn migration. We suggest that, while Whitethroats can cross the Sahara Desert and Mediterranean Sea in a single flight, they are likely to refuel before and after crossing. 

The small champions sometimes stop at the bases, but occasionally make home runs. “If under severe time constraints, however, individuals can successfully undergo a flight without making stopovers.” 

Bay-Breasted Warbler 

Another warbler takes the lead over its white-throated cousin. This little featherweight flyer with its handsome uniform also undertakes “extraordinary journeys” twice per year, flying over 6,400 km between Canada and South America. Christina Larson wrote for Phys.org about the feats of this species, Setophaga castanea. 

A bay-breasted warbler weighs about the same as four pennies, but twice a year makes an extraordinary journey. The tiny songbird flies nearly 4,000 miles (6,437 kilometers) between Canada’s spruce forests and its wintering grounds in northern South America. 

Red-Throated Loon 

Moving up into the welterweight category, look at another champion. Loons have a distinctive call of the wild that, like a howling wolf, makes an explorer feel like Jack London in the far north. Red-throated loons are excellent fishers in small lakes. When not fishing, they take long trips. 

Ornithologists at the University of Maine outfitted some red-throated loons (Gavia stellata) with satellite transmitters and monitored their routes. News from the University of Maine tells what they found: epic journeys through the cold lands of Greenland, Canada, and the Arctic. Groups of birds spread out, covering a vast area.

Despite sampling just 5% of the North American Atlantic coast non-breeding range, an area equivalent to just 0.001% of the presumed Atlantic flyway breeding range, the birds studied spread out across 65% of that breeding range, suggesting that the mid-Atlantic region constitutes the core of the non-breeding range for red-throated loons that winter. 

Wandering Albatross 

Moving up to the heavyweight class, the wandering albatross (pictured at the top) is a fascinating bird that can travel thousands of miles without flapping its wings. With its 11-foot wingspan (the longest of any living bird), this iconic soaring champion of the southern oceans attracted the attention of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. Researchers show maps of its wanderings, and describe how it tilts and swoops in clever ways to take advantage of the wind’s energy. 

Wandering albatrosses lack sufficient musculature to sustain continuous flapping flight for long periods of time; however they have a shoulder lock that mechanically holds their wings outstretched so that little energy is expended while soaring, according to the paper. 

The wandering albatross is so good at efficient use of wind energy, NASA has taken notice. The BBC News reported that an albatross-inspired glider has been designed for future flights on Mars. Unlike rovers or the highly successful Mars demonstration helicopter, a flyer designed like an albatross could fly for free on the Martian wind, swoop up the slopes of volcanoes, and stay aloft for long periods of time. A demonstration Mars sailplane has been designed at the University of Arizona. With looks similar in proportions to the albatross, it can pack a small camera, and temperature and gas sensors to reconnoiter much farther than its battery-powered explorers can. 

While these other forms of transport have been partly limited by power needs, the glider would use energy available in the atmosphere itself, explained Adrien Bouskela, an aerospace engineering doctoral student at the University of Arizona.

“It’s kind of a leap forward in those methods of extending missions,” he said.

Bird Migration Studies Flying High 

In a special issue on birds, Current Biology included a review paper titled, “New frontiers in bird migration research.” The open-access article discusses the current state of knowledge and future outlooks in this exciting field. 

Bird migrations are impressive behavioral phenomena, representing complex spatiotemporal strategies to balance costs of living while maximizing fitness. The field of bird migration research has made great strides over the past decades, yet fundamental gaps remain. Technologies have sparked a transformation in the study of bird migration research by revealing remarkable insights into the underlying behavioral, cognitive, physiological and evolutionary mechanisms of these diverse journeys. 

Eric Cassell, author of Animal Algorithms with its examples of migrating champions and the requirements that permit them, might suggest changing “evolutionary mechanisms” to “engineered mechanisms.” But the paper’s mention of “specific requirements for flight” should attract readers’ attention, as well as the phrase “onboard algorithms” — which, sadly, was only used in reference to human designs for geologgers. Someday scientists will get it. Nothing gets off the ground in controlled flight without foresight and a plan to meet the requirements. Those necessities also apply to all the engineering marvels in our own bodies, as emphasized by Steve Laufmann and Howard Glicksman in their new book, Your Designed Body. 

Cool Tools 

Also at Phys.org, Christina Larson announced a valuable new resource for a Bird Card project: 

The Bird Migration Explorer mapping tool, available free to the public, is an ongoing collaboration between 11 groups that collect and analyze data on bird movements, including the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center, the U.S. Geological Survey, Georgetown University, Colorado State University, and the National Audubon Society.

For the first time, the site will bring together online data from hundreds of scientific studies that use GPS tags to track bird movements, as well as more than 100 years of bird-banding data collected by USGS, community science observations entered into Cornell’s eBird platform, genomic analysis of feathers to pinpoint bird origins, and other data.

Animal Card entrepreneurs will want to use this online tool to design their collection on birds. 

We continue to seek straight answers.

 Why is it that expression God the Son occurs nowhere in scripture if there is such an entity that Christians ought to worship? 

Why is it that the expression God the spirit appears nowhere in scripture if there is such an entity that Christians must worship? 

We know that Jesus is called Son of the God because his Father is the God, so why is JEHOVAH never called the Father of the God if his Son is the God?

Plants possess brainless minds?

Are Plants Conscious? Science Writer Says Yes 

Denyse O'Leary Annaka Harris, a science writer focusing on neuroscience and physics and the author of Conscious: A Brief Guide to the Fundamental Mystery of the Mind (2019), challenges us to reflect on two points:

1) In a system that we know has conscious experiences — the human brain — what evidence of consciousness can we detect from the outside?

2) Is consciousness essential to our behavior?

The editor notes, introducing an excerpt from the book, “But how sure can we be that plants aren’t conscious? And what if what we take to be behavior indicating consciousness can be replicated with no conscious agent involved? Annaka Harris invites us to consider the real possibility that our intuitions about consciousness might be mere illusions.”

Harris begins with a shoutout to natural selection (survival of the fittest), noting: 

Our intuitions have been shaped by natural selection to quickly provide life-saving information, and these evolved intuitions can still serve us in modern life… But our guts can deceive us as well, and “false intuitions” can arise in any number of ways, especially in domains of understanding — like science and philosophy —that evolution could never have foreseen. An intuition is simply the powerful sense that something is true without having an awareness or understanding of the reasons behind this feeling — it may or may not represent something true about the world.

ANNAKA HARRIS, “CONSCIOUSNESS MAY NOT REQUIRE A BRAIN” AT IAI.TV (DECEMBER 8, 2022). A SUBSCRIPTION IS REQUIRED.

The problem with the “evolutionary” approach to thinking is this: If it’s true that we can’t trust the reasoning skills of our brains, which evolved merely in order to enable us to survive and reproduce (according to the theory) to arrive at a correct answer, we are in no position to evaluate Harris’s own thesis as either sound or unconvincing. Nor is she in a position to evaluate it herself. 

The Blink of an Eye 

She offers a look at locked-in syndrome — complete paralysis of the voluntary nervous system muscles except for those that control the eyes. The most famous example is probably Jean-Dominique Bauby (1952–1997) whose 1997 memoir of his post-stroke life The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, was written with about two hundred thousand blinks. He died two days after its publication in 1997. There’s also a film.

She also notes anesthesia awareness where, in rare cases, patients are aware of events and pain during surgery.

Yes, these rare events where people are conscious — but we don’t know it — do occur. But how do we generally notice consciousness in other human beings? By their conscious interactions with us in situations where no other explanation seems plausible. In social situations, sudden unconsciousness in a human is likely to result in calls to 9-11. Human consciousness remains mysterious but it is not ambiguous.

If Harris wants to introduce the idea that plants are conscious, efforts to denigrate the significance of human consciousness are simply not the best place to begin. 

On Firmer Ground 

She is on firmer ground when she observes that plants have been found in recent research to do many things that animals do. She cites plant geneticist Daniel Chamovitz, whose book What a Plant Knows: A Field Guide to the Senses (Farrar, Strauss & Giroux, 2017) describes plant responses to touch, light, heat, etc.: 

Plants can sense their environments through touch and can detect many aspects of their surroundings, including temperature, by other modes. It’s actually quite common for plants to react to touch: a vine will increase its rate and direction of growth when it senses an object nearby that it can wrap itself around; and the infamous Venus flytrap can distinguish between heavy rain or strong gusts of wind, which do not cause its blades to close, and the tentative incursions of a nutritious beetle or frog, which will make them snap shut in one-tenth of a second. 

ANNAKA HARRIS, “CONSCIOUSNESS MAY NOT REQUIRE A BRAIN” AT IAI.TV (DECEMBER 8, 2022) 

The electrical signals that stimulate nerve cells in plants are similar to those in animals and the genes that enable the plant to determine light or darkness are the ones humans use too. One might add to the list the fact that plants use glutamate to speed signal transmission — a technique also used by mammals.

In other words, given the physics and chemistry of our universe, a finite number of efficient communications systems is available. A variety of different life forms may be found using them. Those life forms may share nothing beyond the need to adopt one of the available systems.

But plant communication can be quite complex as well, as Suzanne Simard, has shown: 

She was studying the levels of carbon in two species of tree, Douglas fir and paper birch carbon in two species of tree, Douglas fir and paper birch, when she discovered that the two species were engaged “in a lively two-way conversation.” In the summer months, when the fir needs more carbon, the birch sent more carbon to the fir; and and at other times when the fir was still growing but the birch needed more carbon because it was leafless, the fir sent more carbon to the birch — revealing that the two species were in fact interdependent. Equally surprising were the results of further research led by Simard in the Canadian National Forest, showing that the Douglas fir “mother trees” were able to distinguish between their own kin and a neighboring stranger’s seedlings. Simard found that the mother trees colonized their kin with bigger mycorrhizal networks, sending them more carbon below ground. The mother trees also “reduced their own root competition to make room for their kids,” and, when injured or dying, sent messages through carbon and other defense signals to their kin seedlings, increasing the seedlings’ resistance to local environmental stresses. Likewise, by spreading toxins through underground fungal networks, plants are also able to ravage threatening species. Because of the vast interconnections and functions of these mycorrhizal networks, they have been referred to as ‘Earth’s natural Internet.’”

ANNAKA HARRIS, “CONSCIOUSNESS MAY NOT REQUIRE A BRAIN” AT IAI.TV (DECEMBER 8, 2022) A SUBSCRIPTION IS REQUIRED.

Evaluating Plant Interactions 

It’s possible that plant interactions are as complex as those of social insects, but that does not, in itself, establish consciousness. Ants, for example, might be best understood as thinking like computers, which implies efficacy but not consciousness. Harris acknowledges that fact: “Still, we can easily imagine plants exhibiting the behaviors described above without there being something it is like to be a plant, so complex behavior doesn’t necessarily shed light on whether a system is conscious or not.”

But then, in pursuit of plant consciousness, she cites artificial vs. human intelligence: “The problem is that both conscious and non-conscious states seem to be compatible with any behavior, even those associated with emotion, so the behavior itself doesn’t necessarily signal the presence of consciousness.”

No, wait. With AI, we humans are insiders. We invented AI. We know how it’s done. No one is sure what human consciousness even is but we are pretty sure what computers are and do. Even at their best, chatbots — to take one example — are simply scarfing up and reprocessing what humans say on the Internet. AI could only be conscious if somehow consciousness arises naturally from large scale computations. We do not, at present, have a reason to believe that it does.

The Philosopher’s Zombie 

She then brings up the philosopher’s zombie, the zombie that might act exactly like a close friend but has no consciousness: 

Let’s say your “zombie friend” witnesses a car accident, looks appropriately concerned, and takes out his phone to call for an ambulance. Could he possibly be going through these motions without an experience of anxiety and concern, or a conscious thought process that leads him to make a call and describe what happened? Or could this all take place even if he were a robot, without a felt experience prompting the behavior at all. Again, ask yourself what, if anything, would constitute conclusive evidence of consciousness in another person?

I have discovered that the zombie thought experiment is also capable of influencing our thinking beyond its intended function in the following way: Once we imagine human behavior around us existing without consciousness, that behavior begins to look more like many behaviors we see in the natural world which we’ve always assumed were non-conscious, such as the obstacle-avoiding behavior of a starfish, which has no central nervous system [7]. In other words, when we trick ourselves into imagining a person who lacks consciousness, then we can begin to wonder if we’re in fact tricking ourselves all the time when we deem other living systems — climbing ivy, say, or stinging sea anemones — to be without it. We have a deeply ingrained intuition, and therefore a strongly held belief, that systems that act like us are conscious, and those that don’t are not. But what the zombie thought experiment makes vivid to me is that the conclusion we draw from this intuition has no real foundation. Like a 3D image, it collapses the moment we take our glasses off.

ANNAKA HARRIS, “CONSCIOUSNESS MAY NOT REQUIRE A BRAIN” AT IAI.TV A SUBSCRIPTION IS REQUIRED.(DECEMBER 8, 2022) 

Again, wait. Every human beings knows about human consciousness in the first person. But not one of us can ever be absolutely sure that another human being is conscious. Our minds are, perhaps by design, accessible to others only by what we say and do. Yes, the consciousness of others could be an illusion but then the whole universe around us could be an illusion — in theory.

We assume conscious human behavior in other human beings when they behave like conscious human beings. That makes sense because the alternative — that you or I are the only conscious one — requires a much greater stretch of belief.

As for “climbing ivy, say, or stinging sea anemones,” we don’t think they are conscious because nothing in their behavior prompts such an interpretation. It’s not a matter of intuition or prejudice; we are just not seeing evidence. 

A Comparison with Chimpanzees 

Harris’s argument here is similar to the one we encounter in claims that chimpanzees think like humans. If they do, why don’t we see anything like a human culture growing up among them, just occasional flashes of intelligent behavior?

Harris would do well to stick to the point that plant behavior is turning out to be as complex as animal behavior. The question of consciousness is a separate one and there is no reason or need to assume that plants are conscious.

You may also wish to read: Do ants think? Yes, they do — but they think like computers. Computer programmers have adapted some ant problem-solving methods to software programs (but without the need for complex chemical scents). Navigation expert Eric Cassell points out that algorithms have made the ant one of the most successful insects ever, both in numbers and complexity.

 

Darwinism's failure as a predictive model XIV

 Darwinism's predictions 

Cornelius G Hunter 

A fundamental concept in evolutionary theory is the inheritance of genetic variations via blood lines. (Forbes) This so-called vertical transmission of heritable material means that genes, and genomes in general, should fall into a common descent pattern, consistent with the evolutionary tree. Indeed, such genes are often cited as a confirmation of evolution. But as more genomic data have become available, an ever increasing number of genes have been discovered that do not fit the common descent pattern because they are missing from so many intermediate species. (Andersson and Roger 2002; Andersson and Roger 2003; Andersson 2005; Andersson, Sarchfield and Roger 2005; Andersson 2006; Andersson et. al. 2006; Andersson 2009; Andersson 2011; Haegeman, Jones and Danchin; Katz; Keeling and Palmer; Richards et. al 2006a; Richards et. al 2006b; Takishita et. al.; Wolf et. al.)

 

This type of pattern is also found for genome architecture features which are sporadically distributed and then strikingly similar in distant species. In fact these similarities do not merely occur twice, in two distant species. They often occur repeatedly in a variety of otherwise distant species. This is so widespread that evolutionists have named the phenomenon “recurrent evolution.” As one paper explains, the recent explosion of genome data reveals “strikingly similar genomic features in different lineages.” Furthermore, there are “traits whose distribution is ‘scattered’ across the evolutionary tree, indicating repeated independent evolution of similar genomic features in different lineages.” (Maeso, Roy and Irimia) 

One example is the uncanny similarity between the kangaroo and human genomes. As one evolutionist explained: “There are a few differences, we have a few more of this, a few less of that, but they are the same genes and a lot of them are in the same order. We thought they’d be completely scrambled, but they’re not.” (Taylor)

 

It is now well recognized that this prediction has failed: “Vertical transmission of heritable material, a cornerstone of the Darwinian theory of evolution, is inadequate to describe the evolution of eukaryotes, particularly microbial eukaryotes.” (Katz) And these sporadic, patchy patterns require complicated and ad hoc scenarios to explain their origin. As one paper explained, the evolution of a particular set of genes “reveals a complex history of horizontal gene transfer events.” (Wolf et. al.) The result is that any pattern can be explained by arranging the right mechanisms. Features that are shared between similar species can be interpreted as “the result of a common evolutionary history,” and features that are not can be interpreted as “the result of common evolutionary forces.” (Maeso, Roy and Irimia)

 

These common evolutionary forces are complex and must have been created by evolution. They can include horizontal (or lateral) gene transfer, gene loss, gene fusion, and even unknown forces. For instance, one study concluded that the best explanation for the pattern of a particular gene was that it “has been laterally transferred among phylogenetically diverged eukaryotes through an unknown mechanism.” (Takishita et. al.) Even with the great variety of mechanisms available, there still remains the unknown mechanism.

References 

Andersson, J., A. Roger. 2002. “Evolutionary analyses of the small subunit of glutamate synthase: gene order conservation, gene fusions, and prokaryote-to-eukaryote lateral gene transfers.” Eukaryotic Cell 1:304-310.

 

Andersson, J., A. Roger. 2003. “Evolution of glutamate dehydrogenase genes: evidence for lateral gene transfer within and between prokaryotes and eukaryotes.” BMC Evolutionary Biology 3:14.

 

Andersson, J. 2005. “Lateral gene transfer in eukaryotes.” Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences 62:1182-97.

 

Andersson, J., S. Sarchfield, A Roger. 2005. “Gene transfers from nanoarchaeota to an ancestor of diplomonads and parabasalids.” Molecular Biology and Evolution 22:85-90.

 

Andersson, J. 2006. “Convergent evolution: gene sharing by eukaryotic plant pathogens.” Current Biology 16:R804-R806.

 

Andersson, J., R. Hirt, P. Foster, A. Roger. 2006. “Evolution of four gene families with patchy phylogenetic distributions: influx of genes into protist genomes.” BMC Evolutionary Biology 6:27.

 

Andersson, J. 2009. “Horizontal gene transfer between microbial eukaryotes.” Methods in Molecular Biology 532:473-487.

 

Andersson, J. 2011. “Evolution of patchily distributed proteins shared between eukaryotes and prokaryotes: Dictyostelium as a case study.” J Molecular Microbiology and Biotechnology 20:83-95.

 

Haegeman, A., J. Jones, E. Danchin. 2011. “Horizontal gene transfer in nematodes: a catalyst for plant parasitism?.” Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions 24:879-87.

Katz, L. 2002. “Lateral gene transfers and the evolution of eukaryotes: theories and data.” International J. Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology 52:1893-1900.

 

Keeling, P., J. Palmer. 2008. “Horizontal gene transfer in eukaryotic evolution,” Nature Reviews Genetics 9:605-18.

 

Maeso, I, S. Roy, M. Irimia. 2012. “Widespread Recurrent Evolution of Genomic Features.” Genome Biology and Evolution 4:486-500.

 

Richards, T., J. Dacks, J. Jenkinson, C. Thornton, N. Talbot. 2006. “Evolution of filamentous plant pathogens: gene exchange across eukaryotic kingdoms.” Current Biology 16:1857-1864.

 

Richards, T., J. Dacks, S. Campbell, J. Blanchard, P. Foster, R. McLeod, C. Roberts. 2006. “Evolutionary origins of the eukaryotic shikimate pathway: gene fusions, horizontal gene transfer, and endosymbiotic replacements.” Eukaryotic Cell 5:1517-31.

 

Takishita, K., Y. Chikaraishi, M. Leger, E. Kim, A. Yabuki, N. Ohkouchi, A. Roger. 2012. “Lateral transfer of tetrahymanol-synthesizing genes has allowed multiple diverse eukaryote lineages to independently adapt to environments without oxygen.” Biology Direct 7:5.

 

Taylor, R. 2008. “Kangaroo genes close to humans,” Reuters, Canberra, Nov 18.

Wolf, Y., L. Aravind, N. Grishin, E. Koonin. 1999. “Evolution of aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases--analysis of unique domain architectures and phylogenetic trees reveals a complex history of horizontal gene transfer events.” Genome Research 9:689-710.