Our solar powered biosphere v. Darwinism

 At Phys.Org: Alpine Lake Bacteria Deploy Two Light-Harvesting Systems 

Uncommon descent  

Christopher Packham writes:

Though humans, along with other vertebrate and invertebrate organisms, don’t photosynthesize, we’re definitely the downstream beneficiaries of the life forms that do. Phototrophic organisms at the bottom of the food chain convert abundant sunlight into the energy that ultimately powers all other life.

The two metabolic systems for harvesting light energy are fundamentally different. The most familiar is the chlorophyll-based photosynthesis by which plant life uses light to power the conversion of carbon dioxide and water into sugars and starches; the other system consists of proton-pumping rhodopsins.

Microbial rhodopsins, retinal-binding proteins, provide ion transport driven by light (and incidentally, sensory functions). It’s a family that includes light-driven proton pumps, ion pumps, ion channels and light sensors. Microbial rhodopsins are found in archaea, bacteria and eukaryota and are widespread in oceans and freshwater lakes. Generally speaking, species tend to pick one or the other metabolic system, the PC/Mac dichotomy of phototrophic organisms. However, a multi-institutional team of molecular biologists now reports finding an alpine lake bacterium that uses both bacteriochlorophyll-based photosynthetic complexes and proton-pumping rhodopsins. Their study is published in PNAS.

Based on flash photolysis measurements, the authors report that both systems are photochemically active in Sphingomonas glacialis AAP5, found in the alpine lake Gossenköllesee, located in the Tyrolean Alps. Specifically, in low-light conditions between 4 and 22 degrees Celsius, the bacterium expresses bacteriochlorophyll, and in light conditions at temperatures below 16 degrees Celsius, expresses xanthorhodopsin, a proton pump.

S. glacialis uses harvested light to synthesize ATP and to stimulate growth. The authors write, “This indicates that the use of two systems for light harvesting may represent an evolutionary adaptation to the specific environmental conditions found in alpine lakes and other analogous ecosystems,” namely a response to large seasonal changes of temperature and light.

As the authors note, bacteriochlorophyll-based systems are large, complex and pigment-driven, requiring complex molecular machinery for synthesis, assembly and regulation. But once assembled, they comprise a “set-it-and-forget-it” system that functions even under low-light conditions. Rhodopsins, on the other hand, are far simpler and less expensive to express; their disadvantage is that they are only assembled and function in the presence of higher irradiance levels.

Loaded with all the genetic hardware for both chlorophototrophy and retinalphototrophy, these photoheterotrophic little guys have a reduced need for aerobic respiration and can therefore use available carbon for growth, a scarce commodity in the alpine lake environment they call home. 

“As the authors note, bacteriochlorophyll-based systems are large, complex and pigment-driven, requiring complex molecular machinery for synthesis, assembly and regulation.” A statement such as this, acknowledging complex, functional systems of molecular machines necessary for photosynthesis, is scientifically incompatible with the suggestion that “light harvesting may represent an evolutionary adaptation.”

Unguided natural processes degrade complex, functional systems over time. The spacetime history of the universe is woefully insufficient to randomly produce such complex, functional molecules. Yet again, researchers have claimed godlike powers for nature. Deifying nature has no place in modern science, since we know that nature itself is subject to laws that regulate its workings. The light-harvesting capabilities of bacteria represent the work of intelligent design, consistent with the role of God as Creator. 

Design deniers:stumped by the book of life again?

Yet Another Example Of How Materialism Blinds Its Proponents

Uncommondescent 

Over at the Reasons.org post (see here), UB and JVL are having an exchange that illustrates perfectly how materialism blinds its proponents.

UB summarizes:

In 1948 did John Von Neumann take a page from Alan Turing’s 1933 Machine and give a series of lectures predicting that a quiescent symbol system and a set of independent constraints would be required for autonomous open-ended self replication? Yes. In 1953 did Francis Crick, along with Watson, discover the sequence structure of that symbol system, calling it a code? Yes. And in 1955 did he further predict that an unknown set of protein constraints would be found working in the system, establishing the necessary code relationships? Yes. In 1956-1958 did Mahlon Hoagland and Paul Zamecnik experimentally confirm Crick’s (and Von Neumann’s) predictions. Yes. In 1961, did Marshal Nirenberg have to demonstrate the first symbolic relationship in the gene system in order to know it? Yes. In 1969 did Howard Pattee set off on a five decade analysis of the gene system, confirming it as symbolic control of a dynamic process? Yes. Do the encoded descriptions of the constraints have to be physically coherent with all the other descriptions (i.e. self-referent) in order to successfully function? Yes. Is the gene system and written human language the only two systems known to science that operate in this way? Yes. Is the appearance of an encoded symbol system considered in science to be a universal correlate of intelligence? Yes.

All of UB’s claims are true beyond the slightest doubt. Is JVL convinced? Of course not. He writes: 

I’d say you made an error in how you choose to interpret the works of semiotic researchers as supporting ID when they, themselves, do not see their work in that way. 

JVL’s point is that if UB is correct about the logical inferences of the researchers’ work, how could that conclusion have escaped the researchers themselves? It does not seem to have occurred to JVL that both things could be true at the same time. In other words, UB could very well be correct about the logical conclusion compelled by the researchers’ observations, even though the researchers themselves did not come to that conclusion. How is that possible? Simple. The researchers, like JVL, were blinded by their a priori metaphysical commitments. They literally could not see where their own work was leading.

Examples of researchers who could not see where their own work was heading abound in history. Does anyone think that Copernicus reached his heliocentric conclusions based on original research alone? Of course he didn’t. Men had been observing the planets and the stars for hundreds of years before Copernicus, and he had a library full of their work. All of these prior researchers concluded that their observations supported a geocentric cosmology. Copernicus’ genius was not in making new observations. His genius was in interpreting observations that had been made over the course of hundreds of years through a new paradigm (a paradigm inspired, by the way, by Copernicus’ conviction that God’s design had to be more elegant than the existing system described). 

Now, let’s imagine if JVL were responding to Copernicus in 1543:Copernicus: Ptolemy established the geocentric paradigm when he published the Almagest in 150 AD.  I do not dispute Ptolemy’s observations. I agree with them. Nor do I dispute the observations of all subsequent astronomers who have taken the geocentric view for granted for nearly 1,400 years. Again, I agree with those observations. But I have concluded that even though those observations were correct, the researchers did not reach the correct conclusion from those observations. The earth orbits the sun.

JVL: The researchers on whose observations you are relying did not reach the same conclusion that you do. Therefore, you must be wrong.

Sound farfetched? Not so fast. There were lots of JVLs back in the 16th century who said that very thing. Copernicus was correct. But that didn’t stop people like JVL from pushing back at him on the basis of authority. Indeed, the people who pushed back at Copernicus had an even better argument than JVL does today. After all, Copernicus was trying to upset a paradigm that had been taken for granted for well over a millennium. The authority weighing against him was overwhelming. But he was right and the prior authorities were wrong.That is why science proceeds by challenging authority, not, as JVL would have it, by meekly submitting to it.

So yes, it is true as JVL says. The researchers UB cites did not understand the significance of their own observations, just as the researchers who preceded Copernicus (many of whom were brilliant men) did not understand the significance of their own observations.

JVL thinks he has a knockdown counter to UB: “The researchers you cite did not reach the same conclusion that you do.” He is wrong about that.

Marcel-Paul Schützenberger: a brief history.

 Marcel-Paul Schützenberger 

Wikipedia 

 Marcel-Paul "Marco" Schützenberger (24 October 1920 – 29 July 1996) was a French mathematician and Doctor of Medicine. He worked in the fields of formal language, combinatorics, and information theory.[1] In addition to his formal results in mathematics, he was "deeply involved in [a] struggle against the votaries of [neo-]Darwinism",[2] a stance which has resulted in some mixed reactions from his peers and from critics of his stance on evolution. Several notable theorems and objects in mathematics as well as computer science bear his name (for example Schutzenberger group or the Chomsky–Schützenberger hierarchy). Paul Schützenberger was his great-grandfather. 

Contributions medicine and biology 

Schützenberger's first doctorate, in medicine, was awarded in 1948 from the Faculté de Médecine de Paris.[4] His doctoral thesis, on the statistical study of biological sex at birth, was distinguished by the Baron Larrey Prize from the French Academy of Medicine.[5]

Biologist Jaques Besson, a co-author with Schützenberger on a biological topic,[6] while noting that Schützenberger is perhaps most remembered for work in pure mathematical fields, credits him[5] for likely being responsible for the introduction of statistical sequential analysis in French hospital practice.[7] 

Contributions to computer science and linguistics 

Schützenberger's second doctorate was awarded in 1953 from Université Paris III[dubious – discuss].[8] This work, developed from earlier results[9][10] is counted amongst the early influential French academic work in information theory.[11] His later impact in both linguistics and combinatorics is reflected by two theorems in formal linguistics (the Chomsky–Schützenberger enumeration theorem[12] and the Chomsky–Schützenberger representation theorem), and one in combinatorics (the Schützenberger theorem). With Alain Lascoux, Schützenberger is credited with the foundation of the notion of the plactic monoid,[13][14] reflected in the name of the combinatorial structure called by some the Lascoux–Schützenberger tree.[15][16]

In automata theory, Schützenberger is credited with first defining (what later became known as) weighted automata, the first studied model of automata which compute a quantitative output.[17]

The mathematician Dominique Perrin credited Schützenberger with "deeply [influencing] the theory of semigroups" and "deep results on rational functions and transducers", amongst other contributions to mathematics.[1]

Office honors and recognition 

Professorships and other teaching[1]

Professor in the Faculty of Sciences at the University of Poitiers (1957–1963)

Lecturer in the Faculty of Medicine at Harvard University (1961–1962)

Director of Research at the CNRS (1963–1964)

Professor at the University of Paris (1964–1970)

Professor in the Faculty of Sciences at the University of Paris VII (1970-until his death in 1996)

National honors

In 1988, after having been a Correspondant since 1979, Schützenberger was made a full Membre of French Academy of Sciences.

Posthumous recognitions

After his death, two journals in theoretical mathematics dedicated issues to Schützenberger's memory. He was commemorated in this manner by Theoretical Computer Science in 1998[18] and again by the International Journal of Algebra and Computation in 1999.[19]

The mathematician David Berlinski provided this dedication in his 2000 book The Advent of The Algorithm: The Idea that Rules the World: À la mémoire de mon ami . . M. P. Schützenberger, 1921-1996. 

Works 

For the complete list of his papers, see: Papers

De la diversité de certains cancers. Pierre Florent Denoix, Paris (1954)/About the diversity of some cancers

Théorie géométrique des polynômes eulériens, with Dominique Foata, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, Springer (1970)/Geometric theory of Euler polynomials

Triangle de pensées, with Alain Connes and André Lichnerowicz, Paris, O. Jacob ; Saint-Gély du Fesc : Espace 34 (2000)/Triangle of thoughts

Les failles du darwinisme, La Recherche, n°283 (January 1996)/The miracles of darwinism

Œuvres complètes, edited by Jean Berstel, Alain Lascoux and Dominique Perrin, Institut Gaspard-Monge, Université Paris-Est (2009)/Complete Works

The Complete Works of Marcel-Paul Schützenberger: Complete Works

David Berlinski further explains why theist and non-theist alike can dare to deny deny Darwin.

 The Book of Life  

  THE DISCOVERY of DNA by James D. Watson and Francis Crick in 1952 revealed that a living creature is an organization of matter orchestrated by a genetic text. Within the bacterial cell, for example, the book of life is written in a distinctive language. The book is read aloud, its message specifying the construction of the cell’s constituents, and then the book is copied, passed faithfully into the future.

This striking metaphor introduces a troubling instability, a kind of tremor, into biological thought. With the discovery of the genetic code, every living creature comes to divide itself into alien realms: the alphabetic and the organismic. The realms are conceptually distinct, responding to entirely different imperatives and constraints. An alphabet, on the one hand, belongs to the class of finite combinatorial objects, things that are discrete and that fit together in highly circumscribed ways. An organism, on the other hand, traces a continuous figure in space and in time. How, then, are these realms coordinated?

I ask the question because in similar systems, coordination is crucial. When I use the English language, the rules of grammar act as a constraint on the changes that I might make to the letters or sounds I employ. This is something we take for granted, an ordinary miracle in which I pass from one sentence to the next, almost as if crossing an abyss by means of a series of well-placed stepping stones. 

In living creatures, things evidently proceed otherwise. There is no obvious coordination between alphabet and organism; the two objects are governed by different conceptual regimes, and that apparently is the end of it. Under the pressures of competition, the orchid Orphrys apifera undergoes a statistically adapted drift, some incidental feature in its design becoming over time ever more refined, until, consumed with longing, a misguided bee amorously mounts the orchid’s very petals, convinced that he has seen shimmering there a female’s fragile genitalia. As this is taking place, the marvelous mimetic design maturing slowly, the orchid’s underlying alphabetic system undergoes a series of random perturbations, letters in its genetic alphabet winking off or winking on in a way utterly independent of the grand convergent progression toward perfection taking place out there where the action is.

We do not understand, we cannot re-create, a system of this sort. However it may operate in life, randomness in language is the enemy of order, a way of annihilating meaning And not only in language, but in any language-like system–computer programs, for example. The alien influence of randomness in such systems was first noted by the distinguished French mathematician M.P. Schutzenberger, who also marked the significance of this circumstance for evolutionary theory. “If we try to simulate such a situation,” he wrote, “by making changes randomly . . . on computer programs, we find that we have no chance . . . even to see what the modified program would compute; it just jams.(3) 

Planets of Possibility 

THIS IS not yet an argument, only an expression of intellectual unease; but the unease tends to build as analogies are amplified. The general issue is one of size and space, and the way in which something small may be found amidst something very big.

Linguists in the 1950’s, most notably Noam Chomsky and George Miller, asked dramatically how many grammatical English sentences could be constructed with 100 letters. Approximately 10 to the 25th power, they answered. This is a very large number. But a sentence is one thing; a sequence, another. A sentence obeys the laws of English grammar; a sequence is lawless and comprises any concatenation of those 100 letters. If there are roughly (1025) sentences at hand, the number of sequences 100 letters in length is, by way of contrast, 26 to the 100th power. This is an inconceivably greater number. The space of possibilities has blown up, the explosive process being one of combinatorial inflation.

Now, the vast majority of sequences drawn on a finite alphabet fail to make a statement: they consist of letters arranged to no point or purpose. It is the contrast between sentences and sequences that carries the full, critical weight of memory and intuition. Organized as a writhing ball, the sequences resemble a planet-sized object, one as large as pale Pluto. Landing almost anywhere on that planet, linguists see nothing but nonsense. Meaning resides with the grammatical sequences, but they, those sentences, occupy an area no larger than a dime.

How on earth could the sentences be discovered by chance amid such an infernal and hyperborean immensity of gibberish? They cannot be discovered by chance, and, of course, chance plays no role in their discovery. The linguist or the native English-speaker moves around the place or planet with a perfectly secure sense of where he should go, and what he is apt to see.

The eerie and unexpected presence of an alphabet in every living creature might suggest the possibility of a similar argument in biology. It is DNA of course, that acts as life’s primordial text, the code itself organized in nucleic triplets, like messages in Morse code. Each triplet is matched to a particular chemical object, an amino acid. There are twenty such acids in all. They correspond to letters in an alphabet. As the code is read somewhere in life’s hidden housing, the linear order of the nucleic acids induces a corresponding linear order in the amino acids. The biological finger writes, and what the cell reads is an ordered presentation of such amino acids-a protein.

Like the nucleic acids, proteins are alphabetic objects, composed of discrete constituents. On average, proteins are roughly 250 amino acid residues in length, so a given protein may be imagined as a long biochemical word, one of many. 

The aspects of an analogy are now in place. What is needed is a relevant contrast, something comparable to sentences and sequences in language. Of course nothing completely comparable is at hand: there are no sentences in molecular biology. Nonetheless, there is this fact, helpfully recounted by Richard Dawkins: “The actual animals that have ever lived on earth are a tiny subset of the theoretical animals that could exist.” It follows that over the course of four billion years, life has expressed itself by means of a particular stock of proteins, a certain set of life-like words.

A COMBINATORIAL COUNT is now possible. The MIT physicist Murray Eden, to whom I owe this argument, estimates the number of the viable proteins at 10 to the 50th power. Within this set is the raw material of everything that has ever lived: the flowering plants and the alien insects and the seagoing turtles and the sad shambling dinosaurs, the great evolutionary successes and the great evolutionary failures as well. These creatures are, quite literally, composed of the proteins that over the course of time have performed some useful function, with “usefulness” now standing for the sense of sentencehood in linguistics. 

As in the case of language, what has once lived occupies some corner in the space of a larger array of possibilities, the actual residing in the shadow of the possible. The space of all possible proteins of a fixed length (250 residues, recall) is computed by multiplying 20 by itself 250 times (20 to the 250th power). It is idle to carry out the calculation. The numbers larger by far than seconds in the history of the world since the Big Bang or grains of sand on the shores of every sounding sea. Another planet now looms in the night sky, Pluto-sized or bigger, a conceptual companion to the planet containing every sequence composed by endlessly arranging the 26 English letters into sequences 100 letters in length. This planetary doppelganger is the planet of all possible proteins of fixed length, the planet, in a certain sense, of every conceivable form of carbon-based life.

And there the two planets lie, spinning on their soundless axes. The contrast between sentences and sequences on Pluto reappears on Pluto’s double as the contrast between useful protein forms and all the rest; and it reappears in terms of the same dramatic difference in numbers, the enormous (20 to the 250th power) overawing the merely big (10 to the 50th power), the contrast between the two being quite literally between an immense and swollen planet and a dime’s worth of area. That dime-sized corner, which on Pluto contains the English sentences, on Pluto’s double contains the living creatures; and there the biologist may be seen tramping, the warm puddle of wet life achingly distinct amid the planet’s snow and stray proteins. It is here that living creatures, whatever their ultimate fate, breathed and moaned and carried on, life evidently having discovered the small quiet corner of the space of possibilities in which things work.

It would seem that evolution, Murray Eden writes in artfully ambiguous language, “was directed toward the incredibly small proportion of useful protein forms. . . ,” the word “directed” conveying, at least to me, the sobering image of a stage-managed search, with evolution bypassing the awful immensity of all that frozen space because in some sense evolution knew where it was going.

And yet, from the perspective of Darwinian theory, it is chance that plays the crucial–that plays the only role in generating the proteins. Wandering the surface of a planet, evolution wanders blindly, having forgotten where it has been, unsure of where it is going. 

The Artificer of Design 

RANDOM MUTATIONS are the great creative demiurge of evolution, throwing up possibilities and bathing life in the bright light of chance. Each living creature is not only what it is but what it might be. What, then, acts to make the possible palpable?

The theory of evolution is a materialistic theory. Various deities need not apply. Any form of mind is out. Yet a force is needed, something adequate to the manifest complexity of the biological world, and something that in the largest arena of all might substitute for the acts of design, anticipation, and memory that are obvious features of such day-to-day activities as fashioning a sentence or a sonnet.

This need is met in evolutionary theory by natural selection, the filter but not the source of change. “It may be said,” Darwin wrote, 

that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good: silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, as the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life.

Natural selection emerges from these reflections as a strange force-like concept. It is strange because it is unconnected to any notion of force in physics, and it is force-like because natural selection does something, it has an effect and so functions as a kind of cause.(4) 

Creatures, habits, organ systems, body plans, organs, and tissues are shaped by natural selection. Population geneticists write of selection forces, selection pressures, and coefficients of natural selection; biologists say that natural selection sculpts, shapes, coordinates, transforms, directs, controls, changes, and transfigures living creatures.

It is natural selection, Richard Dawkins believes, that is the artificer of design, a cunning force that mocks human ingenuity even as it mimics it:

Charles Darwin showed how it is possible for blind physical forces to mimic the effects of conscious design, and, by operating as a cumulative filter of chance variations, to lead eventually to organized and adaptive complexity, to mosquitoes and mammoths, to humans and therefore, indirectly, to books and computers.

In affirming what Darwin showed, these words suggest that Darwin demonstrated the power of natural selection in some formal sense, settling the issue once and for all. But that is simply not true. When Darwin wrote, the mechanism of evolution that he proposed had only life itself to commend it. But to refer to the power of natural selection by appealing to the course of evolution is a little like confirming a story in the New York Times by reading it twice. The theory of evolution is, after all, a general theory of change; if natural selection can sift the debris of chance to fashion an elephant’s trunk, should it not be able to work elsewhere–amid computer programs and algorithms, words and sentences? Skeptics require a demonstration of natural selection’s cunning, one that does not involve the very phenomenon it is meant to explain. 

No sooner said than done. An extensive literature is now devoted to what is optimistically called artificial life. These are schemes in which a variety of programs generate amusing computer objects and by a process said to be similar to evolution show that they are capable of growth and decay and even a phosphorescent simulacrum of death. An algorithm called “Face Prints,” for example, has been designed to enable crime victims to identify their attackers. The algorithm runs through hundreds of facial combinations (long hair, short hair, big nose, wide chin, moles, warts, wens, wrinkles) until the indignant victim spots the resemblance between the long-haired, big-nosed, wide-chinned portrait of the perpetrator and the perpetrator himself.

It is the presence of the human victim in this scenario that should give pause. What is he doing there, complaining loudly amid those otherwise blind forces? A mechanism that requires a discerning human agent cannot be Darwinian. The Darwinian mechanism neither anticipates nor remembers. It gives no directions and makes no choices. What is unacceptable in evolutionary theory, what is strictly forbidden, is the appearance of a force with the power to survey time, a force that conserves a point or a property because it will be useful. Such a force is no longer Darwinian. How would a blind force know such a thing? And by what means could future usefulness be transmitted to the present?

If life is, as evolutionary biologists so often say, a matter merely of blind thrusting and throbbing, any definition of natural selection must plainly meet what I have elsewhere called a rule against deferred success.(5)

It is a rule that cannot be violated with impunity; if evolutionary theory is to retain its intellectual integrity, it cannot be violated at all.

But the rule is widely violated, the violations so frequent as to amount to a formal fallacy. 

Advent of the Head Monkey 

IT IS Richard Dawkins’s grand intention in The Blind Watchmaker to demonstrate, as one reviewer enthusiastically remarked, “how natural selection allows biologists to dispense with such notions as purpose and design.” This he does by exhibiting a process in which the random exploration of certain possibilities, a blind stab here, another there, is followed by the filtering effects of natural selection, some of those stabs saved, others discarded. But could a process so conceived–a Darwinian process–discover a simple English sentence: a target, say, chosen from Shakespeare? The question is by no means academic. If natural selection cannot discern a simple English sentence, what chance is there that it might have discovered the mammalian eye or the system by which glucose is regulated by the liver? A thought experiment in The Blind Watchmaker now follows. Randomness in the experiment is conveyed by the metaphor of the monkeys, perennial favorites in the theory of probability. There they sit, simian hands curved over the keyboards of a thousand typewriters, their long agile fingers striking keys at random. It is an image of some poignancy, those otherwise intelligent apes banging away at a machine they cannot fathom; and what makes the poignancy pointed is the fact that the system of rewards by which the apes have been induced to strike the typewriter’s keys is from the first rigged against them. 

The probability that a monkey will strike a given letter is one in 26. The typewriter has 26 keys: the monkey, one working finger. But a letter is not a word. Should Dawkins demand that the monkey get two English letters right, the odds against success rise with terrible inexorability from one in 26 to one in 676. The Shakespearean target chosen by Dawkins–“Methinks it is like a weasel”–is a six-word sentence containing 28 English letters (including the spaces). It occupies an isolated point in a space of 10,000 million, million, million, million, million, million possibilities. This is a very large number; combinatorial inflation is at work. And these are very long odds. And a six-word sentence consisting of 28 English letters is a very short, very simple English sentence.

Such are the fatal facts. The problem confronting the monkeys is, of course, a double one: they must, to be sure, find the right letters, but they cannot lose the right letters once they have found them. A random search in a space of this size is an exercise in irrelevance. This is something the monkeys appear to know. What more, then, is expected; what more required? Cumulative selection, Dawkins argues–the answer offered as well by Stephen Jay Gould, Manfred Eigen, and Daniel Dennett. The experiment now proceeds in stages. The monkeys type randomly. After a time, they are allowed to survey what they have typed in order to choose the result “which however slightly most resembles the target phrase.” It is a computer that in Dawkins’s experiment performs the crucial assessments, but I prefer to imagine its role assigned to a scrutinizing monkey-the Head Monkey of the experiment. The process under way is one in which stray successes are spotted and then saved. This process is iterated and iterated again. Variations close to the target are conserved because they are close to the target, the Head Monkey equably surveying the scene until, with the appearance of a miracle in progress, randomly derived sentences do begin to converge on the target sentence itself.

The contrast between schemes and scenarios is striking. Acting on their own, the monkeys are adrift in fathomless possibilities, any accidental success-a pair of English-like letters-lost at once, those successes seeming like faint untraceable lights flickering over a wine-dark sea. The advent of the Head Monkey changes things entirely. Successes are conserved and then conserved again. The light that formerly flickered uncertainly now stays lit, a beacon burning steadily, a point of illumination. By the light of that light, other lights are lit, until the isolated successes converge, bringing order out of nothingness. 

The entire exercise is, however, an achievement in self-deception. A target phrase? Iterations that most resemble the target? A Head Monkey that measures the distance between failure and success? If things are sightless, how is the target represented, and how is the distance between randomly generated phrases and the targets assessed? And by whom? And the Head Monkey? What of him? The mechanism of deliberate design, purged by Darwinian theory on the level of the organism, has reappeared in the description of natural selection itself, a vivid example of what Freud meant by the return of the repressed.

This is a point that Dawkins accepts without quite acknowledging, rather like a man adroitly separating his doctor’s diagnosis from his own disease.(6) Nature presents life with no targets. Life shambles forward, surging here, shuffling there, the small advantages accumulating on their own until something novel appears on the broad evolutionary screen-an arch or an eye, an intricate pattern of behavior, the complexity characteristic of life. May we, then, see this process at work, by seeing it simulated? “Unfortunately,” Dawkins writes, “I think it may be beyond my powers as a programmer to set up such a counterfeit world.”(7) 

This is the authentic voice of contemporary Darwinian theory. What may be illustrated by the theory does not involve a Darwinian mechanism; what involves a Darwinian mechanism cannot be illustrated by the theory.     

Darwinism's failure as a predictive model XXIII

 In conclusion: 

Cornelius G Hunter 

Ever since Darwin evolutionists have been certain of their theory. They hold that evolution is a fact beyond all reasonable doubt. Evolutionists arrive at this conclusion from a wide range of powerful arguments based on contrastive reasoning where evolutionary theory is compared to alternative hypotheses derived from the concept of independent creation. (Hunter 2014) Evolutionists have found these alternative hypotheses to be false, leaving evolutionary ideas as the only remaining possibility. This process of elimination, which traces back to the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, is based on comparing scientific evidence with expectations derived from independent creation. Therefore the motivation, justification and truth claims for evolutionary theory entail metaphysical beliefs about independent creation.

 

This raises the question of how evolution fares without the metaphysics. That is, how does evolution compare with the scientific evidence? Evolutionary theory holds that the biological world (and more generally the cosmos as well), arose from the interplay of chance and natural law. In other words, evolution holds that the species arose spontaneously. From a strictly scientific perspective, this is a high claim. It is perhaps not surprising that, setting the contrasting reasoning aside and focusing exclusively on the science, evolution’s fundamental predictions fail badly. The above sections reviewed several fundamental predictions of evolutionary theory, once held with great conviction, that have all been found to be false, much to the surprise of practitioners. 

Philosophers have debated the role and importance of predictions in the historical sciences, and how they are related to explanatory capacity. (Cleland 2011; Cleland 2013; Turner) The predictions described above do have strong implications for evolution’s capacity to explain phenomena. For most of these predictions, the falsification has been followed by one or more proposed theory modifications to accommodate the new data. These modifications are often vague and they cause the theory to lose its parsimony. Perhaps most importantly they refute evolution’s common cause argument and remove its so-called “smoking gun.” The evolutionist’s claim has been that in biology we find a wide range of observations that seem unlikely or bewildering, but that in a stroke evolution parsimoniously explains and makes sense of them. Evolution brings a consilience to the data.

 

The above predictions illustrate that there is no such consilience. Evolution’s predictions, and associated explanations, do not make sense of the observations. Consider, for example, the pentadactyl structure prediction discussed above. In Darwin’s day the five-digit pentadactyl structure was observed in a wide variety of species. Why should the same type of structure be used for such a wide variety of tasks? Evolution’s common descent provided a single, simple explanation. The pentadactyl structure arose from a single common ancestor. The associated prediction is that the pentadactyl structure should continue to appear in species according to a common descent pattern. The failure of the pentadactyl structure to form this pattern does not merely represent a false prediction. This common cause argument had been celebrated for more than a century as a compelling proof text. It appears consistently in the literature and is one of evolution’s “smoking guns.” The falsification of this prediction means the loss of this compelling argument. And it means the introduction of non parsimonious explanations, calling for the pentadactyl structure to repeatedly evolve and disappear in various lineages, as the data require. 

Yet contrastive reasoning, evolutionists argue, prove that evolution is a fact. This illustrates the tremendous importance of the role of contrastive reasoning. If all we had was the science there would be no basis for believing the species have spontaneously arisen, much less that such an idea is a fact. But evolution is not a typical scientific theory. In spite of the consistent failure of fundamental scientific predictions, there remains no doubt amongst evolutionists that evolution is a fact. Its high standing is underwritten by extremely powerful contrastive proofs which render its scientific puzzles less crucial. Those puzzles are interpreted as research questions, not challenges to the fact of evolution. That fact, for evolutionists, has already been established by the philosophy and theology that support evolution’s contrastive reasoning. From a strictly scientific perspective, evolution is not a good theory. 

References 

Cleland, Carol. 2011. “Prediction and Explanation in Historical Natural Science.” Brit. J. Phil. Sci. 62:551–582.

 

Cleland, Carol. 2013. “Common cause explanation and the search for a smoking gun.” Geological Society of America Special Papers 502:1-9.

 

Hunter, C. 2014. “Darwin’s Principle: The Use of Contrastive Reasoning in the Confirmation of Evolution.” J International Society History of Philosophy of Science 4:106-149.

Turner, Derek. 2013. “Historical geology: Methodology and metaphysics.” Geological Society of America Special Papers 502:11-18. 

Darwinism's failure as a predictive model XXII

 Darwinism's predictions 

Cornelius G Hunter 

According to evolutionary theory, biological variation that supports or enhances reproduction will increase in future generations—a process known as natural selection. The corollary to this is that biological variation that degrades reproduction will not be selected for. Clearly, natural selection could not result in destructive behavior. Here are two representative statements from Origins:

 

we may feel sure that any [biological] variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed. (Darwin, 63)

 

Natural selection will never produce in a being any structure more injurious than beneficial to that being, for natural selection acts solely by and for the good of each. (Darwin, 162-3)

 

But are not examples of such “injurious” behavior obvious? When the rattlesnake rattles its tail, is this not injurious to its hunt for food, and ultimately to its reproductive chances? Darwin argued that this and other such examples are signals to frighten away enemies, not warn the intended prey.

 

But today we have many examples of injurious behavior that falsify Darwin’s prediction that natural selection “will never produce in a being any structure more injurious than beneficial to that being.” In bacteria, for example, phenomenally complicated mechanisms carefully and precisely destroy the individual. Clearly, this suicide mechanism is more injurious than beneficial to the bacteria’s future prospects. 

One such mechanism consists of a toxic gene coupled with an antitoxic gene. The toxic gene codes for a protein that sets the act of suicide into motion and so ultimately kills the bacteria. The antitoxic gene inhibits the toxic gene from executing its mission. Except, that is, when certain problems arise. Lack of proper nutrients, radiation damage and problems due to antibiotics can all cause the antitoxin to be diluted, thus allowing the toxin to perform its mission. (Chaloupka, Vinter; Engelberg-Kulka, Hazan, Amitai; Engelberg-Kulka, Amitai, Kolodkin-Gal, Hazan; University Of Nebraska)

 

This bacterial suicide is probably good for the bacteria population on the whole. If nutrients are running low, then better for some bacteria to die off so the neighbors can live on. Not only will the reduced population require less nutrients, but the dismantled bacteria help to replenish the food supply. Therefore evolutionists can explain the suicide mechanism as having evolved not for the individual bacteria, but for the population. But the explanation introduces major problems for the theory.

 

Suicide is probably good for the bacteria population, on the whole, in challenging conditions. Since gene sharing within a bacteria population is at its maximum, evolutionists have no problem explaining such altruism as a result of kin selection (see Altruism). Such a facile response, however, misses the profound problem of how such a design could arise in the first place, for the mechanism is immensely complex.

 

In this example of bacteria suicide, the antitoxic gene normally inhibits the toxic gene from executing its mission. When the antitoxic gene is diluted then the toxic gene can perform its mission. The toxin does not, however, single-handedly destroy the cell. The toxin is an enzyme that cuts up the copies of DNA (i.e., messenger RNA, or mRNA) that are used to make other proteins. By slicing up the mRNAs, the cell no longer produces the proteins essential for normal operation. But the toxin does not cut up all mRNAs. Some mRNAs escape unscathed, and consequently a small number of proteins are produced by the cell. These include death proteins that efficiently carry out the task of disassembling the cell.

Death proteins are not the only proteins that the toxin allows to be produced. As researchers reported, the toxin “activates a complex network of proteins.” (Amitai) While some of the proteins bring death to the bacteria, others can help the cell to survive. The result is that most cells in the population are destroyed, but a fraction is spared. This of course makes sense. The suicide mechanism would not help the bacteria population if every individual was destroyed. Instead, some survive, and they can be the founders of a new population when conditions improve.

 

This suicide mechanism and “behavior” is altruistic. Some bacteria die off to save others. And the explanation that this bacteria suicide is due to kin selection adds tremendous complexity to the theory of evolution. Kin selection can select from only that which is available. This elaborate suicide mechanism must have just happened to arise from some combination of random mutations, and then remained in place until the time when it would succeed in surviving a stressful environment. The toxin and antitoxin genes with their clever functionality, the death and survival proteins, the inter cellular communications—all these were needed to be in place and to be coordinated before the kin selection could even begin to act. This is highly unlikely and adds considerable complexity to the theory. 

References 

Amitai, Shahar, Ilana Kolodkin-Gal, Mirit Hananya-Meltabashi, Ayelet Sacher, Hanna Engelberg-Kulka. 2009. “Escherichia coli MazF leads to the simultaneous selective synthesis of both ‘death proteins’ and ‘survival proteins’.” PLoS Genetics 5:e1000390.

 

Chaloupka, J., V. Vinter. 1996. “Programmed cell death in bacteria.” Folia Microbiologica, 41:6.

 

Engelberg-Kulka, Hanna, Ronen Hazan, Shahar Amitai. 2005. “mazEF: a chromosomal toxin-antitoxin module that triggers programmed cell death in bacteria.” J Cell Science 118:4327-4332.

 

Engelberg-Kulka, Hanna, Shahar Amitai, Ilana Kolodkin-Gal, Ronen Hazan. 2006. “Bacterial programmed cell death and multicellular behavior in bacteria,” PLoS Genetics 2:e135.

University Of Nebraska. 2007. “New Hope For Fighting Antibiotic Resistance,” ScienceDaily April 27. 

"...But the Father only."

 Mark13:32 NASB"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone." 

Our Trinitarian (and Modalist) friends wave away the obvious problem this verse creates for their doctrine by claiming that Jesus was speaking from the Son's then human standpoint.

 But is this view in harmony with the context of the verse itself ,lets have a look.The verse begins 

 "But of that day and hour no one knows.."  

Obviously meaning no human knows (BTW was Jesus merely saying that no human at that time knew or that no human has ever known and will ever know.), thus if Jesus was speaking purely in terms of the Son's then human existence surely this part of the verse would have covered that. 

Then to illustrate the utter futility of anyone on earth attempting to calculate the 'day or hour' he continues 

",not even the angels of heaven.."

(again did Jesus mean that no angel presently knows or that no angel has ever and will ever know?) ,now, having made it clear that heaven itself was in the dark re:the Father's determination in this matter does it make sense for Jesus to belabor Earth's ignorance? Certainly what no angel knows no human would.

  Why then not allow the verse to interpret itself 

"nor the Son,But the Father alone."  

i.e not even this eldest sibling in Jehovah's family of servants has ever known or will ever know. 

Acts1,6,7NASB " So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, “Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” 7He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority;" 

Though his apostles were understandably curious about Jehovah's timing re:the Kingdom the resurrected (hence superhuman) Jesus indicated that the Father had chosen to keep the decision to himself.

  It does not seem that Jesus felt belittled by his Father's decision so it's odd that there are those who seem determined to take offense in his behalf.

  The bottom line then 

John14:28 KJV "Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. " 

    PS. 0ne more thing,a good question deserving of a straight answer would be ,why does the Holy Spirit not know the day or the hour,better yet why is the Holy Spirit not even mentioned in this verse.I mean the verse (quite literally) mentions everyone else. 

Dag Hammarskjöld: a brief history.

 Dag Hammarskjöld 

(/ˈhæmərʃʊld/ HAM-ər-shuuld,[1] Swedish: [ˈdɑːɡ ˈhâmːarˌɧœld] 29 July 1905 – 18 September 1961) was a Swedish economist and diplomat who served as the second Secretary-General of the United Nations from April 1953 until his death in a plane crash in September 1961. As of 2022, he remains the youngest person to have held the post, having been only 47 years old when he was appointed. 

Hammarskjöld's tenure was characterized by efforts to strengthen the newly formed UN both internally and externally. He led initiatives to improve morale and organisational efficiency while seeking to make the UN more responsive to global issues. He presided over the creation of the first UN peacekeeping forces in Egypt and the Congo and personally intervened to defuse or resolve diplomatic crises. Hammarskjöld's second term was cut short when he died in a plane crash while en route to cease-fire negotiations during the Congo Crisis.

Hammarskjöld was and remains well regarded internationally as a capable diplomat and administrator, and his efforts to resolve various global crises led to him being the only posthumous recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.[2] He is considered one of the two best UN secretaries-general, along with his successor U Thant,[3] and his appointment has been hailed as one of the most notable successes for the organization.[4] U.S. President John F. Kennedy called Hammarskjöld "the greatest statesman of our century."[5] 

From 1930 to 1934, Hammarskjöld was Secretary of a governmental committee on unemployment. During this time he wrote his economics thesis, "Konjunkturspridningen" ("The Spread of the Business Cycle"), and received a doctorate from Stockholm University. In 1936, he became a secretary in Sweden's central bank, the Riksbank. From 1941 to 1948, he served as chairman of the Riksbank's General Council.[8]

Hammarskjöld quickly developed a successful career as a Swedish public servant. He was state secretary in the Ministry of Finance 1936–1945, Swedish delegate to the Organization for European Economic Cooperation 1947–1953, cabinet secretary for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs 1949–1951 and minister without portfolio in Tage Erlander's government 1951–1953.[8]

He helped coordinate government plans to alleviate the economic problems of the post-World War II period and was a delegate to the Paris conference that established the Marshall Plan. In 1950, he became head of the Swedish delegation to UNISCAN, a forum to promote economic cooperation between the United Kingdom and the Scandinavian countries.[9] Although Hammarskjöld served in a cabinet dominated by the Social Democrats, he never officially joined any political party.[8]

In 1951, Hammarskjöld was vice chairman of the Swedish delegation to the United Nations General Assembly in Paris. He became the chairman of the Swedish delegation to the General Assembly in New York in 1952. On 20 December 1954, he was elected to take his father's vacated seat in the Swedish Academy.[10] 

On 10 November 1952 Trygve Lie announced his resignation as Secretary-General of the United Nations. Several months of negotiations ensued between the Western powers and the Soviet Union, without reaching an agreement on his successor. On 13 and 19 March 1953, the Security Council voted on four candidates. Lester B. Pearson of Canada was the only candidate to receive the required majority, but he was vetoed by the Soviet Union.[11][12] At a consultation of the permanent members on 30 March 1953,[13] French permanent representative Henri Hoppenot suggested four candidates, including Hammarskjöld, whom he had met at the Organisation for European Economic Cooperation.[14]

The superpowers hoped to seat a Secretary-General who would focus on administrative issues and refrain from participating in political discussion. Hammarskjöld's reputation at the time was, in the words of biographer Emery Kelèn, "that of a brilliant economist, an unobtrusive technician, and an aristo-bureaucrat". As a result, there was little to no controversy in his selection;[15] the Soviet permanent representative, Valerian Zorin, found Hammarskjöld "harmless".[16] Zorin declared that he would be voting for Hammarskjöld, surprising the Western powers.[17] The announcement set off a flurry of diplomatic activity. British Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden was strongly in favor of Hammarskjöld and asked the United States to "take any appropriate action to induce the [Nationalist] Chinese to abstain".[18] (Sweden recognized the People's Republic of China and faced a potential veto from the Republic of China.) At the U.S. State Department, the nomination "came as a complete surprise to everyone here and we started scrambling around to find out who Mr. Hammarskjold was and what his qualifications were".[19] The State Department authorized Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., the US Ambassador, to vote in favor after he told them that Hammarskjöld "may be as good as we can get".[20][21] 

On 31 March 1953, the Security Council voted 10-0-1 to recommend Hammarskjöld to the General Assembly, with an abstention from Nationalist China.[22] Shortly after midnight on 1 April 1953, Hammarskjöld was awakened by a telephone call from a journalist with the news, which he dismissed as an April Fool's Day joke.[a] He finally believed the news after the third phone call.[14] The Swedish mission in New York confirmed the nomination at 03:00 and a communique from the Security Council was soon thereafter delivered to him.[23] After consulting with the Swedish cabinet and his father, Hammarskjöld decided to accept the nomination.[22] He sent a wire to the Security Council:[24]

With strong feeling personal insufficiency I hesitate to accept candidature but I do not feel I could refuse to assume the task imposed on me should the [UN General] Assembly follow the recommendation of the Security Council by which I feel deeply honoured.

Later in the day Hammarskjöld held a press conference at the Swedish Foreign Ministry. According to diplomat Sverker Åström, he displayed an intense interest and knowledge in the affairs of the UN, which he had never shown any indication of before.[24]

The UN General Assembly voted 57-1-1 on 7 April 1953 to appoint Dag Hammarskjöld as Secretary-General of the United Nations. Hammarskjöld was sworn in as Secretary-General on 10 April 1953.[22] He was unanimously reelected on 26 September 1957 for another term, taking effect on 10 April 1958.[25]

Immediately following the assumption of the Secretariat, Hammarskjöld attempted to establish a good rapport with his staff. He made a point of visiting every UN department to shake hands with as many workers as possible, eating in the cafeteria as often as possible, and relinquishing the Secretary-General's private elevator for general use.[26] He began his term by establishing his own secretariat of 4,000 administrators and setting up regulations that defined their responsibilities. He was also actively engaged in smaller projects relating to the UN working environment; for example, he spearheaded the building of a meditation room at the UN headquarters, where people can withdraw into themselves in silence, regardless of their faith, creed, or religion.[27]

During his term, Hammarskjöld tried to improve relations between Israel and the Arab states. Other highlights include a 1955 visit to China to negotiate the release of 11 captured US pilots who had served in the Korean War,[6] the 1956 establishment of the United Nations Emergency Force, and his intervention in the 1956 Suez Crisis. He is given credit by some historians for allowing participation of the Holy See within the UN that year.[28]

In 1960, the newly independent Congo asked for UN aid in defusing the Congo Crisis. Hammarskjöld made four trips to Congo, but his efforts toward the decolonisation of Africa were considered insufficient by the Soviet Union; in September 1960, the Soviet government denounced his decision to send a UN emergency force to keep the peace. They demanded his resignation and the replacement of the office of Secretary-General by a three-man directorate with a built-in veto, the "troika". The objective was, citing the memoirs of Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, to "equally represent interests of three groups of countries: capitalist, socialist and recently independent".[29][7]

The UN sent a nearly 20,000-strong peacekeeping force to restore order in Congo-Kinshasa. Hammarskjöld's refusal to place peacekeepers in the service of Lumumba's constitutionally elected government provoked a strong reaction of disapproval from the Soviets. The situation would become more scandalous with the assassination of Lumumba by Tshombe's troops. In February 1961, the UN authorized the Peacekeeping Forces to use military force to prevent civil war. The Blue Helmets' attack on Katanga caused Tshombe to flee to Zambia. Hammarskjöld's erratic attitude in not providing support to Lumumba's government, which had been elected by popular vote, drew severe criticism among non-aligned countries and communist and socialist countries. In the end, his actions were supported only by the United States and Belgium.[30] 

On 18 September 1961, Hammarskjöld was en route to negotiate a cease-fire between United Nations Operation in the Congo forces and Katangese troops under Moise Tshombe. His Douglas DC-6 airliner SE-BDY crashed near Ndola, Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia). Hammarskjöld perished as a result of the crash, as did all of the 15 other passengers.[31] Hammarskjöld's death set off a succession crisis at the United Nations,[32] as there was no line of succession and the Security Council had to vote on a successor.[33]

The circumstances of the crash are still unclear. A 1962 Rhodesian inquiry concluded that pilot error was to blame, while a later UN investigation could not determine the cause of the crash.[34] There is evidence suggesting the plane was shot down.[35][36][37] A CIA report claimed the KGB was responsible.[38]

The day after the crash, former U.S. President Harry Truman commented that Hammarskjöld "was on the point of getting something done when they killed him. Notice that I said 'when they killed him'."[38]

In 1998, documents surfaced suggesting CIA, MI6, and/or Belgian mining interest involvement via a South African paramilitary organization. The information was contained in a file from the South African National Intelligence Agency turned over to the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission in relation to the 1993 assassination of Chris Hani, leader of the South African Communist Party. These documents included an alleged plot to "remove" Hammarskjöld and contained a supposed statement from CIA director Allen Dulles that "Dag is becoming troublesome … and should be removed." Hammarskjöld's mission to end the war over the mineral-rich Katangese secession from the newly formed Republic of the Congo was contrary to the interests of those organizations. However these documents were copies rather than originals, precluding substantiation of authenticity through ink and paper testing.[34]

Göran Björkdahl, a Swedish aid worker whose father worked for the UN in Zambia, wrote in 2011 that he believed Hammarskjöld's death was a murder committed, in part, to benefit mining companies like Union Minière, after Hammarskjöld had made the UN intervene in the Katanga crisis. Björkdahl based his assertion on interviews with witnesses of the plane crash near the border of the DRC with Zambia and on archival documents.[39][40]

In 2013 accident investigator Sven Hammarberg was asked by the International Commission of Jurists to investigate Hammarskjöld's death.[41]

In 2014, newly declassified documents revealed that the American ambassador to the Congo sent a cable to Washington D.C. warning that the plane could have been shot down by Belgian mercenary pilot Jan van Risseghem [nl], commander of the small Katanga Air Force. Van Risseghem died in 2007.[36]

On 16 March 2015, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon appointed members to an Independent Panel of Experts to examine new information related to Hammarskjöld's death. The three-member panel was led by Mohamed Chande Othman, the Chief Justice of Tanzania, and included Kerryn Macaulay (Australia's representative to the International Civil Aviation Organization) and Henrik Larsen (a ballistics expert from the Danish National Police).[42] The panel's 99-page report, released 6 July 2015, assigned "moderate" value to nine new eyewitness accounts and transcripts of radio transmissions. Those accounts suggested that Hammarskjöld's plane was already on fire as it landed and that other jet aircraft and intelligence agents were nearby.[43]In 2016, the original documents from the 1998 South African investigation surfaced. Those familiar with the investigation cautioned that even if authentic, the documents could have been initially authored as part of a disinformation campaign.[34]

In 2017, "Airplane Disasters", Series 9, Episode 10: "Deadly Mission" analyzed that the pilot attempting the night landing simply flew into an uncharted hill near the airport.

In 2019, the documentary film Cold Case Hammarskjöld by Danish filmmaker Mads Brügger claimed that Jan van Risseghem had told a friend that he shot down Hammarskjöld's aircraft. This went against the official stance maintained by van Risseghem's family that he was not involved in the death of Hammarskjöld. According to an interview with van Risseghem's wife, he was in Rhodesia negotiating the purchase of a plane for the Katanga Air Force, with the logbooks providing "proof that he was not flying for Katanga at the time". The documentary crew interviewed multiple colleagues of van Risseghem for the film, all of whom supported their theory.[44][45][46] In an interview with Swedish historian Leif Hellström, van Risseghem claimed that he was not in southern Africa at the time the crash happened, and dismissed the idea of his being potentially involved as "fairy stories".[46]

Previously unpublished documents continue to emerge from the UN archives. One found in November 2021, is a death warrant for Hammarskjöld signed by the infamous OAS, the secret organisation nestled in the French army at the time of Algeria's war of independence. The document reads: "It is high time to put an end to his harmful intrusion (…) this sentence common to justice and fairness to be carried out, as soon as possible". The source was revealed by the French journalist Maurin Picard, according to whom the links between the white mercenaries in Katanga and OAS are overt.[47]

In Hammarskjöld's 1959 will he left his personal archive to the National Library of Sweden.[48]

Darwinism's failure as a predictive model XXII

Darwinism's Predictions 

Cornelius G Hunter 

Evolution is a process. It occurs gradually via variations within populations. The tempo may vary, but “the canon of ‘Natura non facit saltum,’” as Darwin explained, was “on this theory intelligible.” But today this is no longer true. The first problem, that species appeared abruptly in the strata, could be explained as a spotty fossil record, though incredible stretches of evolutionary progress would have to have gone missing.

 

But the fossil record is not the only evidence for leaps. Since Darwin, rapid change has been directly observed in species ranging from bacteria and yeast to plants and animals. Consider the house finches which began spreading throughout the United States in the 1940s from Mexico and the southwest. The beaks of these birds adapted to their new environments with great speed. Within a decade or so their beaks had adjusted to the new habitats. (Grant) In another example, Italian wall lizards introduced to a tiny island off the coast of Croatia responded rapidly, developing new head morphology and digestive tract structure. (Herrel, et. al.) Such change “would normally take millions of years to play out …” (Johnson) Likewise mussels introduced to a new environment were found to evolve “in an evolutionary nanosecond compared to the thousands of years previously assumed.” (Mussels evolve quickly to defend against invasive crabs) Such examples of adaptation are not new, and one evolutionist concluded that “evolution can occur much more rapidly than we previously thought. Rapid evolution is pervasive, and the list of examples is growing.” (Rapid Evolution Helps Hunted Outwit Their Predators) All of this means that evolution may need a new mechanism of change. In fact it appears doubtful that minor biological variations leads to large-scale change. As one evolutionist put it, macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution. (Irwin) Increasingly evolutionists have recognized the need for a new mechanism to explain evolutionary change. (Gould, 579, 582) In recent years evolutionists have considered precisely what Darwin ruled out: saltational evolution. Here are some examples:

 

As nature does jump, exclusive gradualism is dismissed. Saltatory evolution is a natural phenomenon, provided by a sudden collapse of the thresholds which resist against evolution. The fossil record and the taxonomic system call for a macromutational interpretation. (van Waesberghe)

 

We offer evidence for three independent instances of saltational evolution in a charismatic moth genus with only eight species. … Each saltational species exhibits a markedly different and discrete example of discontinuous trait evolution (Rubinoff and Le Roux)

 

Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin’s original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution. The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla. In each of these pivotal nexuses in life’s history, the principal “types” seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate “grades” or intermediate forms between different types are detectable. (Koonin)

 

Here we provide for the first time evidence of major phenotypic saltation in the evolution of segment number in a lineage of centipedes (Minelli, Chagas-Júnior and Edgecombe)

Titles of research papers, which include phrases such as “farewell to Darwinism, neo- and otherwise,” “when natura non facit saltum becomes a myth,” “Saltational evolution: hopeful monsters are here to stay,” and “a Neo-Goldschmidtian view of unicellular hopeful monsters,” highlight this falsification of evolution’s prediction that there are no leaps. 

 References 

Gould, Steven Jay. 2002. The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Cambridge: Belknap Press.

 

Grant, B. 2010. “Should Evolutionary Theory Evolve?.” TheScientist January 1.

 

Herrel, A., et. al. 2008. “Rapid large scale evolutionary divergence in morphology and performance associated with the exploitation of a novel dietary resource in the lizard Podarcis sicula.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105:4792-4795.

 

Irwin, D. 2000. “Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution.” Evolution & Development 2:61-62.

 

Johnson, K. 2008. “Lizards rapidly evolve after introduction to island.” National Geographic News April 21.

 

Koonin, E. 2007. “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution.” Biology Direct 2:21.

 

Minelli, A., A. Chagas-Júnior, G. Edgecombe. 2009. “Saltational evolution of trunk segment number in centipedes.” Evolution & Development 11:318-322.

 

“Mussels evolve quickly to defend against invasive crabs.” 2006. ScienceDaily August 11. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/08/060811091251.htm

 

“Rapid Evolution Helps Hunted Outwit Their Predators.” 2003. NewsWise July 16.

http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/?id=500152&sc=wire

 

Rubinoff, D., J. Le Roux. 2008. “Evidence of repeated and independent saltational evolution in a peculiar genus of sphinx moths (Proserpinus: Sphingidae).” PLoS One 3:e4035.

van Waesberghe, H. 1982. “Towards an alternative evolution model.” Acta Biotheoretica 31:3-28.

File under"well said," LXXXVIII

 But what is liberty without wisdom, and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without tuition or restraint. 

Edmund Burke 

Darwinism's failure as a predictive model XXI

 Darwinism's predictions 

Cornelius G Hunter 

Genes hold information that is used to construct protein and RNA molecules which do various tasks in the cell. A gene is copied in a process known as transcription. In the case of a protein-coding gene the transcript is edited and converted into a protein in a process known as translation. All of this is guided by elaborate regulatory processes that occur before, during and after this sequence of transcription, editing and translation.

 

For instance, some of our DNA which was thought to be of little use actually has a key regulatory role. This DNA is transcribed into strands of about 20 nucleotides, known as microRNA. These short snippets bind and interfere with RNA transcripts—copies of DNA genes—when the production of the gene needs to be slowed.

 

MicroRNAs can also help to modify the translation process by stimulating programmed ribosomal frameshifting. Two microRNAs attach to the RNA transcript resulting in a pseudoknot, or triplex, RNA structure form which causes the reading frameshift to occur. (Belew)

 

MicroRNAs do not only come from a cell’s DNA. MicroRNAs can also be imported from nearby cells, thus allowing cells to communicate and influence each other. This helps to explain how cells can differentiate in a growing embryo according to their position within the embryo. (Carlsbecker)

 

MicroRNAs can also come from the food we eat. In other words, food not only contains carbohydrates, proteins, fat, minerals, vitamins and so forth, it also contains information—in the form of these regulatory snippets of microRNA—which regulate our gene production. (Zhang) 

While microRNAs regulate the production of proteins, the microRNAs themselves also need to be regulated. So there is a network of proteins that tightly control microRNA production as well as their removal. “Just the sheer existence of these exotic regulators,” explained one scientist, “suggests that our understanding about the most basic things—such as how a cell turns on and off—is incredibly naïve.” (Hayden)

 

Two basic predictions that evolutionary theory makes regarding microRNAs are that (i) like all of biology, they arose gradually via randomly occurring biological variation (such as mutations) and (ii) as a consequence of this evolutionary origin, microRNAs should approximately form evolution’s common descent pattern. Today’s science has falsified both of these predictions.

 

MicroRNAs are unlikely to have gradually evolved via random mutations, for too many mutations are required. Without the prior existence of genes and the protein synthesis process microRNAs would be useless. And without the prior existence of their regulatory processes, microRNAs would wreak havoc.

 

Given the failure of the first prediction, it is not surprising that the second prediction has also failed. The microRNA genetic sequences do not fall into the expected common descent pattern. That is, when compared across different species, microRNAs do not align with the evolutionary tree. As one scientist explained, “I've looked at thousands of microRNA genes and I can't find a single example that would support the traditional [evolutionary] tree.” (Dolgin)

 

While there remain questions about these new phylogenetic data, “What we know at this stage,” explained another evolutionist, “is that we do have a very serious incongruence.” In other words, different types of data report very different evolutionary trees. The conflict is much greater than normal statistical variations. 

“There have to be,” added another evolutionist, “other explanations.” One explanation is that microRNAs evolve in some unexpected way. Another is that the traditional evolutionary tree is all wrong. Or evolutionists may consider other explanations. But in any case, microRNAs are yet another example of evidence that does not fit evolutionary expectations. Once again, the theory will need to be modified in complex ways to fit the new findings.

 

In the meantime, scientists are finding that imposing the common descent pattern, where microRNAs must be conserved across species, is hampering scientific research:

 

These results highlight the limitations that can result from imposing the requirement that miRNAs be conserved across organisms. Such requirements will in turn result in our missing bona fide organism-specific miRNAs and could perhaps explain why many of these novel miRNAs have not been previously identified. (Londin)

 

Evolutionary theory has been limiting the science. While the common descent pattern has been the guide since the initial microRNA studies, these researchers “liberated” themselves from that constraint, and this is leading to good scientific progress: 

In the early days of the miRNA field, there was an emphasis on identifying miRNAs that are conserved across organisms … Nonetheless, species-specific miRNAs have also been described and characterized as have been miRNAs that are present only in one or a few species of the same genus. Therefore, enforcing an organism-conservation requirement during miRNA searches is bound to limit the number of potential miRNAs that can be discovered, leaving organism- and lineage-specific miRNAs undiscovered. In our effort to further characterize the human miRNA repertoire, we liberated ourselves from the conservation requirement … These findings strongly suggest the possibility of a wide-ranging species-specific miRNA-ome that has yet to be characterized. (Londin)

 

The two microRNA predictions have been falsified and, not surprisingly, the evolutionary assumption has hampered the scientific research of how microRNAs work. 

References 

Belew, Ashton T., et. al. 2014. “Ribosomal frameshifting in the CCR5 mRNA is regulated by miRNAs and the NMD pathway.” Nature 512:265-9.

 

Carlsbecker, Annelie, et. al. 2010. “Cell signalling by microRNA165/6 directs gene dose-dependent root cell fate.” Nature 465:316-21.

 

Dolgin, Elie. 2012. “Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution.” Nature 486:460-2.

 

Hayden, Erika Check. 2010. “Human genome at ten: Life is complicated.” Nature 464:664-7.

 

Londin, Eric, et. al. 2015. “Analysis of 13 cell types reveals evidence for the expression of numerous novel primate- and tissue-specific microRNAs.” Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112:E1106-15.

Zhang, L., et. al. 2012. “Exogenous plant MIR168a specifically targets mammalian LDLRAP1: evidence of cross-kingdom regulation by microRNA.” Cell Research 22:107-26.