Why Darwinism makes no sense in the light of the history of life.

If Darwin was right wouldn't the history of life look very different?for instance would any multicellular organism's(including humans) have evolved?If,as its apologists claim,natural selection conserves only the fittest replicator of a selfish gene.Then it does seem that the process should have stopped at the unicellular asexual autotrophs at the dawn of life,at the very least natural selection should prohibit the emergence of any multicellular organisms. 

The emergence of multicellular life meant that  the proto-replicators had to trade their independence and virtual immortality to become  mere components of a far less efficient and less survivable compound replicator,this makes very little sense from the Darwinian perspective of a selfish gene seeking out the most efficient means of replication.

   The Larger and more intricate the multicellular organism in question the less sensible it would be for our selfish gene to select it as a vehicle.Needless to say the emergence of sexual reproduction adds a further layer of mysticism to the matter.In light of the above we can only conclude that if Darwin were right,there would be no Darwinism(i.e the theory).

Still in denial over design

Mechanical Gears Discovered on Planthopper Insects Provide an Opportunity to Recognize, or Deny, Design

Casey Luskin September 18, 2013 9:44 AM

 

 

History has long attributed the development of the gear to the ancient Greeks, over two thousand years ago. But now it turns out that human beings did not, in fact, invent the gear. Whether natural selection or intelligent agency deserves the credit may be up for dispute, but mechanical gears have recently been discovered in the biological realm. Ladies and gentleman, meet the planthopper insect Issus.

The gears in question are found on a structure near the top of each of the insect's hindlegs, called the trochanter. Humans have a trochanter, which is near the top of the femur connecting to the hipbone. When people have hip replacement surgery, part of what is normally replaced is the trochanter. Arthropods have an analogous structure in their legs, which is rigidly attached to the femur, and articulates with the insect's version of the hip, called the coxa. This Wikipedia image below labels the basic anatomy of an arthropod leg:

Now that you know a little about arthropod leg anatomy, next time you eat crab legs, you can impress your friends (or gross them out) by naming the parts, including the trochanter!

In any case, the trochantera of the hindlegs of Issus nymphs have interlocking gears, so that one leg can't move without the other moving as well. Some beautiful images from National Geographic and elsewhere are seen below:

 

The technical paper in Science explains how the gears coordinate movement to ensure that the little bugs jump straight:

When one leg moves first at the start of a jump, its gear teeth will engage with and transmit power to the other stationary leg inducing it to move. The left and right power-producing muscles are innervated by independent sets of two motor neurons each, but all four motor neurons carry highly synchronized spike patterns that should help to ensure that the same amount of force is generated in each leg. This neural mechanism assists the synchrony of the leg movements but cannot deliver the level of synchrony measured during jumping. Thus, the primary role of the gears is to ensure that the hind legs move synchronously within microseconds of each other.

Popular Mechanics adds some further details about the gear:

The gears themselves are an oddity. With gear teeth shaped like cresting waves, they look nothing like what you'd find in your car or in a fancy watch. (The style that you're most likely familiar with is called an involute gear, and it was designed by the Swiss mathematician Leonhard Euler in the 18th century.) There could be two reasons for this. Through a mathematical oddity, there is a limitless number of ways to design intermeshing gears. So, either nature evolved one solution at random, or, as Gregory Sutton, coauthor of the paper and insect researcher at the University of Bristol, suspects, the shape of the Issus's gear is particularly apt for the job it does. It's built for "high precision and speed in one direction," he says. "It's a prototype for a new type of gear."

At National Geographic, Sutton explains that by mimicking these gears in human technology, we may be able to improve machine function and minimize friction between gears:

Modern machines, such as 3-D printers, could easily create gears with these shark-fin teeth. Sutton is really excited by the prospect, and suspects that they may perform better in very small machines. "Modern machinery often doesn't work at very small scales," he says. "Friction doesn't matter so much when you have two big gears next to each other but when you get small, friction starts killing you." The planthoppers might help to solve that problem. "We're still being impressed and shocked by what we find in the back garden," says Sutton.

So are these gears the only ones in known in nature? It turns out there are other examples, as paper in Science explains:

Elsewhere in the animal kingdom, apparently ornamental cogs occur on the shell of the cog wheel turtle Heosemys spinosa and on the pronotum of the wheel bug Arilus cristatus (Hemiptera, Reduviidae). The hearts of crocodilians have a cogwheel valve that closes during each heartbeat and can increase the resistance in the pulmonary outflow. In some insects, a row of regularly spaced protrusions work like clockwork escapement mechanisms to produce sound. In such stridulation mechanisms, a plectrum is moved across the row of teeth at a rate of 2500 to 5000 teeth per second, whereas the similarly sized gear teeth of Issus spin past each other at almost 50,000 teeth per second. Despite working under very different mechanical conditions, the similar tooth morphologies of the two structures suggest constraints that enforce a particular geometry.

Despite the fact that there are other gears in nature, Smithsonian Magazine has an article titled This Insect Has The Only Mechanical Gears Ever Found in Nature, which observes that "This seems to be the first natural design that mechanically functions like our geared systems." What's that about a "natural design"? Worried that readers might start to think that "natural design" implies actual design, the magazine is quick to add:

"We usually think of gears as something that we see in human designed machinery, but we've found that that is only because we didn't look hard enough," Sutton said. "These gears are not designed; they are evolved -- representing high speed and precision machinery evolved for synchronisation in the animal world."

The paper in Science tried to head off the same kind of dangerous ID-friendly thoughts, stating: "The gears in Issus, like the screw in the femora of beetles, demonstrate that mechanisms previously thought only to be used in manmade machines have evolved in nature."

Wait a minute. How do we know these gears evolved, as opposed to having been designed? Because we know that everything in biology evolved. And how do we know that everything evolved? Because we know that nothing was designed. Right. But how do we know that nothing was designed? Because we know everything evolved.

Ah, got it now. Everyone clear?

Paul's epistle to Titus New World Translation(2013 Edition)

1 Paul, a slave of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ according to the faith of God’s chosen ones and the accurate knowledge of the truth that is according to godly devotion 2 and is based on a hope of the everlasting life+ that God, who cannot lie,+ promised long ago; 3 but in his own due time, he made his word known through the preaching entrusted to me+ according to the command of our Savior, God; 4 to Titus, a genuine child according to the faith we share:
May you have undeserved kindness and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.
5 I left you in Crete so that you would correct the things that were defective* and make appointments of elders in city after city, as I instructed you: 6 if there is any man free from accusation, a husband of one wife, having believing children who are not accused of debauchery* or rebelliousness.+ 7 For as God’s steward, an overseer must be free from accusation, not self-willed,+ not quick-tempered,+ not a drunkard, not violent,* not greedy of dishonest gain, 8 but hospitable,+ a lover of goodness, sound in mind,*+ righteous, loyal,+ self-controlled,+ 9 holding firmly to the faithful word* as respects his art of teaching,+ so that he may be able both to encourage* by the teaching that is wholesome*+ and to reprove+ those who contradict.
10 For there are many rebellious men, profitless talkers, and deceivers, especially those who adhere to the circumcision.+ 11 It is necessary to shut their mouths, because these very men keep on subverting entire households by teaching things they should not for the sake of dishonest gain. 12 A certain one of them, their own prophet, said: “Creʹtans are always liars, injurious wild beasts, idle gluttons.”
13 This witness is true. For this very reason, keep on reproving them with severity so that they may be healthy in the faith, 14 paying no attention to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn away from the truth. 15 All things are clean to clean people;+ but to those who are defiled and faithless, nothing is clean, for both their minds and their consciences are defiled.+ 16 They publicly declare that they know God, but they disown him by their works,+ because they are detestable and disobedient and not approved for good work of any sort.

 2 You, however, keep on speaking what is consistent with wholesome* teaching.+ 2 Let the older men be moderate in habits, serious, sound in mind, healthy in faith, in love, in endurance. 3 Likewise, let the older women be reverent in behavior, not slanderous, not enslaved to a lot of wine, teachers of what is good, 4 so that they may advise* the younger women to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 to be sound in mind, chaste, working at home,* good, subjecting themselves to their own husbands,+ so that the word of God may not be spoken of abusively.
6 Likewise, keep on urging the younger men to be sound in mind,+ 7 showing yourself to be an example of fine works in every way. Teach what is pure* with all seriousness,+ 8 using wholesome* speech that cannot be criticized,+ so that those who oppose may be put to shame, having nothing negative* to say about us.+ 9 Let slaves be in subjection to their owners in all things,+ trying to please them, not talking back, 10 not stealing from them,+ but showing complete trustworthiness, so that in every way they may adorn the teaching of our Savior, God.+
11 For the undeserved kindness of God has been manifested, bringing salvation to all sorts of people.+ 12 It trains us to reject ungodliness and worldly desires+ and to live with soundness of mind and righteousness and godly devotion amid this present system of things,*+ 13 while we wait for the happy hope+ and glorious manifestation of the great God and of our Savior, Jesus Christ, 14 who gave himself for us+ to set us free*+ from every sort of lawlessness and to cleanse for himself a people who are his own special possession, zealous for fine works.+
15 Keep on speaking these things and exhorting* and reproving with full authority.+ Do not let anyone look down on you.
3 Continue reminding them to be in subjection and to be obedient to governments and authorities,+ to be ready for every good work, 2 to speak injuriously of no one, not to be quarrelsome, but to be reasonable,+ displaying all mildness toward all men.+ 3 For we too were once senseless, disobedient, led astray, being slaves to various desires and pleasures, carrying on in badness and envy, detestable, hating one another.
4 However, when the kindness of our Savior, God,+ and his love for mankind were manifested 5 (not because of any righteous works we had done,+ but because of his own mercy),+ he saved us by means of the bath that brought us to life+ and by making us new by holy spirit.+ 6 He poured this spirit out richly* on us through Jesus Christ our Savior,+ 7 so that after being declared righteous through the undeserved kindness of that one,+ we might become heirs+ according to a hope of everlasting life.+
8 These words are trustworthy, and I want you to keep stressing these matters, so that those who have believed God may keep their minds focused on maintaining fine works. These things are fine and beneficial to men.
9 But have nothing to do with foolish arguments and genealogies and disputes and fights over the Law, for they are unprofitable and futile.+ 10 As for a man who promotes a sect,+ reject him+ after a first and a second admonition,*+ 11 knowing that such a man has deviated from the way and is sinning and is self-condemned.
12 When I send Arʹte·mas or Tychʹi·cus+ to you, do your utmost to come to me at Ni·copʹo·lis, for that is where I have decided to spend the winter. 13 Carefully supply Zeʹnas, who is versed in the Law, and A·polʹlos so that they may lack nothing for their trip.+ 14 But let our people also learn to maintain fine works so as to help in cases of urgent need,+ so that they may not be unproductive.*+
15 All those with me send you their greetings. Give my greetings to those who have affection for us in the faith.

May the undeserved kindness be with all of you.

It's design all the way down IV

Spectacular Discovery Reveals Power Grid in Muscle Cells; Design Implications Are Profound

Evolution News & Views August 4, 2015 3:32 AM

A new finding announced in Nature is a blockbuster for intelligent design. We knew about ATP synthase -- that rotary engine that uses proton flow to create "batteries" of energy-packed ATP molecules. Those motors in the mitochondria are arranged along folds (cristae) in the mitochondrial membranes to maximize their output.

Now researchers have learned that the mitochondria themselves are connected by electrical wires in a vast intracellular network. This allows us to see, for the first time, another level in the hierarchy of design in the cell.

The findings are bound to revolutionize our understanding of muscle. Skeletal muscle cells were known to have many mitochondria, but it was not clear how the products of ATP production, called metabolites, became distributed throughout the cell. Many assumed it was by diffusion, or simple spreading out of molecules from regions of high concentration to areas of low concentration. The truth is far more exciting. Research news from the National Institutes of Health explains:

A new study overturns longstanding scientific ideas regardinghow energy is distributed within muscles for powering movement. Scientists are reporting the first clear evidence that muscle cells distribute energy primarily by the rapid conduction of electrical charges through a vast, interconnected network of mitochondria -- the cell's "powerhouse" -- in a way that resembles the wire grid that distributes power throughout a city. The study offers an unprecedented, detailed look at the distribution systemthat rapidly provides energy throughout the cell where it is needed for muscle contraction. [Emphasis added.]

Diffusion is too slow for a fast-acting muscle cell. Electricity, though, is fast. The same proton-motive force that powers ATP synthase is conducted along cellular wires, the researchers found. You've heard of the endoplasmic reticulum. They're calling this one the "mitochondrial reticulum" -- a conductive pathway for energy distribution. The Editor's Summary of the paper puts it this way:

How is energy distributed within the cell? In the skeletal muscle, energy distribution has been proposed to occur through metabolite-facilitated diffusion, although genetic evidence has raised questions about the importance of this mode of distribution. Using various forms of high-resolution microscopy, Robert Balaban and colleagues explore whether the mitochondria themselves -- as well as actually generating the energy -- also have a role in its distribution. They find that they do, by forming aconductive pathway throughout the cell in the form of a proton-motive force. Throughout this network, the mitochondrial protein localization seems to be varied, allowing optimized generation and utilization of the mitochondrial membrane potential. Thisenergy distribution network, which depends on conduction rather than diffusion, is potentially extremely rapid, thereby enabling muscle to respond almost instantaneously to new energy demands.

Not only is the system extremely fast, it is well organized. The Abstract states:

Within this reticulum, we find proteins associated with mitochondrial proton-motive force production preferentially in the cell periphery and proteins that use the proton-motive force for ATP production in the cell interior near contractile and transport ATPases. Furthermore, we show a rapid, coordinated depolarization of the membrane potential component of the proton-motive force throughout the cell in response to spatially controlled uncoupling of the cell interior. We propose that membrane potential conduction via the mitochondrial reticulum is the dominant pathway for skeletal muscle energy distribution.

The mitochondrial reticulum was known before, but this is the first time scientists have seen that it conducts electricity. The potential of this discovery to shed light on muscular dystrophy, heart disease, and other disorders is apparent.

The images in the paper even look like a power grid. More:

For the current experiments, the NIH scientists collaborated in a detailed study of the mitochondria structure, biochemical composition, and function in mouse skeletal muscle cells. The researchers used 3D electron microscopy as well as super-resolution optical imaging techniques to show that most of the mitochondria form highly connected networks in a way thatresembles electrical transmission lines in a municipal power grid.

It's clear why this is a superior design to diffusion. Strenuous exercise can raise the power demands of a muscle cell by 100-fold. "Researchers havesuspected that a faster, more efficient energy pathway might exist but have found little proof of its existence -- until now," we read. That's a case of design prediction!

Robert Balaban of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), a co-leader of the team, tells more about how well-optimized the organization of this power grid is.

The study provides unprecedented images of how these mitochondria are arranged in muscle. "Structurally, the mitochondria are arranged in such a way that permits the flow of potential energy in the form of the mitochondrial membrane voltage throughout the cell to power ATP production and subsequent muscle contraction, or movement," Dr. Balaban explained. Mitochondria located on the edges of the muscle cellnear blood vessels and oxygen supply are optimized forgenerating the mitochondrial membrane voltage, while the interconnected mitochondria deep in the muscle are optimized for using the voltage to produce ATP, Balaban added.

This implies another level in the design hierarchy: not only is the power grid well organized inside the cell, but the cells are organized in the muscle tissues for the optimum utilization of the power where it is needed most.

Implications

The implications of this spectacular discovery for intelligent design are profound. To see why, we must remember that muscles first appear in the Cambrian explosion. Many of the Cambrian phyla that burst on the scene had muscles for contraction (jellyfish), crawling (worms), fin movement (Anomalocaris and Metaspriggina, the vertebrate fish), and coordinated action of jointed appendages (trilobites and other arthropods). Most of the Cambrian animals used muscles in various ways. Muscles are but one of many new cell types that appear suddenly, fully functional, across multiple phyla in the early Cambrian.

As Stephen Meyer emphasizes in Darwin's Doubt, these new cell types are arranged in a hierarchy: tissues, organs, systems -- and ultimately, integrated body plans. This hierarchical arrangement of complex parts for unified function challenges all undirected mechanisms such as natural selection. It takes foresight -- a plan for a functional goal and the means to achieve it -- to bring parts together into a hierarchical arrangement that works. The filmDarwin's Dilemma illustrates this point as well. In our uniform experience, Meyer argues, the only cause capable of doing that is intelligence.

Now we can extend this hierarchical thinking into the arrangement inside one new cell type in a Cambrian animal: a muscle cell. That optimal hierarchical arrangement, furthermore, extends downward into the intracellular environment and upward into the tissue in which the cell resides. It's hierarchy all the way down.

The design inference keeps getting stronger! This is an exciting confirmation of intelligent design that should be kept in mind as you read our new book,Debating Darwin's Doubt. Remember, for a limited time you can get a 35 percent discount off the cover price by entering the code 4DXTSYJU at checkout here.

File under,'well said' III

"The man who asks a question is a fool for a minute, the man who does not ask is a fool for life.” 
― Confucius

On the resurrection;The Watchtower Society's commentary.

What Is the Resurrection?

The Bible’s answer

In the Bible, the word translated as “resurrection” comes from the Greek a·na′sta·sis, which means “raising up” or “standing up again.” A person who is resurrected is raised up from death and restored to life as the person he was before.—1 Corinthians 15:12, 13.

Although the word “resurrection” is not in the Hebrew Scriptures, often called the Old Testament, the teaching appears there. Through the prophet Hosea, for example, God promised: “From the power of the Grave I will redeem them; from death I will recover them.”—Hosea 13:14; Job 14:13-15; Isaiah 26:19; Daniel 12:2, 13.

Where will people be resurrected? Some people are resurrected to life in heaven to rule as kings with Christ. (2 Corinthians 5:1; Revelation 5:9, 10) The Bible calls this “the first resurrection” and “the earlier resurrection,” both expressions implying that there is another resurrection to follow. (Revelation 20:6;Philippians 3:11) This later resurrection will be to life on earth, which the vast majority of those brought back to life will enjoy.—Psalm 37:29.

How are people resurrected? God grants Jesus the power to raise the dead. (John 11:25) Jesus will restore “all those in the memorial tombs” to life, each one with his unique identity, personality, and memories. (John 5:28, 29) Those resurrected to heaven receive a spirit body, while those resurrected to life on earth receive a healthy physical body, completely sound.—Isaiah 33:24; 35:5, 6;1 Corinthians 15:42-44, 50.

Who will be resurrected? The Bible says that “there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.” (Acts 24:15) The righteous include faithful people, such as Noah, Sarah, and Abraham. (Genesis 6:9; Hebrews 11:11; James 2:21) The unrighteous include those who failed to meet God’s standards but did not have the opportunity to learn and follow them.

However, those who become so wicked that they are beyond reform will not be resurrected. When such ones die, they suffer permanent destruction with no hope of a return to life.—Matthew 23:33; Hebrews 10:26, 27.

When will the resurrection take place? The Bible foretold that the resurrection to heaven would take place during Christ’s presence, which began in 1914. (1 Corinthians 15:21-23) The resurrection to life on earth will occur during the Thousand Year Reign of Jesus Christ, when the earth will be transformed into a paradise.—Luke 23:43; Revelation 20:6, 12, 13.

Why is belief in the resurrection reasonable? The Bible provides detailed accounts of nine resurrections, each confirmed by eyewitnesses. (1 Kings 17:17-24; 2 Kings 4:32-37; 13:20, 21; Luke 7:11-17; 8:40-56; John 11:38-44; Acts 9:36-42; Acts 20:7-12; 1 Corinthians 15:3-6) Jesus’ resurrection of Lazarus is especially noteworthy, since Lazarus had been dead for four days and Jesus performed the miracle before a crowd of people. (John 11:39, 42) Even those who opposed Jesus could not deny the facts of the matter, so instead they plotted to kill both Jesus and Lazarus.—John 11:47, 53; 12:9-11.The Bible shows that God has both the ability and the desire to bring back the dead. He keeps in his limitless memory a detailed record of each person he will resurrect by means of his almighty power. (Job 37:23; Matthew 10:30; Luke 20:37, 38) God is able to restore the dead to life, and he wants to! Describing the coming resurrection, the Bible says of God: “You will long for the work of your hands.”—Job 14:15.

Misconceptions about the resurrection

Myth: The resurrection is a reuniting of the soul with the body.

Fact: The Bible teaches that the soul is the entire person, not some part that survives death. (Genesis 2:7, footnote; Ezekiel 18:4) A person who is resurrected is not reunited with his soul; he is recreated as a living soul.

Myth: Some people are resurrected and then immediately destroyed.

Fact: The Bible says that “those who practiced vile things” will receive “a resurrection of judgment.” (John 5:29) However, this judgment is based on what they do after they are resurrected, not before. Jesus said: “The dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who have paid attention will live.” (John 5:25) Those who ‘pay attention’ to, or obey, the things they learn after they are resurrected will have their names recorded in “the scroll of life.”—Revelation 20:12, 13.

Myth: When resurrected, a person receives exactly the same body that he had before he died.

Fact: After death, a person’s body would likely have broken down and disintegrated.—Ecclesiastes 3:19, 20.

Convergence;Darwinism's epicycle?

Spectacular Convergence: A Camera Eye in a Microbe

Evolution News & Views August 6, 2015 3:52 AM

hey thought it was a joke. A century ago, biologists could not believe that a one-celled creature had an eye. But since the warnowiid dinoflagellate was difficult to find and grow in the lab, detailed research was rare, until now. A team from the University of British Columbia gathered specimens off the coast of BC and Japan for a closer look. They found that the structure, called an ocelloid, has structures that mimic the complex eye of higher animals.PhysOrg says:

In fact, the 'ocelloid' within the planktonic predator looks so much like a complex eye that it was originally mistaken for the eye of an animal that the plankton had eaten.

"It's an amazingly complex structure for a single-celled organism to have evolved," said lead author Greg Gavelis, a zoology PhD student at UBC. "It contains a collection of sub-cellular organelles that look very much like the lens, cornea, iris and retina of multicellular eyes found in humans and other larger animals." [Emphasis added.]

New Scientist shares the astonishment:

It is perhaps the most extraordinary eye in the living world -- soextraordinary that no one believed the biologist who first described it more than a century ago.

Now it appears that the tiny owner of this eye uses it to catch invisible prey by detecting polarised light. This suggestion is also likely to be greeted with disbelief, for the eye belongs to a single-celled organism called Erythropsidinium. It has no nerves, let alone a brain. So how could it "see" its prey?

The "retina" of this eye, a curved array of chromosomes, appears arranged to filter polarized light. The news item from the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research quotes Brian Leander, co-supervisor of the project:

"The internal organization of the retinal body is reminiscent of the polarizing filters on the lenses of cameras and sunglasses," Leander says. "Hundreds of closely packed membranes lined up in parallel."

And that's not all this wonder of the sea has in its toolkit. It also has a piston and a harpoon:

Scientists still don't know exactly how warnowiids use the eye-like structure, but clues about the way they live have fuelled compelling speculation. warnowiids hunt other dinoflagellates, many of which are transparent. They have large nematocysts, which Leander describes as "little harpoons," for catching prey. And some have a piston -- a tentacle that can extend and retract very quickly -- with an unknown function that might be used for escape or feeding.

Did This Eye Evolve?

Lest anyone think the dinoflagellate's eye presents an easy evolutionary stepping stone to more complex eyes, the data reveal several problems. Thepaper in Nature claims that the ocelloids are built from "different endosymbiotically acquired components" such as mitochondria and plastids. "As such, the ocelloid is a chimaeric structure, incorporatingorganelles with different endosymbiotic histories." We can treat endosymbiosis as a separate issue. For now, we can ask if this complex structure is explainable by unguided natural selection.

The authors did not think this is a clear evolutionary story. "The ocelloid isamong the most complex subcellular structures known, but its function andevolutionary relationship to other organelles remain unclear," they say. Never in the paper do they explain how organelles with different histories came together into a functioning eye. Most of the paper is descriptive of the parts and how they function individually, or where they might have been derived by endosymbiosis. To explain the eye's origin as a functioning whole, they make up a phrase, "evolutionary plasticity" --

Nevertheless, the genomic and detailed ultrastructural data presented here have resolved the basic components of the ocelloid and their origins, and demonstrate how evolutionary plasticity of mitochondria and plastids can generate an extreme level of subcellular complexity.

Other than that, they have very little to say about evolution, and nothing about natural selection.

In the same issue of Nature, Richards and Gomes review the paper. They list other microbes including algae and fungi that have light-sensitive spots. Some have the rhodopsin proteins used in the rods and cones of multicellular animals. But instead of tracing eye evolution by common ancestry, they attribute all these innovations to convergence:

These examples demonstrate the wealth of subcellular structures and associated light-receptor proteins across diverse microbial groups. Indeed, all of these examples represent distinct evolutionary branches in separate major groups of eukaryotes. Even the plastid-associated eyespots are unlikely to be the product of direct vertical evolution, because the Chlamydomonasplastid is derived from a primary endosymbiosis and assimilation of a cyanobacterium, whereas the Guillardia plastid is derived from a secondary endosymbiosis in which the plastid was acquired 'second-hand' by intracellular incorporation of a red alga. Using gene sequences recovered from the warnowiid retinal body, Gavelis et al. investigated the ancestry of this organelle by building phylogenetic trees for the plastid-derived genes. Their analysis demonstrated that this modified plastid is also of secondary endosymbiotic origin from a red alga.

Although derived independently, there are common themes in theevolution of these eye-like structures. Many of them involve thereconfiguration of cellular membrane systems to produce anopaque body proximal to a sensory surface, a surface that in four of the five examples probably involves type 1 rhodopsins. Given the evolutionary derivation of these systems, this represents a complex case of convergent evolution, in which photo-responsive subcellular systems are built up separately from similar components to achieve similar functions. The ocelloid example is striking because it demonstrates a peak in subcellular complexity achieved through repurposing multiple components. Collectively, these findings show that evolution has stumbled on similar solutions to perceiving light time and time again.

But is convergence just a word masquerading as an explanation? We read:

The work sheds shed new light on how very different organisms can evolve similar traits in response to their environments, a process known as convergent evolution. Eye-like structures haveevolved independently many times in different kinds of animals and algae with varying abilities to detect the intensity of light, its direction, or objects.

"When we see such similar structural complexity atfundamentally different levels of organization in lineages that are very distantly related to each other, in this case warnowiids and animals, then you get a much deeper understanding of convergence," Leander says.

But "convergent evolution" is not a process. It is a post-hoc observation based on evolutionary assumptions. An environment has no power to force an organism to respond to it with a complex function. Light exists, whether or not an organism sees it. Magnetism exists, too; does it contain the power to nudge fish, turtles, and butterflies to employ it for navigation?

If it is highly improbable for a complex solution to evolve once, "convergent evolution" only exacerbates the improbability. In Illustra Media's new filmLiving Waters, Timothy Standish explains why "convergent evolution" is not a plausible explanation for unrelated similarities. "Evolution is blind," he says. It doesn't know that another organism has an elegant solution to a problem. It cannot drive a different animal to converge on a similar solution. What we do know, Standish continues, is that intelligence can take a solution to a problem and apply it in different circumstances over and over again.

It makes sense that an designer would understand optics and electromagnetic waves. A mind can take parts and arrange them into corneas, lenses, and receptors appropriate for the needs and sizes of disparate organisms. Unguided selection cannot do that. The environment cannot do that. From our uniform experience, the only cause we know that can organize parts into a functioning whole is intelligence. This is positive evidence for design. The alternative theory could be dubbed, "Convergence of the Gaps."

Speaking of Living Waters, the Northwest premiere is tomorrow night in Seattle. More information is here. You'll need to register by tonight at close of business!

More education less indoctrination II

Nature Agrees: Science Students Should "Actively Grapple with Questions" Not Just "Listen to Answers"

Sarah Chaffee August 5, 2015 3:59 AM |

 

Discovery Institute has long promoted critical thinking in the science classroom, noting that it is remarkably scarce in the way evolution is taught. Despite media opposition to academic freedom laws, active engagement, asking questions, and thinking analytically have been demonstrated to promote student understanding and success.

That insight has now been confirmed by no less a source than Nature, the world's most prestigious scientific journal, in collaboration with Scientific American. The two journals got together to produce an issue on the theme, showing that STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) instruction is due for reform. They note, "[S]tudents gain a much deeper understanding of science when they actively grapple with questions than when they passively listen to answers."

In the cover package, "Building the 21st Century Scientist: Why Science Education is More Important than Ever," Nature emphasizes research demonstrating that active engagement increases student understanding and success in STEM classes. They highlight various types of interactive instruction, and present strategies for teachers to improve their instructional methods and institutions to incentivize change.

What Is Active Learning?

Jay Labov, a senior education advisor from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, describes active engagement as "learning content not as something you memorize and regurgitate, but as raw material for making connections, drawing inferences, creating new information -- learning how to learn."

Unfortunately, this is not the norm for science classes. Jonathan Osborne wrote in 2010 in the journal Science:

Typically, in the rush to present the major features of the scientific landscape, most of the arguments required to achieve such knowledge are excised. Consequently, science can appear to its students as a monolith of facts, an authoritative discourse where the discursive exploration of ideas, their implications, and their importance is absent (7). Students then emerge with naïve ideas or misconceptions about the nature of science itself -- a state of affairs that exists even though the National Research Council; the American Association for the Advancement of Science; and a large body of research, major aspects of which are presented here, all emphasize the value of argumentation for learning science (8-10).

Active learning can take many forms, but it generally repudiates traditional lecture-style teaching. Neuroscientist Sarah Leupen, for example, doesn't ask her physiology class to name the sensory nerves in the leg. Instead, says Nature, she poses the following question to the students:

You're innocently walking down the street when aliens zap away the sensory neurons in your legs. What happens?

1. Your walking movements show no significant change.
2. You can no longer walk.
3. You can walk, but the pace changes.
4. You can walk, but clumsily.

"We usually get lots of vigorous debate on this one," Leupen said. (For curious readers, the answer is d).

And there are many other classroom strategies for fostering scientific inquiry. Nature highlights Little Scientists' House, a program developed in Germany for children between three and six years old, but spreading worldwide. At Little Scientists' House, students learn to ask questions about the world around them and look for answers by simple observation and experimentation.

In one exercise, students guessed whether more water could accumulate on the head of a euro coin or other currency. One student thought that the smaller coin, which was worth more money, would hold more water -- and the class proceeded to try out his idea. "In the end, the children could not come to a definitive answer, but that is OK, says [kindergarten teacher Christina] Jeuthe. The point is to spark questions, and a conviction that they can be explored rationally."

On the college level, the University of Richmond in Virginia has begun offering introductory, interdisciplinary science courses that explore real science questions such as "antibiotic resistance and cells' response to heat." Outside of the traditional classroom setting, active learning can encompass activities from involving high school students in real scientific research projects to materials-based outdoor exploration.

What about Evolution?

Eugenie Scott, former executive director of the National Center for Science Education, has said, "There are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution." No matter what your stance is on evolution, however, treating scientific theories as unquestionable fact doesn't make sense.

At Discovery Institute, we recommend teaching both the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of evolutionary theory. Students should not only hear about similarities in DNA sequences between species and antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria, but also grapple with the Cambrian explosion and the intricacies of the cell.

We put it this way in our Educator's Briefing Packet:

What Is a Suggested Plan for Teaching a Unit on Neo-Darwinian Evolution?
Objective education means that students must be allowed to form and express their own opinions. An objective unit covering neo-Darwinian evolution might look something like this:

• First, cover the required curriculum by teaching the material in the textbook. Ensure that students understand the scientific arguments for neo-Darwinian evolution. (1-2 weeks)


• Next, spend a few days discussing scientific criticisms of neo-Darwinian evolution. The supplementary textbook Explore Evolution, the DVD Investigating Evolution, and the Icons of Evolution Study Guide are potential resources. Encourage students to think critically. (2-3 days)


• Finally, consider allowing students to spend a couple days wrestling with the data and forming their own opinions. This could include in-class debates, or an assignment where students write a position statement on neo-Darwinian evolution. In these exercises, students may defend whatever position they wish, but must justify it using only scientific evidence and scientific arguments. (1-2 days)

Most public school curricula stop after step 1, missing out on the benefits from steps 2 and 3. Some might claim those extra steps would take too much time. But teaching the modern neo-Darwinian theory of evolution in an objective fashion need not take any more time than the 2-3 weeks typically spent on an evolution unit.
More importantly, any extra time taken to teach this topic objectively is not wasted -- it will help students better understand the evidence, better appreciate scientific reasoning, and fulfill standards requiring critical thinking and use of the inquiry method. Finally, this approach will be welcomed by students who find this topic engages their interest in science.

Building 21st-Century Scientists

It's high time for a change. Science education, especially at the university level, faces some hurdles. Nature says, "A study tracking 17,000 post-secondary students in the United States and Puerto Rico found that only two-fifths of those who enrolled in a STEM discipline went on to obtain a degree in the field, or were still studying for one 6 years later." On the other hand, Nature notes that research at the University of Washington in 2014 surveyed 225 studies of teaching in STEM fields and found that active engagement decreased failure rates by one-third.

Carl Wieman, a physicist at Stanford who won the 2001 Nobel Prize in his field, began advocating for science education reform after interacting with newly graduated scientists who "had done really well as undergraduates, but couldn't do research." Today, along with prominent journals such as Nature, Scientific American,and Science, he promotes active engagement in the classroom.

Nature concludes its keynote editorial, "But change is essential.... In an era when more of us now work with our heads, rather than our hands, the world can no longer afford to support poor learning systems that allow too few people to achieve their goals."

That's right. Teaching the controversy over origins would be a step towards better overall science education. Where the approach has been adopted already, it trains students to think analytically and examine the evidence -- in all scientific fields. It awakens interest in the issue of origins by inviting students to confront the research themselves. And students who succeed in courses on evolution (as well as other STEM courses) are more likely to pursue degrees in these fields. Inquiry in the classroom paves the way for inquiry in the lab.