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 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. 

The latest on the fossil record's fossil recording.

Fossil Friday: Miocene Aardvarks and the Abrupt Origin of Tubulidentata 

 Günter Bechly 

This Fossil Friday we continue our series on the origins of placental mammal orders with the aardvark order Tubulidentata. Aardvarks are a strange group of insectivorous mammals with a single living relic species Orycteropus afer, which is endemic to subsaharan Africa and exclusively feeds on ants and termites. The order is named after the characteristic tube-shaped teeth that lack enamel. Aardvarks are often considered to be living fossils (Bennett 2017, Shoshani 2021, Anonymous 2022). So, what about their actual fossil history? Including the living species there were 5 genera and 17 valid species described in the order Tubulidentata (Lehmann 2009, Pickford 2019), but generally their fossil record is comparatively sparse until this day (Koufos 2022). 

Miocene to Pleistocene 

Fossil aardvark species have been described from the Miocene to Pleistocene of Africa, southern Europe, and South Asia (Patterson 1975, Lehmann 2006, 2009, Asher & Seiffert 2010). Until recently the oldest undisputed fossil aardvarks were the two species Orycteropus minutus and Myorycteropus africanus from Lower Miocene deposits in Kenya (MacInnes 1956, Patterson 1975, Pickford 1975, Lehmann 2006), which were dated to an age of 19.6 mya and 17.8 mya respectively (Lehmann 2007). Slightly older undescribed remains were mentioned by Pickford & Andrews (1981). Pickford (2019) described the new fossil aardvark genus Eteketoni from the Lower Miocene of Uganda, which may be closely related to Myorycteropus and now rivals Orycteropus afrianus as oldest fossil record of the order with an estimated age of 20-18.5 mya.

McKenna & Bell (1997) mentioned the two genera Archaeorycteropus and Palaeorycteropus from the Oligocene of Quercy in France (ca. 34 mya) as questionable tubulidentates, which would qualify as oldest fossil record of the order. Pickford (1975) had at least Palaeorycteropus listed as fossil Tubulidentata, and Shoshani (2001) also accepted this genus as Oligocene record of Tubulidentata. However, several earlier works had already strongly disputed that either of these two genera is a tubulidentate at all (Simpson 1931, Thenius & Hofer 1960, Patterson 1975, Thewissen 1985). Lehmann (2007, 2009) agreed that both genera are Eutheria of uncertain relationship. Therefore, Asher & Seiffert (2010) excluded both from their phylogenetic tree of Afrotheria. 

Leptomanis edwardsi is another enigmatic fossil mammal from the Oligocene of Quercy, and was mostly regarded as a putative relative of pangolins. Simpson (1931) thought that it is “possibly an orycteropodid” but put this with a question mark. Thewissen (1985) re-described the material of Leptomanis and concluded that “the best option for Leptomanis seems to be that it is the oldest tubulidentate so far known.” Others remained unconvinced and considered Leptomanis to be of uncertain affinities (Patterson 1975, 1978, Lehmann 2007, 2009). Gaudin et al. (2009) listed Leptomanis as a synonym of Necromanis within the order Pholidota, thus as a fossil pangolin. Finally, Crochet et al. (2015) disputed the synonymy with Necromanis but affirmed the position in Pholidota.

It has been suggested by some experts that an extinct order of carnivorous African mammals called Ptolemaiida might be related to aardvarks (Simons & Gingerich 1974, Nishihara et al. 2005, Cote et al. 2007, Seiffert 2007). The most primitive but not the oldest member of Ptolemaiida is the enigmatic species Kelba quadeemae from the Early Miocene of East Africa about 18.3 mya (Savage 1965, Cote et al. 2007). The oldest fossil record of Ptolemaiida is material from the latest Eocene of Fayum in Egypt (Simons & Bown 1995), which therefore could also be the oldest putative stem group representatives of Tubulidentata. However, this relationship is far from established. 

The Eocene 

genera Herodotius and Chambius, which were previously considered as stem macroscelideans, never clustered with Macroscelidea but were recovered as sister group of aardvarks in some of the trees by Seiffert (2007), which would put the oldest fossil record of tubulidentate lineage into the Eocene as well. However, this result was unstable and in some other trees of the same author these herodotiine genera rather clustered with pseudoungulates, paenungulates, or hyraxes. 

A Real Conundrum 

So, we are left with a real conundrum for Darwinists. On the one hand, Shoshani (2001) concluded about Tubulidentata: 

Little evolution has taken place in the genus over almost 20 million years, this is a hallmark of living fossils … , in all probability, the origin of tubulidentate taxa might date to the beginning of the Cenozoic era (Palaeocene epoch, about 65 Ma), and perhaps earlier (in the Cretaceous epoch of the Mesozoic era, some 70 Ma). 

On the other hand aardvarks and their fossil relatives only appear much later in the fossil record of the Miocene less than 20 million years ago. Indeed, they represent the youngest of the placental mammal orders and one of the very few exceptions that are not first recorded in a narrow window of time in the Paleocene/Eocene (also see Asher & Seiffert 2010: fig. 46.1).

It is also interesting to note that aardvarks were long believed to be closely related to the Xenarthra and Pholidota (pangolins) within a hypothetical group Edentata. Rare dissenters like Le Gros Clark & Sonntag (1926) were vindicated by modern phylogenomic studies, which demonstrated that all three orders are unrelated and aardvarks belong to the African mammal clade Afrotheria (Asher & Seiffert 2010), which is hardly supported by any anatomical similarities. So much about the congruence of anatomical and genetic similarity predicted by Darwin’s theory.

Next Fossil Friday we will look into another member of the Afrotheria, i.e., the order Macroscelidea that includes the uber cute elephant shrews. 

References 

Anonymous 2022. Dead Pig Walking: Aardvarks, “Living Fossils” in the Bush. Thomson Safaris. https://thomsonsafaris.com/blog/aardvarks-living-fossils/

Asher RJ & Seiffert ER 2010. Systematics of Endemic African Mammals. Chapter 46, pp. 911–928 in: Werdelin L & Sanders WJ (eds). Cenozoic Mammals of Africa. University of California Press, Berkeley (CA), 1008 pp. https://doi.org/10.1525/california/9780520257214.003.0046

Bennett DJ 2017. An Appraisal of the ‘Living Fossil’ Concept. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Imperial College, London (UK), xi+251 pp. https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/bitstream/10044/1/68534/1/Bennett-D-2017-PhD-Thesis.pdf

Cote S, Werdelin L, Seiffert ER & Barry JC 2007. Additional material of the enigmatic Early Miocene mammal Kelba and its relationship to the order Ptolemaiida. PNAS 104(13), 5510–5515. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0700441104

Crochet J-Y, Hautier L & Lehmann T 2015. A pangolin (Manidae, Pholidota, Mammalia) from the French Quercy phosphorites (Pech du Fraysse, Saint-Projet, Tarn-et-Garonne, late Oligocene, MP 28). Palaeovertebrata 39(2):e4, 1–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18563/pv.39.2.e4

Gaudin TJ, Emry RJ & Wible JR 2009. The Phylogeny of Living and Extinct Pangolins (Mammalia, Pholidota) and Associated Taxa: A Morphology Based Analysis. Journal of Mammalian Evolution 16, 235–305. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10914-009-9119-9 

Koufos GD 2022. The Fossil Record of Aardvarks (Mammalia: Tubulidentata: Orycteropodidae) in Greece. pp. 283–290 in: Vlachos E (ed.). Fossil Vertebrates of Greece Vol. 1. Springer, Cham (CH), xxi+710 pp. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68398-6_10

Le Gros Clark WE & Sonntag CF 1926. A monograph of Orycteropus afer. – III. The skull. The Skeleton of the Trunk and Limbs. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London96(2), 445–485. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1926.tb08108.x

Lehmann T 2006. Biodiversity of the Tubulidentata over Geological time. Afrotherian Conservation 4, 6–11. https://www.afrotheria.net/Afrotherian_Conservation_4.pdf

Lehmann T 2007. Amended taxonomy of the order Tubulidentata (Mammalia, Eutheria). Annals of the Transvaal Museum 44(1), 179–196. https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC83654

Lehmann T 2009. Phylogeny and systematics of the Orycteropodidae (Mammalia, Tubulidentata). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 155(3), 649–702. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2008.00460.x

MacInnes DG 1956. Fossil Tubulidentata from East Africa. In: Fossil Mammals of Africa No. 10. British Museum (Natural History), London (UK), 38 pp. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/206520#page/5/mode/1up

McKenna MC & Bell SK 1997. Classification of mammals above the species level. Colombia University Press, New York, 631 pp.Nishihara H, Satta Y, Nikaido M, Thewissen JG, Stanhope MJ & Okada N 2005. A retroposon analysis of Afrotherian phylogeny. Molecular Biology and Evolution 22(9), 1823–1833. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msi179

Patterson B 1975. The fossil aardvarks (Mammalia: Tubulidentata). Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology 147(5), 185–237. https://ia800200.us.archive.org/15/items/biostor-663/biostor-663.pdf

Patterson B 1978. Pholidota and Tubulidentata. Chapter 12, pp 268–278 in: Maglio VJ & Cooke HBS (eds). Evolution of African Mammals. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (MA), 641 pp. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674431263.c13

Pickford M 1975. New fossil Orycteropodidae (Mammalia, Tubulidentata) from East Africa. Orycteropus minutus sp. nov. and Orycteropus chemeldoi sp. nov. Netherlands Journal of Zoology 25(1), 57–88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/002829675X00137

Pickford M 2019. Orycteropodidae (Tubulidentata, Mammalia) from the Early Miocene of Napak, Uganda. Münchner Geowissenschaftliche Abhandlungen Reihe A 47, 1–101. https://pfeil-verlag.de/en/publications/orycteropodidae-tubulidentata-mammalia-from-the-early-miocene-of-napak-uganda/ 

Pickford M & Andrews P 1981. The Tinderet Miocene sequence in Kenya. Journal of Human Evolution 10(1), 11–33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2484(81)80023-1

Savage RJG 1965. Fossil Mammals of Africa No. 19: The Miocene Carnivora of East Africa. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Geology 10(8), 239–316. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/112052#page/384/mode/1up

Seiffert ER 2007. A new estimate of afrotherian phylogeny based on simultaneous analysis of genomic, morphological, and fossil evidence. BMC Evolutionary Biology 7(1):224, 1–13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-7-224

Shoshani J 2001. Tubulidentata (Aardvarks). Encyclopedia of Life Sciences Vol. 18. Nature Publishing Group, London (UK). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/npg.els.0001578

Simons EL & Bown TM 1995. Ptolemaiida, a new order of Mammalia–with description of the cranium of Ptolemaia grangeri. PNAS 92(8), 3269–3273. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.92.8.3269

Simons EL & Gingerich PD 1974. New carnivorous mammals from the Oligocene of Egypt. Annals of the Geological Survey of Egypt 4, 157–166. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gingeric/PDFfiles/PDG015_Masrasector.pdf

Simpson GG 1931. Metacheiromys and the Edentata. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 59, 295–381. http://hdl.handle.net/2246/346

Thenius E & Hofer H 1960. Stammesgeschichte der Säugetiere. Eine Übersicht über Tatsachen und Probleme der Evolution der Säugetiere. Springer Verlag, Berlin (DE), 322 pp.

Thewissen JGM 1985. Cephalic evidence for the affinities of Tubulidentata. Mammalia49(2), 257–284. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/mamm.1985.49.2.257

Darwinism's failure as a predictive model XX

Darwinism's Predictions 

Cornelius G Hunter 

fundamental premise of evolutionary theory is that evolution has no foresight. It is a blind process responding to current, not future, needs. This means that biological structures do not evolve before they are needed. But many examples of this have been discovered in recent years. For instance, in the embryonic stages of a wide variety of organisms, the development of the vision system is orchestrated by similar control genes known as transcription factors. As one paper explained, “All eyes, invertebrate and vertebrate, develop through a cascade of similar transcription factors despite vast phylogenetic distances.” (Wake, Wake and Specht) Because these transcription factors are so prevalent across the evolutionary tree, they must have evolved in the very early stages of evolution, in an early common ancestor. But that was before any vision systems had evolved. The vision system is just one of several such examples showing that the genetic components of many of today’s embryonic development pathways must have been present long before such pathways existed. Evolutionists now refer to the appearance of these genetic components, before they were used as such, as preadaptation:

 Genome comparisons show that the early clades increasingly contain genes that mediate development of complex features only seen in later metazoan branches. … The existence of major elements of the bilaterian developmental toolkit in these simpler organisms implies that these components evolved for functions other than the production of complex morphology, preadapting the genome for the morphological differentiation that occurred higher in metazoan phylogeny. (Marshall and Valentine) 

Such preadaptation extends beyond embryonic development. For example, several key components of the human brain are found in single-celled organisms called choanoflagellates. Therefore these key components must have evolved in single-celled organisms, long before animals, brains and nerve cells existed. As one evolutionist explained, “The choanoflagellates have a lot of precursors for things we thought were only present in animals.” (Marshall)

 

Another example is the molecular machines for protein transport across the mitochondria inner membrane which must have evolved long before mitochondria existed. (Clements et. al.) As one evolutionist explained, “You look at cellular machines and say, why on earth would biology do anything like this? It’s too bizarre. But when you think about it in a neutral evolutionary fashion, in which these machineries emerge before there’s a need for them, then it makes sense.” (Keim) 

References 

Clements, A., D. Bursac, X. Gatsos, et. al. 2009. “The reducible complexity of a mitochondrial molecular machine.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106:15791-15795.

 

Keim, Brandon. 2009. “More ‘Evidence’ of Intelligent Design Shot Down by Science.” Wired Aug. 27. http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/08/reduciblecomplexity/

 

Marshall, Michael. 2011. “Your brain chemistry existed before animals did.” NewScientist September 1.

 

Marshall C., J. Valentine. 2010. “The importance of preadapted genomes in the origin of the animal bodyplans and the Cambrian explosion.” Evolution 64:1189-1201.

Wake D., M. Wake, C. Specht. 2011. “Homoplasy: from detecting pattern to determining process and mechanism of evolution.” Science 331:1032-1035. 

2023: Year of the Darwin Skeptic?

 The Year in Review: Intelligent Design Grows in Influence and Depth 

Brian Miller 

Each year, as we ask for support for our work from readers of Evolution News, I review the progress the intelligent design program has made in the research, writing, and outreach fields. This past year scientists in our network continued to publish articles in peer-reviewed journals that showcase the predictive and explanatory power of the design framework. Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture published books on topics ranging from artificial intelligence to the miracle of human existence. Leading scientists acknowledged either privately or publicly the weight and substance of design arguments. And a theory of biological design based on engineering principles continued to solidify and expand. There’s a lot to look forward to in 2023 — if we can count on your generous help to make it possible and share it with the world. 

Influencing Leading Scientists 

So let’s review. In 2022, I participated in several conferences and private events in which I interacted with prominent scientists. Several acknowledged the strength of our arguments critiquing the current scientific orthodoxy and defending the evidence for design in life. At a recent conference, I spoke with one of the most recognized and admired evolutionary biologists. In a private conversation, he accepted that the arguments for design based on engineering analyses of living systems were substantive. And during a public lecture, he even tacitly conceded that the information central to life points to design. He stated that he wished to wait for future research to potentially explain the origin of biological information through natural processes. But his tone of voice suggested that he doubted whether such an explanation would ever materialize.

At another meeting, I sat on a panel with one of the leading evolutionary theorists. He stated that standard evolutionary analyses addressing nontrivial transformations typically are severely deficient in their mathematical cogency. He also thanked scholars in the ID network for addressing with rigor and nuance such questions as the rarity of functional protein sequences and the required timescales for generating coordinated mutations. At another conference, top-level biologists affirmed the strength of my arguments for the challenge of evolving new proteins that perform complex tasks. Many still wished to wait for natural explanations for the origin of novel protein structures, but they now much better appreciate the severity of the challenge.  

Life looks designed. But these interactions reminded me that persuading scientists deeply concerned about others’ opinions of them might often prove extremely challenging. And yet, convincing leading scientists with open minds working at elite universities only requires the opportunity of presenting them with the evidence in a safe setting. Stephen Meyer has demonstrated this principle by the endorsements that Return of the God Hypothesis has received from prominent figures including a Nobel laureate physicist. Likewise, Marcos Eberlin demonstrated it by the endorsements his book Foresight received, including three Nobel laureates.  

Theory of Biological Design 

projects moved forward over the past year related to analyzing biological systems from an engineering standpoint. Prominent biomimetics engineer Stuart Burgess published an article in the journal BIO-Complexity that detailed the exquisite highly optimized design of the ankle-foot complex. He also discredited claims that the complex demonstrates poor design. The article parallels the lecture Burgess presented at the Westminster Conference on Science and Faith. 

Another article was recently submitted to a technical journal by a member of the Engineering Research Group (ERG) that describes how applying an engineering modeling tool to molecular machines elucidates their underlying design-logic and reveals deep insights into their operations. Two other members of ERG will submit a similar article related to modeling a metabolic network. Over the next year several additional articles will be submitted to respected scientific journals demonstrating the power of engineering models and principles to advance our understanding of biological systems. These projects represent just a small sample of the research that will commence over the next decade, applying engineering principles and tools to biological investigations.  ERG members are also synthesizing the insights generated by these projects into a comprehensive theory of biological design (TBD). Preliminary components of TBD were presented in the recently published Your Designed Body by Steve Laufmann and Howard Glicksman (here, here). I presented other elements in the recently published book Science and Faith in Dialogue. A free PDF of the book is available for download. This framework will help guide future biologists to expand their understanding of life most effectively, and it will help engineers to best apply the ingenuity seen in life to human creations.  

The evidence for deign in nature continues to reach increasing numbers of people. The Evolution News and Mind Matters news sites served a combined 3.6 million users. Discovery Institute’s YouTube videos received 8.2 million views. Stephen Meyer’s videos at PragerU received over 15 million views. Behind the scenes, ID scientists have developed communication channels with top-level scientists outside our circles who also wish to critically evaluate the scientific status quo about life’s origin and development. Our influence grows and grows despite severe opposition. 

At the same time, scientific research continuously strengthens the design arguments. Origin-of-life experiments continue to highlight the implausibility of natural processes ever generating a minimally complex cell. Rice University chemist James Tour recently launched the second season of his series debunking claims to the contrary. 

Studies of variation and adaptation in numerous species consistently reinforce the fact that evolutionary processes are highly constrained. And advances in systems biology and other biological subdisciplines reveal the same engineering principles used in human engineering employed in life. The differences reflect how life demonstrates far superior design. Our researchers will continue to support and communicate what represents the earliest stages in the next great scientific revolution. Thank you for your support and participation in this important work. Please take a moment now to help keep it going strong in 2023!

Darwinism's failure as a predictive model XVIV

 Darwinism's Predictions

Cornelius G Hunter 

To suppose that the eye,” wrote Darwin, “could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.” But Darwin argued that we must not be misled by our intuitions. Given natural selection operating on inheritable variations, some of which are useful, then, if a sequence of numerous small changes from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, and if the eye is somehow useful at each step, then the difficulty is resolved. (Darwin, 143) The key was to identify “a long series of gradations in complexity, each good for its possessor” which could lead to “any conceivable degree of perfection.” (Darwin, 165)

 

But ever since Darwin the list of complex structures in biology, for which no “series of gradations in complexity” can be found, has continued to grow longer. Both the fossil record and genomic data reveal high complexity in lineages where evolution expected simplicity. As one evolutionist explained:

 

It is commonly believed that complex organisms arose from simple ones. Yet analyses of genomes and of their transcribed genes in various organisms reveal that, as far as protein-coding genes are concerned, the repertoire of a sea anemone—a rather simple, evolutionarily basal animal—is almost as complex as that of a human. (Technau) 

Early complexity is also evident in the cell’s biochemistry. For instance, kinases are a type of enzyme that regulate various cellular functions by transferring a phosphate group to a target molecule. Kinases are widespread across eukaryote species and so they must persist far down the evolutionary tree. And the similarity across species of the kinase functions, and their substrate molecules, means that these kinase substrates must have remained largely unchanged for billions of years. The complex regulatory actions of the kinase enzymes must have been present early in the history of life. (Diks)

 

This is by no means an isolated example. Histones are a class of eukaryote proteins that help organize and pack DNA and the gene that codes for histone IV is highly conserved across species. So again, the first histone IV must have been very similar to the versions we see today. An example of early complexity in eyes is found in the long-extinct trilobite. It had eyes that were perhaps the most complex ever produced by nature. One expert called them “an all-time feat of function optimization.” (Levi-Setti, 29) Reviewing the fossil and molecular data, one evolutionist explained that there is no sequential appearance of the major animal groups “from simpler to more complex phyla, as would be predicted by the classical evolutionary model.” (Sherman) And as one team of evolutionists concluded, “comparative genomics has confirmed a lesson from paleontology: Evolution does not proceed monotonically from the simpler to the more complex.” (Kurland) 

References 

Darwin, Charles. 1872. The Origin of Species. 6th ed. London: John Murray.

http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F391&viewtype=text&pageseq=1

 

Diks, S., K. Parikh, M. van der Sijde, J. Joore, T. Ritsema, et. al. 2007. “Evidence for a minimal eukaryotic phosphoproteome?.” PLoS ONE 2.

 

Kurland, C., L. Collins, D. Penny. 2006. “Genomics and the irreducible nature of eukaryote cells.” Science 312:1011-1014.

 

Levi-Setti, Riccardo. 1993. Trilobites. 2d ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

 

Sherman, M. 2007. “Universal genome in the origin of metazoa: Thoughts about evolution.” Cell Cycle 6:1873-1877.

Technau, U. 2008. “Evolutionary biology: Small regulatory RNAs pitch in.” Nature 455:1184-1185. 

The engineering is real.

 Synchronized Swimming in Siphonophores: A Design Worth Imitating

David Coppedge 

Learning more about strange and fascinating creatures could occupy a lifetime. I had heard about siphonophores (“siphon bearers”) but knew little about them. To report on a new paper about their swimming abilities I needed to brush up on their taxonomy, anatomy, physiology, and ecology, so I read articles and watched videos of them in action. As with everything in biology, the closer one looks, the clearer the design: and this one, again, has design worth imitating. 

A Floater to Avoid 

Siphonophores (phylum Cnidaria) are colonial marine organisms exhibiting division of labor: some of the “zooids” (individual members of the colony) provide propulsion; others hunt and digest prey. The best-known siphonophore is the Portuguese man-o’war, known to beachgoers as a jellyfish-like floater to avoid; it has nasty stinging cells strong enough to kill a human: 

But it’s not a jellyfish per se. The bell-shaped jellyfishes with which we are most familiar (phylum Cnidaria, subphylum Scyphozoa) are single individuals. The Portuguese man-o’war is classified in subphylum Hydrozoa, which includes the hydra. Like other siphonophores, it is a colony of individuals with specialized functions. Its distinctive gas-filled, sail-like bladder riding the waves like a Portuguese warship suggested the organism’s name. 

Most other siphonophores — long, rope-like organisms with hairy-looking tentacles and gelatinous bulbs arranged in rows — sit and wait underwater until prey animals like fish and plankton drift into their stinging cells. But siphonophores can swim. In fact, they travel large distances every day. If the fishing is bad, they will move to a better spot. A video taken by a remotely operated submersible for the Nautilus Ocean Exploration Trust shows one purple-colored species swimming leisurely at the bottom of the ocean: 

Its odd shape defied identification at first by the puzzled scientists wondering what it was. That’s understandable, because siphonophores are barely recognizable as animals. Some species can grow to over a hundred feet long (see photo at Smithsonian Magazine). 

Common but Weird and Wonderful 

The common siphonophore Nanomia bijuga is very plentiful in Monterey Bay. A video by the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute of this “weird and wonderful” animal shows its two main sections: a nectosome made up of 5 to 20 nectophores (zooids which do the propulsion), and a siphosome, composed of zooids that sting and digest krill: 

Like other “physonect” siphonophores, N. bijuga has a third part: a “pneumatophore” at the apex of the nectosome. Filled with carbon monoxide gas, the pneumatophore helps keep the colony in a vertical orientation. So numerous and effective are these little predators, they eat more krill per day than all the whales in the bay combined!  

That is remarkable Considering images we have seen of humpback whales gulping big mouthfuls as they lunge with mouth agape into dense swarms of the little shrimp-like crustaceans. Another fascinating fact about N. bijuga is that it participates in the daily migration of plankton (diel vertical migration), descending to 800 meters during the daytime for protection, and up to the surface at night. That’s a lot of swimming for a little foot-long Ironman — a mile a day.  

Jet Propulsion 

Like jellyfish, squid, and octopuses, siphonophores move by jet propulsion. Each nectophore looks like a bubble with a small orifice. The zooid quickly squeezes the bubble, shooting water out to provide thrust, then fills up again. Arranged in pairs along the nectosome, the nectophores cooperate like rowers in a team. One fact about their teamwork fascinated scientists led by Kevin T. Du Clos and Kelly R. Sutherland at the Oregon Institute of Marine Biology, aided by scientists at other institutions including Caltech.  

That fact is that N. bijuga employs both synchronized and asynchronous propulsion: sometimes the nectophores “pull” together, and sometimes they work independently. Why is that, and does it make a functional difference? They published their findings in PNAS: “Distributed propulsion enables fast and efficient swimming modes in physonect siphonophores.” 

Siphonophores are colonial cnidarians that, unlike single jetters such as squids, swim using propulsion from multiple jets, produced using subunits called nectophores. Distributing propulsion spatially provides advantages in redundancy and maneuverability, and distributing propulsion over time enables context-adaptive swimming modes. We use experiments and modeling to compare swimming modes. We show that synchronous swimming produces high mean speeds and accelerations. By contrast, asynchronous swimming consumes less energy. Thus, by simple variations to the timing of thrust production, siphonophores achieve similar functionality to that of fishes, the ability to adapt swimming performance to context. A greater understanding of the benefits of multijet propulsion may also improve underwater vehicle design.  

So once again, we see nature inspiring design by imitation. These scientists found measurable benefits to the travel habits of a lowly, nondescript whatchamacallit. Its ability to get around and migrate a mile a day attracted them to wonder how, and why, with such simple equipment, this organism achieved similar performance to fish. Expecting a reason, they found one: the siphonophore can adapt its “gait” (so to speak) to the needs of the moment: pulling together to escape a predator, but breaking cadence to save energy. It’s something like we see with marching bands, sometimes moving in strict order and sometimes in a “scatter” formation to get into position with less energy.  

Think what the humble common siphonophore’s ingenuity could mean to energy-conscious marine vehicle design: 

Providing specific advice for vehicle design is beyond the scope of this study, but experimental pulsed single jet vehicles that operate within the Reynolds number range this study (SI Appendix, Fig. S1) have been tested (e.g., Re = 1,300–2,700 for (33)), and there are general principles from this study that could be useful for vehicle research and design. Analogously to N. bijuga, a single underwater vehicle with multiple propulsors could use different modes to adapt to context. Our model test cases suggest strategies for tuning the behavior of a vehicle depending on the desired performance characteristics. A propulsion pattern mimicking the asynchronous case—in which thrust is low, and asynchronous—is best if power consumption is the primary concern because it minimizes the cost of transport.  

If speed is more important, the asynchronous-matched case—in which thrust is high and asynchronous—is likely the best because it decreases the cost of transport with only small losses in speed when compared to the synchronous case. Interestingly, the intuitive approach of producing high thrust synchronously (as represented by the synchronous case) may be the least useful, with its primary advantage being high initial acceleration. 

Our results also suggest a general approach to selecting the number of propulsors an underwater vehicle should employ. Swimming speed, efficiency, cost of transport, and synchronous acceleration all improved with increasing colony lengths in our model, but these benefits approached asymptotes for the longest colonies(Fig. 3). For underwater vehicles with few propulsors, adding propulsors may provide large performance benefits, but when the number of propulsors is high, the increase in complexity from adding propulsors may outweigh the incremental performance gains. 

The multijet strategy provides flexibility in the spatial and temporal distributions of propulsion. Multijet swimmers, such as N. bijuga, take advantage of this flexibility to increase their maneuverability, redundancy, and context-specific swimming performance. 

The authors were impressed enough with the animal’s skill, they used the word “design” four times, but evolution zero times. Good thing; trying to figure out the phylogeny of siphonophores is a challenge (Molecular Biology and Evolution). 

The Kicker 

These scientists only focused on the advantages of multijet swimming in synchronous and asynchronous modes, but there’s more. What do these abilities imply? The colony could not do these things without coordination; that implies signaling and quick response by a neural system. The know-how to go where the fishing is good implies sensing systems. The ability to hunt and digest fish implies a digestive system that benefits the community. Foresight is evident in the colony’s ability to stop adding nectophores when the optimum number is reached. 

The design, for sure, proceeds all the way from the whole colony down to each cell, where molecular machines, a genome, and network of parts enables the whole. A siphonophore is, using Douglas Axe’s term, a “functional whole” with design evident at every level. 

It’s quite a show. And like the design plan, the synchronization continues throughout and within every player in the colony — even in the decision to break cadence and go async when that swimming strategy makes the most sense.