Archive: Brittlestars, Extinction, Feathers, Adultery, Cells, Censorship

These posts from August 2001 show that some topics discussed 23 years ago are still in the news.

Note: Some embedded links may no longer work.

Brittlestar Is All Eyes  08/23/2001
A kind of brittlestar starfish is the envy of engineers. It has covered its exoskeleton with microscopic “near-perfect” lenses of calcite, each a twentieth of a millimeter across, that are all aligned and focus light onto its nervous system, thus making itself an all-seeing eye that can respond to shadows and changes in light. Quotes from the Nature Science Update article: “too similar to lenses to have been formed by chance” . . . “more sophisticated than anything humans can produce” . . .  “incredible structures” . . . “It’s astonishing that this organic creature can manipulate inorganic matter with such precision – and yet it’s got no brain” . . . It’s starting with a soup of chemicals and pulling out this wonderful microstructure . . . “It’s bizarre – there’s nothing else that I know of that has lenses built into its general body surface.” The article has a picture of the lens array.

One thing is for sure: the brainless brittlestar did not design its own optical system. Notice also that these amazing animals (echinoderms) are members of one of the 20 phyla of complex animals that appear abruptly in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion (see next story). Yet Gordon Hendler, co-author of the study, said, “Thanks to evolution, they have beautifully designed crystal lenses that are an integral part of their calcite skeleton.” See our Baloney Detector explanation of the fallacy of personification.

National Geographic Explains Dating Methods  08/22/2001
The September 2001 National Geographic has arrived in millions of homes, with a cover story “How Old Is It? Solving the Riddle of Ages.” It attempts to explain the various methods scientists use to date everything from recent murder victims to fossils to the earliest rocks to the universe. Claiming “nature has created the perfect rock clock for geologists“ in zircon crystals for the uranium-lead method, author Carl Zimmer quotes Ian Williams (p. 92) as saying, “Zircons are God’s gift to geochemistry.”

It’s essentially a propaganda piece for evolution, utilizing the methods of card stacking, authority, and visualization. It highlights all the methods that give long ages, but passes over many others that give young ages (except for the brief obligatory dismissal of the Ussher chronology, an either-or fallacy on top of a straw man tactic). Underlying all the methods described in the article is dogmatic faith that evolution has occurred. Two admissions of doubt did sneak through, however, that undermine the whole evolutionary tale: (1) the Cambrian explosion and the origin of life (p. 94) – “Short of the evolution of life, that episode (the Cambrian explosion) represents evolution’s supreme scientific challenge.” (2) The lumpiness problem in cosmology (p. 99) – “Well into the 21st century, astronomers will be wrestling with the puzzle of how so many galaxies evolved so fast after the dawn of the universe.” These are both major problems for naturalistic evolution. If evolution is wrong in the big picture, it cannot be correct in the details.

A good exercise for students would be to read the National Geographic article, then follow the chain links on this page under Dating Methods. It should be apparent that, despite NG’s glossy gown, the dating game is hard to win. Regarding zircons being God’s gift to evolutionary geologists, see creation geologist Dr. Andrew Snelling’s article at Institute for Creation Research and other related articles on radioactive dating.

Aborigines Not to Blame for Aussie Megafauna Extinction  08/22/2001
Like most continents, Australia had its share of mega-mammals like 10-foot high kangaroos, 13-foot long marsupials named Dipotrodon, marsupial lions, giant lizards and giant flightless birds. In the past, some have claimed aborigines wiped out the megafauna when they arrived 60,000 years ago, but some feel they should be exonerated. Using a new technique called optically stimulated luminescence of sand grains bearing fossils of these creatures, the National Museum of Australia now estimates that aborigines and these animals lived together for 15,000 years, so the extinction was a slow burn, not a blitzkrieg. This from a Reuters story relayed in CBS News. The September 2001 National Geographic (p. 92), however, argues the opposite: “If humans hadn’t been there, the extinction would not have happened.”

This article illustrates the whopping stories that evolutionists pull out of the tiniest investment of data. They use a questionable dating technique, riddled with unverifiable assumptions, then weave tales of ancient hunters and their techniques: “‘Slow-burn’ advocates argue that at first people modified landscapes, reduced habitat by fire-stick farming, took the eggs of flightless birds and reptiles, and wiped out populations by tethering animals to waterholes during droughts.” How can anyone possibly know that? Look at the raw data, and you see devolution, not evolution: a modern world impoverished of the magnificent creatures that once roamed the planet.

Note also that the blitzkrieg theorists make the aborigines look like environmental plunderers (compare with how modern man is blamed for accelerating the extinction of endangered species). One wonders if aboriginal special interest groups are pressuring scientists to portray their ancestors in a kinder, gentler light. Regardless, how can environmentalists blame modern man for what ancient humans (products of evolution) did to their fellow creatures as part of their own survival strategies?

Passing 08/22/2001: Sir Fred Hoyle, Cambridge astronomer, has died at the age of 86, reports the BBC News. Hoyle originated the steady-state cosmology and was a long time critic of the big bang theory (a derisive term he coined).  Although an evolutionist, he became convinced that the origin of life by natural means was impossible, and with Dr. Chandra Wickramasinghe wrote several books critical of traditional Darwinism, notable Evolution From Space, proposing a version of panspermia that life was sent to earth from space by unknown intelligences. Despite his maverick reputation, Hoyle was extremely influential to a whole generation of astronomers largely to his popularizations of science on the BBC. On 08/23, Answers in Genesis published an article about Hoyle’s life and influence as a critic of the big bang theory and abiogenesis.

Cockfight Rages Over Origin of Feathers  08/21/2001
Headline sound extreme? Listen to this:

“In what can charitably be called a contentious debate, the two most strident groups of these paleontologists [i.e., who theorize the origin of feathers] sometimes–okay, almost always–reach interpretations of the data that are poles apart. They defend their analyses with fundamentalist fervor and fling darts at the opinions of scientists who hold a different view.  When these guys get together, the feathers can really fly.”

So says the cover story of the Aug. 18 Science News Magazine (160:7, pp. 106-108). One group wants to consider only the fossil evidence. Another wants to take into account living animals and habitats, and infer their characteristics. One group takes a bottom-up theory, thinking dinosaur-like creatures with incipient feathers might have been able to turn corners faster. The other group takes a top-down approach, theorizing that animals leaping from branch to branch developed feathers and flight simultaneously. The article by Sid Perkins states, “Most paleontologists agree that feathers like those found in modern birds have a structure that’s much too complicated to have evolved more than once. Until scientists unearth fossils that are clearly the ancestors of Archaeopteryx, their imaginations can run wild as to what primitive feathers might have looked like.”

The article also has a sidebar on the looks versus genes controversy reported here July 3.

This article speaks for itself. Here you have two groups willing to call each other “vitriolic” names over their disagreements (but of course will smile for the cameras as they say “evolution is a fact”), but neither group has a shred of evidence for how feathers came about. The article has pictures illustrating the amazing design of feathers, with their complex shaft, barbs, barbules and hooklets that smoothly clamp together to form a lightweight, strong vane, perfect for flying, insulation, camouflage, decoration, water repulsion, and more. There is a vast gulf between feathers and the “stubby projections” on dinosaur scales that some evolutionists try to imagine were the ancestors of these complex structures. Controversy, lack of evidence, ardent faith in spite of the improbability . . . isn’t it ironic that printed beside the last page of the article is an advertisement for a book by anti-creationist anti-Christian skeptic Michael Shermer, How We Believe, which asks, “Why, despite the rise of science and secular education, are people turning to religion in greater numbers than ever before?” To borrow a slogan from Fox News, we report – you decide.

Electricity Propels Cell Cargo  08/21/2001
Cells need to move stuff around through microtubules, little subway tunnels, and build proteins on assembly lines called ribosomes. How do they attract the trucks to the cargo bay and move them along the track? One factor appears to be static electricity. Scientists found ways to calculate the electrostatic potential of microtubules and ribosomes, and found that they have complex quilted patterns of positive and negative charges, with a net negative charge that helps attract the ingredients and propel them along, according to a paper published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The paper is technical, but has some nice illustrations of microtubules in cross section. It shows how the little tunnels are not simple structures like hoses, but elaborate, precise arrangements of molecules as intricately crocheted as a quilt. The main ribosome components have 88,000 to 95,000 atoms apiece, arranged to create the proper electrostatic potential. The precision of cellular structures defies any attempt at naturalistic explanation. Add electric power to the list of wonders.

Wives Evolve Strategies to Cope With Cheating Sports-Hero Spouses  08/20/2001
Researchers at Oregon State University say a “culture of adultery” exists among professional athletes, who have a “fast-food sex mentality” while on the road. Steven Ortiz made a presentation to the American Sociological Society, sharing the results of interviews with wives of athletes who, some newly married and some married for 10 years or more. “What emerged from those interviews were profiles of adaptation, as wives developed coping strategies that often evolved over time.” Most of the wives were drawn to the athlete through glamor or prestige and did not know what they were in for. Some make a decision to cope with it, some use humor, some get suspicious or go into denial, some get divorced, some put up with the one-night stands but not with long term love affairs. “Some wives look for signs that their husband has been unfaithful; others may deny the possibility by avoiding the issue completely,” Ortiz says. “They are different strategies of dealing with the same fears.”

If this is all just evolution in action, then it isn’t morally right or wrong, is it? It is one thing to conduct interviews and tabulate data, but by using the terms adapation and evolve, this researcher wobbles on the line about whether the athletes are moral jerks or just products of their environment, and whether the wives are justified in their anger or just acting out evolutionary adaptation strategies. It would be interesting to add another question to the interviews: “Do you feel your husband is morally responsible for his behavior, or is his adultery justified because it illustrates evolution in action?” (I.e., is he a gentleman or a brute?)

Teacher Forbidden to Question Darwinism     08/19/2001
The cover story of World Magazine for August 18 tells the story of Rod LeVake, a Minnesota football coach turned biology teacher, who was subjected to interrogation by the principal and two other administrators when he informed colleagues he intended to tell students about textbook errors about evolution, including Haeckel’s faked drawings of embryos. Even though Mr. LeVake agreed to teach evolution and not teach creationism, when he admitted to believing in creation, he was subjected to an inquisition by the entire science department, who fired questions at him including one who accused him of believing the earth is flat. The administration rejected his position paper which stated, “I will teach, should the department decide it is appropriate, the theory of evolution. I will also accompany that treatment of evolution with an honest look at the difficulties and inconsistencies of the theory without turning my class into a religious one. Anything less than this constitutes poor science.” They transferred him to a chemistry class, even though he is the only teacher at the school with a master’s degree in biology. LeVake’s appeal was denied, but his case may make its way to the Supreme Court. A central issue is whether a teacher’s personal religious beliefs can disqualify him or her from teaching science.

Let’s hope his new chemistry class includes biochemistry, which will provide a huge arsenal against evolution without him having to say a word about Darwin (follow the chain links Cell and Amazing at top). Even though creation is winning the evidence war, this story shows that the Darwin KGB are still in power. But don’t despair; these could just be their last desperate attempts to brandish their swords before their own house caves in from the weight of scientific evidence it cannot support. “They wanted me to teach it as dogma,” LeVake said.

Motor and Clutch Proteins Identified for Cellular Highways  08/17/2001
Did you know that cells have their own interstate highway system, with actin filaments serving as streets and microtubules serving as freeways? That motors send their cargo zipping down the lanes? EurekAlert reports that biologists at the University of Illinois, publishing in Science, believe they have identified the clutch that puts the motor in neutral or clicks it into gear. While studying pigment organelle movement in animals that can change color, like chameleons, they think they have uncovered a universal system for moving parts around the cell. The clutch is a complex molecule named calcium/calmodulin-dependent protein kinase II (CaMKII); it works to engage or disengage a motor protein they had earlier identified as myosin-V.

More and more, the cell is seen to be a fantastic array of functioning parts, as complex as a city. Such marvels do not arise from the random shuffling of liquids and solids. The old “watch requires a Watchmaker” argument for design has found its ultimate illustration in the tiniest unit of life: the cell. A watch is simple by comparison.