Pierre Grasse and the `irreducible complexity' of the blood-clotting cascade

I was reading the book "Evolution of Living Organisms" (1977) by "the [late] great French zoologist Pierre-Paul Grasse" (Gould S.J., "An Urchin in the Storm," 1987, p.234), "who for thirty years, held the chair for evolution at the Sorbonne" (Koestler A., "Janus," 1983, p.177), and of whom his opponent Dobzhansky wrote:

"Now, one can disagree with Grasse but not ignore him, he is the most distinguished of French zoologists, the editor of the 28 volumes of `Traite de Zoologie', author of numerous original investigations and ex-president of the Academie des Sciences. His knowledge of the living world is encyclopedic ...." (Dobzhansky T.G., "Darwinian or `Oriented' Evolution?" Review of Grasse P.-P., "L'Evolution du Vivant," Editions Albin Michel: Paris, 1973, in "Evolution," Vol. 29, June 1975, pp.376-378, p.376).

when I found this:

"Take, for example, regulation of the coagulation of blood, a highly complex phenomenon to which biologists seem to have given little thought. Its normal cause is the opening of a vein, artery, or capillaries; the blood brought into contact with the lip of the wound (damaged tissues) becomes the site of chain reactions ending in the formation of a clot. This is only possible because there preexist in the blood reaction agents or their precursors whose end effect is to coagulate certain proteins of the blood plasma. The organism, ready for all eventualities, bears within itself in the latent state its own protective system. Genes control the elaboration of coagulants, proteins, and enzymes. Such a process forms a single whole; a lack of a substance arises, an enzyme is affected, and the system will not work. One does not see how it can have been formed by successive chance effects supplying a protein or an enzyme in any random order. Besides, we know that the effects of mutations on the system are disastrous and form the lengthiest chapter in blood pathology. The system has become functional only when all its components have come together and adjusted themselves to one another. The Darwinian hypothesis compels us to postulate a preparatory period during which selection acts upon something that does not, physiologically speaking, yet exist. Under the necessary conditions of the postulate, the action can only have been prophetic!" (Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.152. Emphasis original).

That is, Grasse, in 1973, nominated the vertebrate blood-clotting cascade, as effectively `irreducibly complex'. Here is what Grasse wrote again: "regulation of the coagulation of blood [is] ... a highly complex phenomenon ... [Upon] the opening of a vein, artery, or capillaries; the blood brought into contact with the lip of the wound ... becomes the site of chain reactions ending in the formation of a clot. ... Such a process forms a single whole; a lack of a substance [or] an enzyme ... and the system will not work ... The system has become functional only when all its components have come together and adjusted themselves to one another." (Grasse's emphasis). Grasse points out that it cannot "have been formed by successive chance effects supplying a protein or an enzyme in any random order", i.e. the natural selection of random (unguided) mutations, because "the effects of mutations on the system are disastrous."

This is of course what Mike Behe claimed in his "Darwin's Black Box" (1996), that the (vertebrate) blood-clotting system was irreducibly complex, i.e. it was a "complex organ [or structure] ... which could not possibly [i.e. plausibly] have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications":

"Darwin knew that his theory of gradual evolution by natural selection carried a heavy burden:

`If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.' [Darwin C., 1872, "Origin of Species," 6th ed., 1988, New York University Press: New York, p.154].

It is safe to say that most of the scientific skepticism about Darwinism in the past century has centered on this requirement. From Mivart's concern over the incipient stages of new structures to Margulis's dismissal of gradual evolution, critics of Darwin have suspected that his criterion of failure had been met. But how can we be confident? What type of biological system could not be formed by `numerous, successive, slight modifications'? Well, for starters, a system that is irreducibly complex. By irreducibly complex, I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution. Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on." (Behe M.J., "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution," Free Press: New York NY, 1996, p.38. Emphasis original).

I emailed Prof. Behe and asked him whether he had seen the above quote by Pierre Grasse on the blood clotting cascade. He replied (with permission to quote him here), "No, I had never seen that before. It's nice to see that an eminent biologist recognized and wrote about the problem."

Here is Prof. Behe's evidence and argument in "Darwin's Black Box" that the blood clotting system (see tagline for his detailed description of it) is irreducibly complex:

"Blood behaves in a peculiar way. When a container of liquid like a carton of milk, or a tank truck filled with gasoline-springs a leak, the fluid drains out. The rate of flow can depend on the thickness of the liquid (for example, maple syrup will leak more slowly than alcohol, but eventually it all comes out. No active process resists it. In contrast, when a person suffers a cut it ordinarily bleeds for only a short time before a clot stops the flow; the clot eventually hardens, and the cut heals over. Blood clot formation seems so familiar to us that most people don't give it much thought. Biochemical investigation, however, has shown that blood clotting is a very complex, intricately woven system consisting of a score of interdependent protein parts. The absence of, or significant defects in, any one of a number of the components causes the system to fail: blood does not clot at the proper time or at the proper place. ... Blood clotting ... requires extreme precision. When a pressurized blood circulation system is punctured, a clot must form quickly or the animal will bleed to death. If blood congeals at the wrong time or place, though, then the clot may block circulation as it does in heart attacks and strokes. Furthermore, a clot has to stop bleeding all along the length of the cut, sealing it completely. Yet blood clotting must be confined to the cut or the entire blood system of the animal might solidify, killing it. Consequently, the clotting of blood must be tightly controlled so that the clot forms only when and where it is required ... the blood-clotting system fits the definition of irreducible complexity. That is, it is a single system composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system effectively to cease functioning. The function of the blood clotting system is to form a solid barrier at the right time and place that is able to stop blood flow out of an injured vessel. The components of the system ... are fibrinogen, prothrombin, Stuart factor, and proaccelerin. ... none of the cascade proteins are used for anything except controlling the formation of a blood clot. Yet in the absence of any one of the components, blood does not clot, and the system fails. There are other ways to stop blood flow from wounds, but those ways are not step-by-step precursors to the clotting cascade. For example, the body can constrict blood vessels near a cut to help stanch blood flow. Also, blood cells called platelets stick to the area around a cut, helping to plug small wounds. But those systems cannot be transformed gradually into the blood-clotting system any more than a glue trap can be transformed into a mechanical mousetrap. The simplest blood-clotting system imaginable might be just a single protein that randomly aggregated when the organism was cut. ... [but] the simplistic clotting system would be triggered inappropriately, causing random damage and wasting resources. ... [It] is not the final activity ... clot formation ... that is the problem-rather, it is the control system. One could imagine a blood-clotting system that was somewhat simpler than the real one-where, say, Stuart factor, after activation by the rest of the cascade, directly cuts fibrinogen to form fibrin, bypassing thrombin. Leaving aside for the moment issues of control and timing of clot formation, upon reflection we can quickly see that even such a slightly simplified system cannot change gradually into the more complex, intact system. If a new protein were inserted into the thrombin-less system it would either tum the system on immediately-resulting in rapid death-or it would do nothing, and so have no reason to be selected. Because of the nature of a cascade, a new protein would immediately have to be regulated From the beginning, a new step in the cascade would require both a proenzyme and also an activating enzyme to switch on the proenzyme at the correct time and place. Since each step necessarily requires several parts, not only is the entire blood-clotting system irreducibly complex, but so is each step in the pathway." (Behe M.J., "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution," Free Press: New York NY, 1996, pp.78-79, 86-87).

Now this is an example of `great minds think alike.' Remember that Grasse wrote: "The system has become functional only when all its components have come together and adjusted themselves to one another. The Darwinian hypothesis compels us to postulate a preparatory period during which selection acts upon something that does not, physiologically speaking, yet exist. Under the necessary conditions of the postulate, the action can only have been prophetic!" Behe wrote (unaware of Grasse), after reviewing the explanation by Prof. Russell F. Doolittle, a world authority on the blood clotting system, "natural selection, the engine of Darwinian evolution, only works if there is something to select-something that is useful right now, not in the future":

"Yet the objections raised so far are not the most serious. The most serious, and perhaps the most obvious, concerns irreducible complexity. I emphasize that natural selection, the engine of Darwinian evolution, only works if there is something to select-something that is useful right now, not in the future. Even if we accept his scenario for purposes of discussion, however, by Doolittle's own account no blood clotting appears until at least the third step. The formation of tissue factor at the first step is unexplained, since it would then be sitting around with nothing to do. In the next step (prothrombin popping up already endowed with the ability to bind tissue factor, which somehow activates it) the poor proto prothrombin would also be twiddling its thumbs with nothing to do until, at last, a hypothetical thrombin receptor appears at the third step and fibrinogen falls from heaven at step four. Plasminogen appears in one step, but its activator (TPA) doesn't appear until two steps later. Stuart factor is introduced in one step, but whiles away its time doing nothing until its activator (proconvertin) appears in the next step and somehow tissue factor decides that this is the complex it wants to bind. Virtually every step of the suggested pathway faces similar problems. Simple words like `the activator doesn't appear until two steps later' may not seem impressive until you ponder the implications. Since two proteins-the proenzyme and its activator-are both required for one step in the pathway, then the odds of getting both the proteins together are roughly the square of the odds of getting one protein. We calculated the odds of getting TPA alone to be one-tenth to the eighteenth power; the odds of getting TPA and its activator together would be about one-tenth to the thirty-sixth power! That is a horrendously large number. Such an event would not be expected to happen even if the universe's ten-billion year life were compressed into a single second and relived every second for ten billion years. But the situation is actually much worse: if a protein appeared in one step 10 with nothing to do, then mutation and natural selection would tend to eliminate it. Since it is doing nothing critical, its loss would not be detrimental, and production of the gene and protein would cost energy that other animals aren't spending. So producing the useless protein would, at least to some marginal degree, be detrimental. Darwin's mechanism of natural selection would actually hinder the formation of irreducibly complex systems such as the clotting cascade. ... The bottom line is that clusters of proteins have to be inserted all at once into the cascade. This can be done only by postulating a `hopeful monster' who luckily gets all of the proteins at once, or by the guidance of an intelligent agent." (Behe M.J., "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution," Free Press: New York NY, 1996, pp.95-96. Emphasis original)

The fact that one of the world's greatest biologists, the late Pierre Grasse, in 1973 wrote of the problem for a Darwinian, `blind watchmaker,' step-by-tiny-step, natural selection of random mutations, origin of the vertebrate blood clotting cascade, which Mike Behe again independently discovered and wrote about in 1996, shows that ID's irreducible complexity argument is: 1) science (and therefore so is ID); and 2) has demonstrated the existence of a "complex [system] ...which could not possibly [i.e. plausibly] have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications," and so Darwin's theory has absolutely broken down!

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).
"Problems of Evolution"

---

"About 2 to 3 percent of the protein in blood plasma (the part that's left after the red blood cells are removed) consists of a protein complex called fibrinogen. ... [which] makes `fibers' that form the clot. Yet fibrinogen is only the potential clot material. .... Almost all of the other proteins involved in blood clotting control the timing and placement of the clot. ... Fibrinogen is a composite of six protein chains, containing twin pairs of three different proteins. Electron microscopy has shown that fibrinogen is a rod-shaped molecule, with two round bumps on each end of the rod and a single round bump in the middle. So fibrinogen resembles a set of barbells with an extra set of weights in the middle of the bar. Normally fibrinogen is dissolved in plasma, like salt is dissolved in ocean water. It floats around, peacefully minding its own business, until a cut or injury causes bleeding. Then another protein, called thrombin, slices off several small pieces from two of the three pairs of protein chains in fibrinogen. The trimmed protein-now called fibrin-has sticky patches exposed on its surface that had been covered by the pieces that were cut off. The sticky patches are precisely complementary to portions of other fibrin molecules. The complementary shapes allow large numbers of fibrins to aggregate with each other ... Because of the shape of the fibrin molecule, long threads form, cross over each other, and (much as a fisherman's net traps fish) make a pretty protein meshwork that entraps blood cells. This is the initial clot (Figure 4-2). The meshwork covers a large area with a minimum of protein; if it simply formed a lump, much more protein would be required to clog up an area. Thrombin, which cuts off the pieces from fibrinogen, is like [a] saw ... thrombin sets in motion the final step of a controlled process. ... if the only proteins involved in blood coagulation were thrombin and fibrinogen, the process would be uncontrolled. Thrombin would quickly clip all of the fibrinogen to make fibrin; a massive clot would form throughout the animal's circulatory system, solidifying it. ... animals would rapidly perish. To avoid such an unhappy ending an organism must control the activity of thrombin. ... The body commonly stores enzymes (proteins that catalyze a chemical reaction. like the cleavage of fibrinogen) in an inactive form for later use. The inactive forms are called proenzymes. When a signal is received that a certain enzyme is needed, the corresponding proenzyme is activated to give the mature enzyme. As with the conversion of fibrinogen to fibrin, proenzymes are often activated by cutting off a piece of the proenzyme that is blocking a critical area. ... Thrombin initially exists as the inactive form, prothrombin. Because it is inactive, prothrombin can't cleave fibrinogen, and the animal is saved from death by massive, inappropriate clotting. Still, the dilemma of control remains. ... If fibrinogen and prothrombin were the only proteins in the blood-clotting pathway, again our animal would be in bad shape. When the animal was cut, prothrombin would just float helplessly by the fibrinogen as the animal bled to death. Because prothrombin cannot cleave fibrinogen to fibrin, something is needed to activate prothrombin. ... the blood-clotting system is called a cascade-a system where one component activates another component, which activates a third component, and so on. ... Figure 4-3. A protein called Stuart factor cleaves prothrombin, turning it into active thrombin that can then cleave fibrinogen to fibrin to form the blood clot. Unfortunately, as you may have guessed, if Stuart factor, prothrombin, and fibrinogen were the only blood-clotting proteins, then Stuart factor would rapidly trigger the cascade, congealing all localize, or remove blood clots. the blood of the organism so Stuart factor also exists in an inactive form that must first be activated. At this point there's a little twist to our developing chicken-and-egg scenario. Even activated Stuart factor can't turn on prothrombin. Stuart factor and prothrombin can be mixed in a test tube for longer than it would take a large animal to bleed to death without any noticeable production of thrombin. It turns out that another protein, called accelerin, is needed to increase the activity of Stuart factor. The dynamic duo-accelerin and activated Stuart factor- cleave prothrombin fast enough to do the bleeding animal some good so in this step we need two separate proteins to activate one proenzyme. Yes, accelerin also initially exists in an inactive form, called proaccelerin .... And what activates it? Thrombin! But thrombin, as we have seen, is further down the regulatory cascade than proaccelerin. So thrombin regulating the production of accelerin is like having the granddaughter regulate production of the grandmother Nonetheless, due to a very low rate of cleavage of prothrombin by Stuart factor, it seems there is always a trace of thrombin in the bloodstream Blood clotting is therefore auto-catalytic, because proteins in the cascade accelerate the production of more of the same proteins. We need to back up a little at this point because, as it turns out prothrombin as it is initially made by the can't be transformed into thrombin, even in the presence of activated Stuart factor and accelerin. Prothrombin must first be modified ... by having ten specific amino acid residues, called glutamate (Glu) residues, changed to y-carboxyglutamate (Gla) residues. The modification can be compared to placing a lower jaw onto the upper jaw of a skull. The completed structure can bite and hang on to the bitten object; without the lower jaw, the skull couldn't hang on. In the case of prothrombin, Gla residues `bite' (or bind) calcium, allowing prothrombin to stick to the surfaces of cells. Only the intact, modified calcium-prothrombin complex, bound to a cell membrane, can be cleaved by activated Stuart factor and accelerin to give thrombin. The modification of prothrombin does not happen by accident. Like virtually all biochemical reactions, it requires catalysis by a specific enzyme. In addition to the enzyme, however, the conversion of Glu to Gla needs another component: vitamin K. Vitamin K is not a protein; rather, it is a small molecule ... Like a gun that needs bullets, the enzyme that changes Glu to Gla needs vitamin K to work ... now we have to go back and ask what activates Stuart factor. It turns out that it can be activated by two different routes, called the intrinsic and the extrinsic pathways. In the intrinsic pathway, all the proteins required for clotting are contained in the blood plasma; in the extrinsic pathway, some clotting proteins occur on cells. Let's first examine the intrinsic pathway. ... When an animal is cut, a protein called Hageman factor sticks to the surface of cells near the wound. Bound Hageman factor is then cleaved by a protein called HMK to yield activated Hageman factor. Immediately the activated Hageman factor converts another protein, called prekallikrein, to its active form, kallikrein. Kallikrein helps HMK speed up the conversion of more Hageman factor to its active forms. Activated Hageman factor and HMK then together transform another protein, called PTA, to its active forms. Activated PTA in turn, together with the activated form of another protein (discussed below) called convertin, switch a protein called Christmas factor to its active form. Finally, activated Christmas factor, together with antihemophilic factor (which is itself activated by thrombin in a manner similar to that of proaccelerin) changes Stuart factor to its active forms. Like the intrinsic pathway, the extrinsic pathway is also a cascade. The extrinsic pathway begins when a protein called proconvertin is turned into convertin by activated Hageman factor and thrombin. In the presence of another protein, tissue factor, convertin changes Stuart factor to its active form. Tissue factor, however, only appears on the outside of cells that are usually not in contact with blood. Therefore, only when an injury brings tissue into contact with blood will the extrinsic pathway be initiated. (A cut ... is the initiating event- something outside of the cascade mechanism itself) The intrinsic and extrinsic pathways cross over at several points. Hageman factor, activated by the intrinsic pathway, can switch on proconvertin of the extrinsic pathway. Convertin can then feed back into the intrinsic pathway to help activated PTA activate Christmas factor. Thrombin itself can trigger both branches of the clotting cascade by activating antihemophilic factor, which is required to help activated Christmas factor in the conversion of Stuart factor to its active form, and also by activating proconvertin. ... Once clotting has begun, what stops it from continuing until all the blood in the animal has solidified? Clotting is confined to the site of injury in several ways. ... First, a plasma protein called antithrombin binds to the active (but not the inactive) forms of most clotting proteins and inactivates them. Antithrombin is itself relatively inactive, however, unless it binds to a substance called heparin. Heparin occurs inside cells and undamaged blood vessels. A second way in which clots are localized is through the action of protein C. After activation by thrombin, protein C destroys accelerin and activated antihemophilic factor. Finally, a protein called thrombomodulin lines the surfaces of the cells on the inside of blood vessels. Thrombomodulin binds thrombin, making it less able to cut fibrinogen and simultaneously increasing its ability to activate protein C. When a clot initially forms, it is quite fragile: if the injured area is bumped the clot can easily be disrupted, and bleeding starts again. To prevent this, the body has a method to strengthen a clot once it has formed. Aggregated fibrin is "tied together" by an activated protein called FSF (for `fibrin stabilizing factor'), which forms chemical cross-links between different fibrin molecules. Eventually, however, the blood clot must be removed after wound healing has progressed. A protein called plasmin acts as a scissors specifically to cut up fibrin clots. Fortunately, plasmin does not work on fibrinogen. Plasmin cannot act too quickly, however, or the wound wouldn't have sufficient time to heal completely. It therefore occurs initially in an inactive form called plasminogen. Conversion of plasminogen to plasmin is catalyzed by a protein called t-PA. There are also other proteins that control clot dissolution, including α2-antiplasmin, which binds to plasmin, preventing it from destroying fibrin clots." (Behe M.J., "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution," Free Press: New York NY, 1996, pp.79-85, 87-88)

Technology that imitates nature, etc

Here are science news items with my comments in square brackets:

Technology that imitates nature, The Economist, June 9th 2005 Biomimetics: Engineers are increasingly taking a leaf out of nature's book when looking for solutions to design problems AFTER taking his dog for a walk one day in the early 1940s, George de Mestral, a Swiss inventor, became curious about the seeds of the burdock plant that had attached themselves to his clothes and to the dog's fur. Under a microscope, he looked closely at the hook-and-loop system that the seeds have evolved to hitchhike on passing animals and aid pollination, and he realised that the same approach could be used to join other things together. The result was Velcro: a product that was arguably more than three billion years in the making, since that is how long the natural mechanism that inspired it took to evolve. Velcro is probably the most famous and certainly the most successful example of biological mimicry, or "biomimetics". In fields from robotics to materials science, technologists are increasingly borrowing ideas from nature, and with good reason: nature's designs have, by definition, stood the test of time, so it would be foolish to ignore them. ... [First, it is simply false that "the natural mechanism that inspired" Velcro, i.e. the burrs of the burdock plant "took ["more than three billion years"] to evolve". For starters, the angiosperms (flowering plants) only appeared in the fossil record 140 million years old, and unless there is a fossil record documenting the development of this (or any) adaptation, it could have arisen by a macromutation in a single generation. At least that would get over the problem of `what good is half of a "hook-and-loop system"?' In any event, this is further prima facie evidence of design in nature. And since "intelligent design is compatible with ... the most far-ranging evolution":

"Where does intelligent design fit within the creation- evolution debate? Logically, intelligent design is compatible with everything from utterly discontinuous creation (e.g., God intervening at every conceivable point to create new species) to the most far-ranging evolution (e.g., God seamlessly melding all organisms together into one great tree of life). For intelligent design the primary question is not how organisms came to be (though, as we've just seen, this is a vital question for intelligent design) but whether organisms demonstrate clear, empirically detectable marks of being intelligently caused. In principle an evolutionary process can exhibit such `marks of intelligence' as much as any act of special creation." (Dembski W.A., "Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1999, pp.109-110)

it is irrelevant whether or not this design was produced by a natural "evolutionary process." As even Gould agreed, "design by wholesale":

"Henry Ward Beecher, America's premier pulpiteer during Darwin's century, defended evolution as God's way in a striking commercial metaphor: `Design by wholesale is grander than design by retail' - better, that is, to ordain general laws of change than to make each species by separate fiat." (Gould S.J., "Knight Takes Bishop?," in Bully for Brontosaurus: Further Reflections in Natural History," [1991], Penguin: London, 1992, p.400)

(whether or not it is "grander" in the eye of the beholder), would still be design! However, at least one leading evolutionist, the pioneer anthropologist Robert Broom, considered that an outside intelligence was required where plants like orchids had exquisitely complex adaptations to insects that "fit each other like glove and hand" and "burrs [that] would seem to imply some knowledge of mammalian fur":

"And when we look at the adaptations that have been evolved in plants we find them quite as remarkable as anything found in the animal kingdom. Let us consider only a few cases.

`The orchids are among the most wonderful flowers ever evolved.... In many cases the development is such that the flower and insect [which fertilizes it] fit each other like glove and hand. In some cases the device is so ingenious that the bee or other insect is attracted by the fragrance and nectar into a chamber from which there is only one way of escape, and in escaping the insect must first touch the stigma and then the stamen, and as it passes to the next flower it carries the pollen to the next stigma. But the devices are almost endless. There are; over seven thousand different species [of orchids] known, and it is very remarkable that this, the most specialized group of the flowering plants, should have more species than any other family except the Compositae.' [Broom R., "The Coming of Man: Was it Accident or Design?," H.F. & G. Witherby: London, 1933]

Broom then notes that `the devices found among plants for scattering the seeds are as ingenious as those for effecting cross-fertilization,' and he provides examples. Then he continues:

`Now it seems to me difficult to avoid the conclusion that behind the various devices for cross-fertilization in flowers, and the various arrangements for seed dispersal, there is intelligence somewhere. Fortuitous mutation or variation seems too far-fetched. But the question is whether the intelligence is in the plant or outside. To fit a flower to the structure of a bee, or a nectary tube to the proboscis of a moth or butterfly, seems to imply some knowledge of the insects, and we can hardly believe that flowers can study insects. Then the development of burrs would seem to imply some knowledge of mammalian fur, and whatever agency invented the spear grass would seem to have had some knowledge of the structure of the mammalian skin. ...' [Ibid]

To suggest the possibility of a spiritual agency in evolution will of course evoke a vigorous protest from most scientists; but if physicists and philosophers are considering the possibility of a spiritual view of the physical universe a biologist may perhaps be excused for considering whether some spiritual agency or agencies may not be largely concerned in the processes of evolution. When we have a very definite effect we may claim the right to consider all possible causes even though at first sight they may appear improbable. Even those who believe in mutations great or small have to admit that they know nothing of what may have produced them; and Darwin had to admit that what was behind variations was quite unknown." (Fix W.R., "The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution," Macmillan: New York NY, 1984, pp.239-240. My emphasis).]

Slowly-dying Mars still holds surprises, Independent Online, Richard Ingham, September 08, 2005. Cambridge, England - Just half a lifetime ago, Mars was seen as Earth's sister, a future home-from-home, possibly also a rival - the Red Planet, where loathsome aliens plotted invasions of our home. Then, in the 1960s, came the hammer blow. Blurry pictures sent back by early space probes depicted Mars as a terrifying orange desert, parched and dusty, clearly incapable of nurturing any life. ... Today, thanks to a flotilla of US and European space missions, yet another picture is emerging. No one should be tempted to revive any of the verdant fantasies of sci-fi, for no sign has emerged yet of life on Mars, past or present. But the evidence now firmly states this: Mars is not dead, for it has plentiful reserves of water and maybe lingering sources of heat, too. "It is partly a museum planet because of things that happened long ago, but it's also still an active planet," European Space Agency (ESA) scientist Gerhard Neukum told AFP at a major conference here on the Solar System. ... Mars clearly has a catastrophic history. One theory is that around 3.5 billion years ago, the planet somehow lost its core-driven magnetic field, a shield that protected it against the fierce buffeting of particles from the Sun. Without this, the planet's thick carbon dioxide atmosphere was progressively shredded by the solar wind and its precious oceans slowly evaporated. ... [This is a good summary of how the Epicurean materialist `Copernican' principle of mediocrity predicted (and still does) that there would be life on Mars, but failed (i.e. I predict that if there is, or has been, life on Mars it will have been a single common origin that came from Earth or vice-versa). I will add this to my "Problems of Evolution" book outline, PE 6.4.3.2 "Earth's fitness for life ... magnetic field" ]

Official: Neanderthal Man was not a hairy oaf but a sensitive kinda guy, The Independent, David Keys, 11 September 2005. ... The world's archetypal cave-man is being reborn, 150 years after he was first discovered in a cave in north-western Germany. A team of American scientists have reconstructed the most complete Neanderthal ever. And instead of the angry, ape-like figure of popular imagination, he emerges as a family man, in touch with his emotions. .... The "new" caveman - built using bones from seven incomplete skeletons discovered in six different countries - has been constructed just months ahead of the official celebrations to mark the Neanderthal anniversary. ... The new work is helping to confirm that Neanderthals were almost certainly inferior to anatomically modern humans in long-distance mobility. Indeed some archaeologists are now beginning to think that this handicap was ultimately partially to blame for them becoming extinct. .... Whereas Homo sapiens was able to pursue prey over very long distances, Neanderthals appear to have been markedly less able to do so and would probably therefore have had to have been more confrontational with their potential dinners. .... "The reconstruction strengthens the case for regarding Neanderthals as representing a different species with their own survival strategies compared to those of Homo sapiens," said Professor Chris Stringer . ... Scientists Build 'Frankenstein' Neanderthal Skeleton, Livescience, Bjorn Carey, 10 March 2005. ... Anthropologists have built a "Frankenstein" Neanderthal skeleton, the first and only full-body reconstruction of the species. The result, announced today, is a shape no one expected. "It's almost like making my own fossil discovery," said Gary Sawyer ... Sawyer ... and his colleague Blaine Maley ...pieced together the skeleton using bones mostly from an individual known as La Ferrassie 1. [which] was missing its rib cage, pelvis, and a few other parts ... "The missing parts had to come from another classic Neanderthal that was similar, if not identical, in size ...," .... from Kebara 2, a 60,000-year-old skeleton discovered in Israel in 1983. ... as the scientists pieced together the bones .. "The biggest surprise by all means is that they have a rib cage radically different than a modern human's rib cage," said Sawyer. "As we stood back, we noticed one interesting thing was that these are kind of a short, squat people. These guys had no waist at all - they were compact, dwarfy-like beings." Other bits and replacement pieces, mostly the ends of bones, were collected from half a dozen other Neanderthals. The remaining gaps were filled in with reconstructed human bones. The finished product is "like Frankenstein," Sawyer said. ... Sawyer doesn't believe that modern humans could have evolved from Neanderthals based on the pelvic and torso discrepancies between the two species. ... The reconstructed Neanderthal skeleton ... will eventually go on permanent display at the American Museum of Natural History. ... Neanderthals were a relative of homo sapiens that co- inhabited Europe and parts of western Asia with hum from about 120,000 to 29,000 years ago. They were well adapted to the cold and were very muscular -- good traits for hunting large animals. "They had very strong hands," Sawyer said. "If you shook hands with one, he would turn your hand to pulp."... [Apart from the "sensitive kinda guy" reading of 21st century Western man ideals into fossils, this reconstruction further underlines the very real differences between neanderthals and modern human, and probably why they could not compete with the latter in hunting.]

Maverick who believes we can live for ever, The Guardian, Mark Honigsbaum, September 10, 2005. In 1998 a scientist at the California Institute of Technology discovered a gene that could extend the life of fruit flies by 30%. He dubbed it the Methuselah gene after the Biblical prophet [sic] who lived to 969. Now a self-taught gerontologist believes our mortality could one day be similarly extended. At a conference at Queen's College, Cambridge, this week, Aubrey de Grey, a 41-year-old Cambridge computer scientist, told a research audience that there was no reason why people should not live to 1,000. It sounds like science fiction, but for all that Dr de Grey has been dismissed as a crank, his papers continue to be published in peer-reviewed journals and scientists continue to flock to his meetings. The editor of the MIT Technology Review has gone so far as to offer a $20,000 (£11,000) prize to any gerontologist who could put together a serious argument refuting his claims. So far there have been no takers. ... [Evidence that the extended longevity of the patriarchs in Genesis 5 and 11 could be literal (although I don't necessarily claim this).]

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).
"Problems of Evolution"

Titan moon occupies 'sweet spot', etc

Here are science news items with my comments in square brackets:

Titan moon occupies 'sweet spot', BBC, Paul Rincon, 9 September 2005. ... Earth and Saturn's moon Titan show striking similarities because both occupy "sweet spots" in our Solar System, researchers have said. Many processes that occur on Earth also take place on this moon, say scientists participating in the US-European Cassini-Huygens mission. Wind, rain and volcanism and tectonic activity all seem to play a role in shaping Titan's surface. One scientist even sees a way that life could survive on the freezing world. "Titan is perhaps the most Earth-like place in the Solar System other than Earth, in terms of the balance of processes," says Jonathan Lunine ... [As the article says, "on the surface of Titan ... temperatures are about -178C (-289F)", "the chemistry that drives ... processes is radically different between the two worlds," and Titan has a diameter of only 5150 km (compared to Earth's 12,756 km), so astrobiologists like Lunine have a very flexible definition of "Earth-like"! When assessing the claims of astrobiologists, it is worth remembering origin of life specialist Jeffrey L. Bada's observation of astrobiology: "one of the field's attractions was money--and lots of it":

"Today, it seems nearly everyone is an astrobiologist. A decade ago, I knew essentially none. Why this sudden obsession with a field that encompasses so many diverse areas in both the physical and life sciences? So far, life has not been found to exist away from Earth, although the surge in interest in astrobiology suggests there is intense optimism within at least parts of the science community that this singularity will change in the future. But scientific curiosity alone likely cannot explain the explosive growth of astrobiology. After reading The Living Universe: NASA and the Development of Astrobiology, I came to the conclusion that one of the field's attractions was money--and lots of it." (Bada J.L., "A Field with a Life of Its Own." Review of "The Living Universe: NASA and the Development of Astrobiology," by Steven J. Dick and James E. Strick, Rutgers University Press: Piscataway NJ, 2004. Science, Vol. 307, 7 January 2005, p.46)

But at least the article makes the point that when considering "a balance between size, or mass, and distance from the Sun" of the "three planets in the inner Solar System: Venus, Earth and Mars. ...Venus is about the same size as Earth. But it is so close to the Sun that any water it had must have boiled off. As such, there is no hydrological cycle and no tectonic activity ... Mars is distant enough from the Sun to retain water. But its small size caused it to cool quickly, turning water to ice and ending large-scale geological activity. Earth occupies an intermediate position - the "sweet spot". I have added that part of the article to my "Problems of Evolution" book outline, PE 6.4.1 "Earth's fitness for life ... Circumstellar Habitable Zone."]

Study: Bumblebees Advanced Learners, Discovery News, Larry O'Hanlon, Sept. 8, 2005 - Bumblebees are a brainy bunch, according to new study showing that the insects watch other bumblebees to learn what flowers to dine on. The ability to learn simply by watching is usually accorded to only certain birds, marine mammals and primates. This new work shows that the old saying "monkey see, monkey do" applies even to some insects. "Bees can learn things on their own or learn from others," said bumblebee researcher Bradley Worden of the University of Arizona. Worden is a co-author of a paper on the matter in an upcoming issue of Biology Letters of the Royal Society ...." The work on bumblebees by Worden is just another nail in the coffin of the idea that there is a fundamental difference in mental abilities between vertebrates and invertebrates, said [Lars] Chittka. "The idea that insects are simple reflex machines, because of their short life span and miniature brains, has to be abandoned."... [See also Livescience. Evolutionists oftrn claim there is no distinction in kind (just degree) between humans and animals, e.g. this claim of Gould's and Berlinski's reply:

"Among other things, medieval thinkers believed that human beings were unique in ways that were absolute and inviolable. This doctrine many modern biologists have emphatically rejected. `The western world,' Stephen Jay Gould remarks, `has yet to make its peace with Darwin.' The great impediment to this reconciliation, he goes on to add ...

`lies in our willingness to accept continuity with ourselves and nature, our ardent search for a criterion to assert our own uniqueness. Chimps and gorillas have long been the battleground of our search of uniqueness, for if we could establish an unambiguous distinction - of kind, rather than degree between ourselves and our closest relatives, we might gain the justification long sought for our cosmic arrogance. Educated people now accept the evolutionary continuity between human and apes. But we are so tied to our philosophical and religious heritage that we still seek a criterion for a strict division between our abilities and those of a chimpanzee.' [Gould S.J., "A Matter of Degree," in "Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History," [1978], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, pp.50-51]

Now I quote all this not merely because Gould holds a chair at Harvard and I do not; although this made the target all therefore tempting, but because Gould represents a charming intelligence corrupted by a shallow system of belief. No distinction in kind rather than degree between ourselves and the chimps? No distinction? Seriously, folks? Here is a simple operational test: The chimpanzees invariably are the ones behind the bars of their cages. There they sit, solemnly munching bananas, searching for lice, aimlessly loping around, baring their gums, waiting for the experiments to begin. No distinction? Chimpanzees cannot read or write; they do not paint, or compose music, or do mathematics; they form no real communities, only loose-knit wandering tribes; they do not dine and cannot cook; there is no record anywhere of their achievements; beyond the superficial, they show little curiosity; they are born, they live, they suffer and they die. No distinction? ... there is not a trace in the animal world of virtually any of the powerful and poorly understood powers and properties of the human mind; in all of history no animal has stood staring at the night sky in baffled and respectful amazement. ... One may insist, of course, that all this represents difference merely of degree. Very well. Only a difference of degree separates man from the Canadian Goose Individuals of both species are capable of entering the air unaided and landing some distance from where they started." (Berlinski D., "Good as Gould," in "Black Mischief: Language, Life, Logic, Luck," Harcourt Brace Jovanovich: Boston MA, Second Edition, 1988, pp.293-295. Emphasis original)

even down to claiming (as here) that "there is [no] ... fundamental difference in mental abilities between vertebrates [e.g. humans] and invertebrates [e.g. insects]"! But according to my animal behaviour textbook (Alcock J., "Animal Behavior: An Evolutionary Approach," Sinauer Associates: Sunderland MA, Fifth edition, 1993, pp.25ff), the original distinction between "instincts" being innate and "learning" being acquired from experience, has broken down, since some instincts can be modified by experience. So the fact that a bumblebee can learn an essential behaviour from other bumblebees, does not seem to me to be necessarily learning in the same sense that a higher animal like a dog can learn non-essential tricks or a human can learn table manners. It could still be an innate instinct programmed to copy other bumblebees in that behaviour. What would need to be shown is that a bumblebee can learn non-essential varied behaviours from another bumblebee (or rather a realistic imitation since a bumblebee that could do non-essential behaviours would have already learned them), like a dog can learn tricks.]

Water crisis looms as Himalayan glaciers melt, CNN, September 9, 2005. NEW DELHI, India (Reuters) -- Imagine a world without drinking water. It's a scary thought, but scientists say the 40 percent of humanity living in South Asia and China could well be living with little drinking water within 50 years as global warming melts Himalayan glaciers, the region's main water source. The glaciers supply 303.6 million cubic feet every year to Asian rivers, including the Yangtze and Yellow rivers in China, the Ganga in India, the Indus in Pakistan, the Brahmaputra in Bangladesh and Burma's Irrawaddy. But as global warming increases, the glaciers have been rapidly retreating, with average temperatures in the Himalayas up 1 degree Celsius since the 1970s. A World Wide Fund report published in March said a quarter of the world's glaciers could disappear by 2050 and half by 2100. "If the current scenario continues, there will be very little water left in the Ganga and its tributaries," Prakash Rao, climate change and energy program coordinator with the fund in India [said] ... [The report said: "The rapid melting of Himalayan glaciers will first increase the volume of water in rivers, causing widespread flooding," said Jennifer Morgan, director of the WWF's global climate change program. "But in a few decades this situation will change and the water level in rivers will decline, meaning massive economic and environmental problems for people in western China, Nepal and northern India." The report included: "Himalayan glaciers feed into seven of Asia's greatest waterways - the Ganges, Indus, Brahmaputra, Salween, Mekong, Yangtze and Yellow rivers - ensuring a year-round water supply to hundreds of millions of people. ... the WWF stressed the need to recognise climate change as an issue that seriously threatens security and development. ... the world faces an economic and development catastrophe if the rate of global warming isn't reduced," ... "truly dangerous" levels of climate change could be reached in just over 20 years. ...As glacier water-flows dwindle, the energy potential of hydroelectric power will decrease, causing problems for industry. Agriculture will also suffer, as reduced irrigation means lower crop yields." This is more evidence that we are entering the Great Tribulation (Mat. 24:21 (KJV) "For then shall be great tribulation [Gk. megale thlipsis, "great pressure"], such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be" (cf. Mk 13:19 & Lk 21:23; Rev 7:14 KJV)], in the midst of which Jesus will return (Mat 24:22,29-30; Mk 13:20,26; Lk 21:25-27) (see tagline quote)]

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).
"Problems of Evolution"

---

"[MATTHEW 24:]21,22 ... `for then there shall be great tribulation, such as there has never been since the beginning of the world until now, and as there shall never be again. And if those days were not cut short no one would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days shall be cut short.'... Jesus is here speaking about a tribulation that will characterize `those days,' a tribulation such as has never been and never again shall be, a very brief period of dire distress that shall occur immediately before his return (see verses 29-31). It is the period mentioned also in Rev. 11:7-9; 20:3b, 7-9a. For the sake of God's chosen ones-see ... on Eph. 1:4-in order that not all might have to die a violent death, the days of this final tribulation shall be cut short. Herein, too, the love of God is made manifest. It should hardly be necessary to add that justice is not done to the concept of this tribulation, which immediately precedes `the end' of the world's history and which surpasses any other distress in its intensity, if it is referred solely to the sorrows experienced during the fall of Jerusalem." (Hendriksen W., "The Gospel of Matthew: New Testament Commentary," [1973], The Banner of Truth Trust, 1982, reprint, pp.859-860. Emphasis original)

Huge Response to Samizdat Article the Darwinists Tried to Suppress

Here is a great article by the Discovery Institute's Bruce Chapman on the Sternberg persecution. But first some tidbits:

"Of course, it has been a standard and hypocritical assertion by groups like the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) that if ID scientists were "serious" about their science, they would publish in peer-reviewed science journals. The Darwinists say this piously to reporters, then do all they can behind the scenes to prevent publication of peer-reviewed articles that are not reliably Darwinian."

"Still, under pressure, the Smithsonian cravenly and publicly criticized Dr. Sternberg for publishing the article and then began damaging his career further by kicking him out of his office and removing his access to specimens, a real handicap for a researcher. They even took away his building key. Meanwhile, they trashed his name in private emails, now made public by the Office of Special Counsel to whom Sternberg appealed for help, and ran a bootless inquisition into his personal religious and political background. ... It is a shameful story for the Smithsonian that ought to call its scholarly policies and procedures into question, and it shines a light on the National Center for Science Education and its back-alley role in such episodes of censorship."

"If, after publication, the Smithsonian had replied to the fulminations of the NCSE and some of its own internal hotheads with a calm reaffirmation--such as, "Well, we do live in a free country, don't we? And if you believe in academic freedom for yourself you do have to support it for those with whom you disagree, don't you?"--the article might have dropped out of notice. Instead, the censors have provoked distribution of fifteen thousand copies of a science article so far. That may not seem like a lot for big magazines. But it's an historic accomplishment for the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. The Smithsonian and the NCSE should be very proud."

Of course there is nothing new in the Darwinists persecuting their own kind for `giving aid and comfort to the enemy' (see tagline).

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).
"Problems of Evolution"

---

Huge Response to Samizdat Article the Darwinists Tried to Suppress
By: Bruce Chapman
Discovery Institute

September 7, 2005

The main tactics of the Darwinist response to Darwin Doubters and intelligent design proponents are, first, to misrepresent the opposition's positions and, second, to try to keep the opposition from speaking for itself. They have managed to get some university professors fired or sidelined, but overall one has to think they have a losing approach that is unfit for survival--at least in this country.

The best example is the attempt to shut down design theorists who appear in peer-reviewed journals. Of course, it has been a standard and hypocritical assertion by groups like the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) that if ID scientists were "serious" about their science, they would publish in peer-reviewed science journals. The Darwinists say this piously to reporters, then do all they can behind the scenes to prevent publication of peer-reviewed articles that are not reliably Darwinian.

They have missed with several such articles lately, however, and their all-out effort to punish Dr. Richard Sternberg, the editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, for publishing a paper on intelligent design by Dr. Stephen Meyer, the philosopher of science who heads Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, has backfired in a particularly spectacular way.

Only about 950 copies of the Proceedings normally are printed.

Apparently, it is unusual for any paper's author to get requests for even a handful of reprints. But after the Smithsonian's post hoc efforts to kill "The Origins of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories"--Meyer's paper--over 400 print copies were requested from Discovery Institute. We were very pleased. Still it took us about nine months to think to produce it prominently on our website, which we did a bit over two months ago. Since then, our tracking shows, over 14,200 copies have been seen, and in many cases, downloaded, online.

That has to make Dr. Meyer's paper one of the top Samizdat science articles of all time. ("Samizdat" was the term used in Soviet days for officially suppressed articles that were distributed secretly by ordinary people, often with home made copies.)

When the Meyer article appeared a year ago last month we fully expected an attempt to discredit its findings. Instead, the brunt of the attack was borne by the editor, not Dr. Meyer, even though Dr. Sternberg would seem to be an unimpeachable expert in his field. After all, he has not one but two doctorates in the very field that is appropriate here, evolutionary biology.

Investigation showed, moreover, that he did, indeed, send the paper out to three peer-reviewers. His superiors, in anxious emails to one another, admitted that he had broken no rules.

Still, under pressure, the Smithsonian cravenly and publicly criticized Dr. Sternberg for publishing the article and then began damaging his career further by kicking him out of his office and removing his access to specimens, a real handicap for a researcher. They even took away his building key. Meanwhile, they trashed his name in private emails, now made public by the Office of Special Counsel to whom Sternberg appealed for help, and ran a bootless inquisition into his personal religious and political background. About all they could uncover, by quizzing the Smithsonian library, was that he was in possession of nearly 50 overdue library books.

The attacks from inside and outside the Smithsonian have definitely crimped Dr. Sternberg's career. It is a shameful story for the Smithsonian that ought to call its scholarly policies and procedures into question, and it shines a light on the National Center for Science Education and its back-alley role in such episodes of censorship.

But I have to acknowledge, though a bit ruefully, that the Darwinist Inquisition has done more to promote the article by Dr. Meyer than anything his colleagues at Discovery Institute ever could have mustered. They have made an outstanding article famous as well.

If, after publication, the Smithsonian had replied to the fulminations of the NCSE and some of its own internal hotheads with a calm reaffirmation--such as, "Well, we do live in a free country, don't we? And if you believe in academic freedom for yourself you do have to support it for those with whom you disagree, don't you?"--the article might have dropped out of notice.

Instead, the censors have provoked distribution of fifteen thousand copies of a science article so far. That may not seem like a lot for big magazines. But it's an historic accomplishment for the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. The Smithsonian and the NCSE should be very proud.

Bruce K. Chapman, former director of the U. S. Census Bureau and former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Organizations in Vienna, is president of the Discovery Institute.

Discovery Institute - Center for Science and Culture
1511 Third Ave., Suite 808 - Seattle, WA 98101

---

"One particularly eminent scientist of the mid-twentieth century who concluded that it [Darwin's theory] had absolutely broken down was the German-American geneticist, Professor Richard Goldschmidt of the University of California at Berkeley. Goldschmidt issued a famous challenge to the neo-Darwinists, listing series of complex structures from mammalian hair to hemoglobin that he thought could not have been produced by the accumulation and selection of small mutations. Like Pierre Grasse, Goldschmidt concluded that Darwinian evolution could account for no more than variations within the species boundary; unlike Grasse, he thought that evolution beyond that point must have occurred in single jumps through macromutations. He conceded that large-scale mutations would in almost all cases produce hopelessly maladapted monsters, but he thought that on rare occasions a lucky accident might produce a `hopeful monster,' a member of a new species with the capacity to survive and propagate (but with what mate?). The Darwinists met this fantastic suggestion with savage ridicule. As Goldschmidt put it, `This time I was not only crazy but almost a criminal.' Gould has even compared the treatment accorded to Goldschmidt in Darwinist circles with the daily `Two Minute Hate' directed at `Emmanuel Goldstein, enemy of the people' in George Orwell's novel 1984. [Gould S.J., "The Panda's Thumb," 1980, p.155] " (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial," [1991], Second Edition, InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1993, p.37)

Ice belt 'encircled Mars equator', etc

Here are science news items with my comments in square brackets:

Ice belt 'encircled Mars equator', BBC, Paul Rincon, 8 September 2005. ... Europe's Mars Express probe may have found evidence for a band of ice that once spanned the Martian equator. A frozen sea and patterns of glacial activity on the planet may be a relic of this ancient belt of ice, says a top scientist. The ice may have formed just before five million years ago due to a change in the tilt of Mars. This change caused moisture from the poles to be deposited as snow at the equator. The idea is based on work by a team of scientists led by astronomer Jacques Laskar ... Laskar's team has shown that the tilt of Mars on its axis can vary between 15 degrees and 40 degrees, largely because of its lack of a significant moon. By contrast, the Earth varies little from its tilt of 23.5 degrees ... [See also Science Daily. Note what would happen if Earth did not have such "a significant moon." See section PE 6.3.4.3.2.1 of my "Problems of Evolution" book outline, "Earth's fitness for life ... Moon ... Stabilises Earth's axial tilt".]

Genes Show Signs Brain Still Evolving, ABC/AP, Lauran Neergaard, September 8, 2005. ... The human brain may still be evolving. So suggests new research that tracked changes in two genes thought to help regulate brain growth, changes that appeared well after the rise of modern humans 200,000 years ago. ..."We, including scientists, have considered ourselves as sort of the pinnacle of evolution," noted lead researcher Bruce Lahn ... whose studies appear in Friday's edition of the journal Science. ... Lahn and colleagues examined two genes, named microcephalin and ASPM, that are connected to brain size. ... Scientists attempt to date genetic changes by tracing back to such spread, using a statistical model that assumes genes have a certain mutation rate over time. For the microcephalin gene, the variation arose about 37,000 years ago, about the time period when art, music and tool- making were emerging, Lahn said. For ASPM, the variation arose about 5,800 years ago, roughly correlating with the development of written language, spread of agriculture and development of cities, he said. .... That the genetic changes have anything to do with brain size or intelligence "is totally unproven and potentially dangerous territory to get into with such sketchy data," stressed Dr. Francis Collins ... "There's just no correlation," said Duke's Wray, calling education and other environmental factors more important for intelligence than DNA anyway. ... [See also: BBC. It does not follow that just because there are variants in these genes that "The human brain may still be evolving", i.e. it could just be fluctuations around a mean. The fact is that the human brain reached its current size in anatomically modern Homo sapiens ~100,000 years before behaviourally modern Homo sapiens appeared ~40,000 ago.]

Fossils reveal prehistoric flying giants, ABC/Reuters, September 9, 2005. The giant reptiles [pterosaurs] that flew above the earth until about 65 million years ago could have grown to twice the size originally thought with wingspans of at least 18 metres, a palaeontologist says. That would be almost the same width as the 19.5 metre fully-extended wingspan of an F-14 Tomcat fighter aircraft and roughly five times bigger than an albatross, which ranks among the birds with the largest wingspans in the modern world. Dr David Martill ... says his research on pterosaur wings appeared to solve the problem of how such enormous creatures managed to take to the skies and stay there... Flying reptiles just got bigger, BBC, onathan Amos, 8 September 2005 ... But there was nothing ugly about the way they moved through the air, according to expert Dr David Martill ... Their ability to utilise air currents, thermals and ground effects would astonish aeroplane designers, he said. "Pterosaurs were beautifully engineered," ... "Their skeletons were exceedingly light: their bones were very thin and hollow, and those hollows were filled with an air-sack system. They'd also got rid of their reptilian scales and their wing membrane was very, very thin. "All this meant there wasn't that much weight to get off the ground, and so they probably flew really rather well," ... there is evidence from rare fossil eggs containing pterosaur embryos which suggests the creatures could fly soon after hatching. If this was the case, scientists say, it was a remarkable achievement because the wings would have had to have grown from just a few tens of centimetres in length to several metres without interrupting the animals flying capability. "The equivalent of an aircraft engineer trying to convert a Eurofighter into a jumbo jet while it was still flying," enthused Dr Martill. ... [More evidence that pterosaurs were primarily gliders from high points, since otherwise there would seem no point, and in fact a major disadvantage, to having such a huge wingspan? The language of intelligent design is again noted!]

Scientists given go-ahead for 'dual mother' embryo, ABC, September 9, 2005. ... A team of scientists in Britain have been granted official approval to create a human embryo using genetic material from two women, raising the future prospect of babies with a pair of mothers. The group from Newcastle University in Britain has been given the green light by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA)... The scientists will transfer the pro-nuclei - the components of a human embryo nucleus - made by one man and woman into an unfertilised egg from another woman. This technique is intended to help prevent mothers from passing on so-called mitochondrial diseases on to their unborn babies, genetic conditions caused by DNA outside the nucleus of a cell, in the mitochondria. .... Professor John Burn ... stressed that the new tests would not lead to "designer babies". "From a philosophical or medical point of view there is no reason why we should not do this," he said. "I would use the analogy of simply replacing the battery in a pocket radio to explain what we are doing. You are not altering the radio at all -- just giving it a new power source. .... However, campaigners expressed concern at the project. "This shows once again that the HFEA does not have any regard for public consultation and the views of the public," Josephine Quintavalle from the Comment on Reproductive Ethics group ... Embryo May Be Created From Two Women, ABC News, September 9, 2005 ... The application was initially rejected because of legislation prohibiting the alteration of the genetic structure of a cell while it is forming part of an embryo, the [HFEA] ... said ... he scientists eventually were given permission after reviewing the legislation. ... No treatment exists for mitochondrial diseases, which arise from DNA outside the nucleus and are inherited separately from DNA in the nucleus. ... The research does not involve human cloning. It would use normal IVF procedures, but before the sperm and egg fused, components would be implanted into a healthy female egg. ... [See also BBC & The Guardian. Agreed that this is not to create "designer babies" in the sense of improving humans (which I am against), but treating a disease, i.e. restoring humans back up to the normal level (which I am for). If mitochondria are all identical (apart from disease) then it is hard to see what is wrong with inserting disease-free mitochondria from another woman into an embryo. However, it worries me that from a scientific materialist "philosophical ... point of view" we are all just spare parts cobbled together by a `blind watchmaker', so then there would be no reason why we should not further interchange spare parts, like "simply replacing the battery in a pocket radio."]

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).
"Problems of Evolution"

Evolution Of A 'Theory', etc

Here are my comments in square brackets on recent news items:

Evolution Of A 'Theory', CBS, Lloyd Garver, September 7, 2005. Last month, President Bush said that it would be a good idea if something called "intelligent design" were taught along with the theory of evolution. That way, children would be exposed to "different schools of thought." I'm all for kids being exposed to "different schools of thought." In fact, I wonder why President Bush limited it to only two explanations of how the earth and humans got here. There are dozens of different beliefs and explanations for how the world as we know it was created. Of course, some of them - such as intelligent design - don't fall into the category of "science." Some people believe in a strict interpretation of Genesis. Some even believe that dinosaurs and humans roamed the earth at the same time. Other cultures believed that a giant turtle created the Earth. One belief is that a woman who fell from the sky was behind the creation of the Earth. Others believe that a jumbled mass of elements at the beginning of time was in the shape of an egg. Similarly, the ancient Greeks believed a golden egg hatched and gave birth to the sky and the Earth. So, why not teach all of these approaches - along with intelligent design - in the same class? And call that class, "comparative religions" or "creation myths." Just don't call that class "science." ... [See also. Another attempt to conflate ID with creationism, so that it can then be labeled as "religion" and kept out of science classes. But the simple fact is that already in science classes students are taught Darwinian `blind watchmaker' evolution, which claims that there is no design in nature. ID is simply the alternative hypothesis that there is design in nature. It is fallacious to claim that the proposition that there is no design in nature is "science" but the counter-proposition that there is design in nature is "religion." Either the claim that there is no design in nature (Darwinian evolution) and the claim that there is design in nature (ID) are both "outside science" (see tagline quote), or both are inside science. Or to put it another way, if the claim that there is design in nature (ID) is theistic "religion", then the claim there is no design in nature (Darwinian evolution) is atheistic "religion" (see tagline)! The editor of the Dallas Morning News hit the nail on the head, when he asked, "If the scientific data are compelling enough to cause an atheist academic of Antony Flew's reputation to recant much of his life's work, why shouldn't Texas schoolchildren be taught the controversy?":

"An intellectual bombshell dropped last week when British professor Antony Flew, for decades one of the world's leading philosophers of atheism, publicly announced that he now affirms the existence of a deity. To be sure, Mr. Flew has not become an adherent of any creed. He simply believes that science points to the existence of some sort of intelligent designer of the universe. He says evidence from DNA research convinces him that the genetic structure of biological life is too complex to have evolved entirely on its own. Though the 81-year-old philosopher believes Darwinian theory explains a lot, he contends that it cannot account for how life initially began. We found this conversion interesting in light of last year's controversy regarding proposed revisions to the state's high school biology textbooks. Our view then was that while religion must be kept out of science classes, intellectual honesty demands that when science produces reliable data challenging the prevailing orthodoxies, students should be taught them. ... If the scientific data are compelling enough to cause an atheist academic of Antony Flew's reputation to recant much of his life's work, why shouldn't Texas schoolchildren be taught the controversy?" (Editorial, "An Atheist's Apostasy," The Dallas Morning News, December 15, 2004).]

Soil may belch out CO2 to warm planet, ABC/Reuters , Peter Graff, 8 September 2005. Soil in temperate climates releases about 300 times the amount of carbon a year than burning fossil fuels does, UK scientists say ... Climate change is causing soil to release huge amounts of carbon, making efforts to fight global warming tougher than once thought .... A study in today's issue of the journal Nature looked at the carbon content of soil in England and Wales from 1978 to 2003. The researchers looked at almost 6000 sites and found that carbon levels had fallen steadily, with some 13 million tonnes of carbon released from UK soil each year. Soil with a higher carbon content lost its carbon faster. The team from the National Soil Resources Institute ... says its results imply a similar process would be under way in other temperate areas across the globe. "Our findings suggest the soil part of the [greenhouse gas] equation is scarier than we had thought," Professor Guy Kirk told the British Association for the Advancement of Science conference in Dublin. "The consequence is that there is more urgency about doing something." Since the carbon appears to be released from soil regardless of how the soil is used, the researchers conclude that the main cause must be climate change itself. Though they could not say where all the missing carbon had gone, much of it may be entering the atmosphere as the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane, which many scientists say is causing global warming. ... [Also in ABC News, BBC & The Guardian. See my comments under next item.]

The Snowball Effect of Global Warming, Livescience, Robert Roy Britt, 6 September 2005. In a twist to the proverbial snowball effect, warmer Arctic temperatures are stimulating plant growth, which darkens the landscape and causes more sunlight to be absorbed rather than reflected. The result: Winter heating could increase by 70 percent, according to a new study. The study examined western Alaska during the winters of 2000 through 2002. Shrubs and other vegetation became more abundant, the researchers found. Because the plants are darker than the tundra that typically covers the region, the surface gets darker. The study "presents the first evidence that shrub growth could alter the winter energy balance of the Arctic and subarctic tundra in a substantial way," the scientists announced today. The study will be detailed Sept. 7 in the first issue of the Journal of Geophysical Research-Biogeosciences, published by the American Geophysical Union. ... [Both this and the above are two more independent synergistic mechanisms for a far more severe, runaway (positive feedback) global warming scenario. See previous posts of 08-Sep-05, 12-Aug-05 on the world now being in the period in Luke 21:24-28 where "Men will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world" (v.26),before Jesus' "coming in a cloud with power and great glory" (v.27). Also see post of 03-Sep-05 on the coming of a World Environment Organisation out of which I expect Antichrist (1 Jn 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2 Jn 1:7; 2 Th 2:1-4; Rev 11:1-8; 13:2-18) will emerge.]

Climate food crisis 'to deepen', BBC, Jonathan Amos, 5 September 2005. Climate change threatens to put far more people at risk of hunger over the next 50 years than previously thought, according to new research. Scientists say expected shifts in rain patterns and temperatures over that time could lead to an extra 50 million people struggling to get enough food. And the situation could be even worse if the important cereal crops do not show the improved yields many expect. .... "We expect climate change to aggravate current problems," Professor Martin Parry told the British Association's Festival of Science. "If we accept that broadly 500 million people are at risk today, we expect that to increase by about 10% by the middle part of this century."... [See previous post on the generation immediately before Jesus returns as suffering "famines" (Mat. 24:7. cf. Mark 13:8; Luke 21:11)]

Medical value of stem cells 'over-hyped', Daily Telegraph, 7 September 2005. The ability of stem cells to provide cures for serious diseases has been over-hyped, according to Britain's leading fertility expert. Prof Robert Winston ... is to warn that exaggerated claims made by some scientists about the potential benefits of stem cell therapy could lead to a public backlash. Barely a week goes by without new and dramatic claims being made for potential therapeutic uses of stem cells, the body's master cells that can form different types of cells. They are regularly touted as miracle treatments for everything from Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and diabetes to strokes, spinal cord injury and infertility. In his presidential address at the BA festival of science this evening, Prof Winston will say people are being given unrealistic expectations of new treatments resulting from embryonic stem cell research arriving in the next few years. He will say: "The study of stem cells is one of the most exciting areas in biology but I think it is unlikely that embryonic stem cells are likely to be useful in health care for a long time. ... [Also by BBC & The Independent. The Independent added "Lord Winston called on his colleagues to use more moderate language when describing scientific breakthroughs, singling out in his speech senior scientists and naming two Nobel laureates for making dangerously arrogant remarks, Lord Winston called on his colleagues to use more moderate language when describing scientific breakthroughs, singling out in his speech senior scientists and naming two Nobel laureates for making dangerously arrogant remarks ... James Watson's assertion about the value of tampering with the human germ-line are a pretty good example ... [he] also criticised the Nobel laureate David Baltimore for claiming that the human genome offered the information needed to create a human being ... [and] "Michael Dexter ... said in 2001 that sequencing of the human genome was an invention more important than the wheel." yet "Five years later, genetic medicine based on this work has had little impact on health care and it's unlikely to have much impact for some years. There are so many powerful vested interests (including financial-most leading molecular biologists own biotech companies and are millionaires) in the biotechnology field, that this would have taken a lot of courage, even for a scientist as eminent as Lord Winston. ]

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).
"Problems of Evolution"

---

"It is no more heretical to say the Universe displays purpose, as Hoyle has done, than to say that it is pointless, as Steven Weinberg has done. Both statements are metaphysical and outside [or both inside-SEJ] science. Yet it seems that scientists are permitted by their own colleagues to say metaphysical things about lack of purpose and not the reverse. This suggests to me that science, in allowing this metaphysical notion, sees itself as religion and presumably as an atheistic religion (if you can have such a thing)." (Shallis M., "In the eye of a storm", New Scientist, January 19, 1984, pp.42-43).

First Four-Legged Animals Inched Along, etc

Here are brief science news excerpts, with my comments in square brackets:

First Four-Legged Animals Inched Along, LiveScience, Bjorn Carey, 31 August 2005. ... A reconstruction of the skeleton of the first four-legged land animal suggests that it didn’t move too nimbly on land - it either shuffled along or crept like an inchworm. 360 million years ago, Ichthyostega ... crawled out of the water onto land. Although it was an amphibian, many of its skeletal features were fish-like. But it also had sturdy shoulders and hips, capable of supporting the body’s weight on land. The specialized shoulders and hips also allowed it to move its limbs out of water, making them useful for getting around on land. ... Also at CNN, New York Times and Nature. I regard the fact that tetrapods like Ichthyostega and Acanthostega developed limbs under water, that already had "sturdy shoulders and hips, capable of supporting the body’s weight on land", as conceded by Dawkins (again with no detailed Darwinian natural selection of random mutations explanation):

"But what did Concestor 17 look like: the ancestor that amphibians share with reptiles and ourselves? Certainly more like an amphibian than an amniote, and more like a salamander than a frog - but probably not much like either. The best fossils are in Greenland which, during the Devonian Period, was on the equator. These possibly transitional fossils have been much studied, among them Acanthostega, which seems to have been wholly aquatic (showing that `legs' originally evolved for movement in water, not on land." (Dawkins R., "The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 2004, pp.297-299)

and the limbs already "show .. [the] characteristic limb of walking Vertebrates ... forelimb: upper arm (humerus), forearm (radius and ulna), wrist (carous), palm (metacarpus), and digits, hind limb: thigh (femur), lower leg (tibia and fibula), ankle (tarsus), sole of the foot (metatarsus), and toes":

"The actinistian crossopterygians remained unchanged from the upper Devonian to the Jurassic. They were much too conservative and specialized, judging from the modern Latimeria, to have played a part in the genesis of tetrapods, the "conquerors" of terrestrial environments. This role was presumably played by the rhipidistian crossopterygians which, like the tetrapods, possessed internal nares (choanae). The earliest known amphibians, the ichthyostegalian stegocephalians, appeared in the upper Devonian (Old Red Limestone of eastern Greenland); they are unquestionably similar to the rhipidistians, especially to the Osteolepiformes, but they show characteristic tetrapod limbs (called autopodia) ["The characteristic limb of walking Vertebrates (tetrapods) which is composed of successive articulating segments; forelimb: upper arm (humerus), forearm (radius and ulna), wrist (carous), palm (metacarpus), and digits;. hind limb: thigh (femur), lower leg (tibia and fibula), ankle (tarsus), sole of the foot (metatarsus), and toes. ..."] The intermediate links between the crossopterygian fin and the tetrapod limb are missing. Anatomists have been trying to identify in the fin the bones which formed the autopodium. Their task is not an easy one. Each lobed pectoral fin of a crossopterygian is composed of a proximal bony element, homologous to the tetrapod humerus, followed by two bony elements to which are attached rows of ossicles. The fin articulates with a girdle consisting of five bones, different from that of other fishes. The anterior, scapular girdle is attached to the head on either side by two bones, whereas that of amphibians is free." (Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, pp.73-74)

as yet another problem for evolution and more evidence for my theory of Progressive (Mediate) Creation.]

Researchers hopeful of finding missing Peking Man, ABC September 6, 2005. Chinese researchers are hopeful of finding the remains of the world's most famous cave dweller, the 500,000-year-old Peking Man, more than 60 years after they disappeared, state media said today. Several interesting clues have come to light in recent months, according to members of a recently established committee charged with looking for the Peking Man's bones and other missing relics, the China Daily reported. ... [This could be very interesting if they do find the lost Peking Man fossils after all this time.]

Deep Impact exposes a fragile, empty comet, ABC/AFP, September 7, 2005. Comet Tempel 1, the target of NASA's Deep Impact mission, turns out to be quite fragile, with no more substance than a snowbank, scientists say. Scientists crashed an offshoot from Deep Impact into Tempel 1 in July, freeing a plume of primordial material from its nucleus, the first time astronomers have been able to glimpse the interior of a comet. "The comet is mostly empty, mostly porous," said Michael A'Hearn, a comet specialist ... Comet mission rewrites cosmic history, ABC/AFP, Richard Ingham, 7 September 2005 ... Chief scientist Professor Michael A'Hearn says this discovery buttresses a contested theory about the origins of life on Earth. Under the 'pan-spermia' [sic] idea, comets pounded the early Earth billions of years ago, bringing the planet organic molecules that reacted with light and heat from the sun, eventually providing the rich chemical soup from which all life began. The pan-spermia theory, initially opposed as outlandish by some scientists, is steadily winning converts, although it remains reviled by fundamentalist Christians as an assault on creationism. ... [This is not even panspermia, which is that living microrganisms (e.g. bacteria) arrived accidentally (undirected panspermia), or were sent deliberately by aliens (directed panspermia), to Earth. This is news to me that panspermia is particularly "reviled by fundamentalist Christians as an assault on creationism," No creationist AFAIK denies that organic (i.e. carbon-based) molecules exist in space and arrive on Earth via meteorites and comets. As even Dawkins points out, organic compounds such as "amino acids ... the building blocks of proteins" are produced on Earth from "a few simple gases in the atmosphere and ... volcanoes, sunlight, or thundery weather":

"Chemists have tried to imitate the chemical conditions of the young earth. They have put these simple substances in a flask and supplied a source of energy such as ultraviolet light or electric sparks-artificial simulation of primordial lightning. After a few weeks of this, something interesting is usually found inside the flask: a weak brown soup containing a large number of molecules more complex than the ones originally put in. In particular, amino acids have been found-the building blocks of proteins, one of the two great classes of biological molecules. Before these experiments were done, naturally-occurring amino acids would have been thought of as diagnostic of the presence of life. If they had been detected on, say Mars, life on that planet would have seemed a near certainty. Now, however, their existence need imply only the presence of a few simple gases in the atmosphere and some volcanoes, sunlight, or thundery weather." (Dawkins R., "The Selfish Gene," [1976], Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, New Edition, 1989, p.14)

And why would A'Hearn bother to mention it even if panspermia was "reviled by fundamentalist Christians as an assault on creationism"? Sounds like an attempt by him to gain support by creationist-`bashing' on `the enemy of my enemy is my friend' principle! That scientists need to resort to panspermia, is an indication of how bad things are going in origin of life research!]

Too Many People in Nature's Way: Natural Disasters Getting Worse Because Too Many People Are in Nature's Way, Experts Say, Charles J. Hanley, ABC News/AP, Sep. 5, 2005 - The dead and the desperate of New Orleans now join the farmers of Aceh and the fishermen of Trincomalee, villagers in Iran and the slum dwellers of Haiti in a world being dealt ever more punishing blows by natural disasters. ... By one critical measure, the impact on populations, statistics show the planet to be increasingly unsafe. More than 2.5 billion people were affected by floods, earthquakes, hurricanes and other natural disasters between 1994 and 2003, a 60 percent increase over the previous two 10-year periods, U.N. officials reported at a conference on disaster prevention in January. Those numbers don't include millions displaced by last December's tsunami, which killed an estimated 180,000 people as its monstrous waves swept over coastlines from Indonesia's Aceh province to Trincomalee, Sri Lanka, and beyond. By another measure property damage 2004 was the costliest year on record for global insurers, who paid out more than $40 billion on natural disasters, reports German insurance giant Munich Re. Florida's quartet of 2004 hurricanes was the big factor. But generally it's not that more "events" are happening, rather that more people are in the way, said Thomas Loster, a Munich Re expert. ... [This increasing toll of natural disasters is more evidence that, as per my previous post, we are in the period covered by Luke 21:24-28 (NIV):

"[24] … Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. [25] There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea. [26] Men will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken. [27] At that time they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. [28] When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near."

i.e. between v.24, "Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled" (which happened in 1967) and v.27, "At that time they will see the Son of Man [Jesus] coming in a cloud with power and great glory." That would be (and now is increasingly) a time of "nations will be in anguish and perplexity" (v.25), when "Men will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world" (v.26). That would be (and now is increasingly) a time of "wars," "famines and earthquakes," "many will turn away from the faith," "many false prophets will ... deceive many," the "gospel ... preached in the whole world" (see also tagline quote):

Matthew 24:1-14 (NIV) "[1] Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. [2] `Do you see all these things?' he asked. `I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.' [3] As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. `Tell us,' they said, `when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?' [4] Jesus answered: `Watch out that no one deceives you. [5] For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ,' and will deceive many. [6] You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. [7] Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. [8] All these are the beginning of birth pains. [9] `Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. [10] At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, [11] and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. [12] Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, [13] but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. [14] And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come."]

New calculations downplay asteroid risk, ABC/AFP, September 6, 2005. ... An asteroid that triggered a scare last December when astronomers calculated that it ran a potential risk of smacking into earth is less of a peril than thought. The rogue rock, 2004 MN4, measures 320 metres across, making it big enough to wipe out a large city if it ever collided with earth. Last December, there were a few nail-biting days when NASA calculated, from early optical observations, that the asteroid had a more than one in 50 chance of hitting earth on April 13, 2029. In addition, astronomers could not rule out a risk that the rock could in fact hit earth when it made another swing around the sun in 2036. But ... John Giorgina of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory says the risk of a collision appears to be lower than first thought, even though the asteroid could pass closer to earth than scientists had tipped. The asteroid was tipped to pass within 36,000 kilometres of earth in 2029. But Mr Giorgina says new calculations suggest it will fly by at a distance of about 32,000 kilometres, making it an even narrower shave.... [As previously mentioned on my now terminated list CED, the threat of "damage on a regional scale ... equivalent to a 1000-megatonne explosion" bearing in mind that astronomers "don't know what the gravitational effect of the Earth will be," and even if it does not actually hit the first time, "the object could get into a resonance with the Earth ... MN4 could come close again in 2034, 2035, 2036, 2037, 2038..." fits very well with Jesus' prediction in Luke 21:25-26 (see also above): "There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea. Men will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken". Although Jesus said of His return in Mat. 24:36 that "No one knows ... that day or hour," He did continue in Luke 21:28-32 (NIV): "`When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.' ... `Look at the fig tree and all the trees. When they sprout leaves, you can see for yourselves and know that summer is near. Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the kingdom of God is near. `I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened." One interpretation of "this generation" could be within the normal 70-year lifetime of someone born after Jerusalem was no longer "trampled on by the Gentiles" i.e. 70 years from 1967, which is 2037, when this asteroid may be buzzing Earth every few years. If I am still alive, I will be 91. What a privilege to be in that last generation that lives to see Jesus "coming in a cloud with power and great glory"!]

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).
"Problems of Evolution"

---

"[Matthew] 24:1-25:46 The Last Things ... A few points are worthy of special notice ... The prophetic material found in this sixth discourse has reference not only to events near at hand (see, for example, verse 16) but also to those stretching far into the future, as is clear from 24:14, 29-31; 25:6, 31-46. Cf. Luke 21:24. ... By the process of prophetic foreshortening, by means of which before one's eyes the widely separated mountain peaks of historic events merge and are seen as one, as has been explained in connection with 10:23 and 16:28, two momentous events are here intertwined, namely, a. the judgment upon Jerusalem (its fall in the year A.D. 70), and b. the final judgment at the close of the world's history. Our Lord predicts the city's approaching catastrophe as a type of the tribulation at the end of the dispensation. Or, putting it differently, in describing the brief period of great tribulation at the close of history, ending with the final judgment, Jesus is painting in colors borrowed from the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. ... It is not claimed, of course, that any exegete is able completely to untangle what is here intertwined, so as to indicate accurately for each individual passage just how much refers to Jerusalem's fall, and how much to the great tribulation and second coming. ... The main emphasis in both chapters is on the necessity of always being on the alert, active for the Master, faithful to him." (Hendriksen W., "The Gospel of Matthew: New Testament Commentary:," [1973], The Banner of Truth Trust, 1982, reprint, pp.846-848. Emphasis original)