An article of relevance: Essential genes of a minimal bacterium #1

Joe

My apologies for the delay in responding to your comment. Because of something you didn't say, but I thought you said, about the complexity of cyanobacteria. This coincidentally is exactly where I am up to in the first draft of my book "Problems of Evolution", in Chapter 11, "Major Transitions," "11.1 Non-living to prokaryote" (some chapters differ from my webbed Table of Contents). So, I decided to respond in a blog post. But it became so long, I had to break it into two parts. It is part two (which I have not yet finished) which is perhaps the more interesting part. My words are in bold to distinguish them from yours.

Joe G said...

JG>An article of relevance:
Essential genes of a minimal bacterium

Thanks. I had already cited it:

"Mycoplasma genitalium has the smallest genome of any organism that can be grown in pure culture. It has a minimal metabolism and little genomic redundancy. Consequently, its genome is expected to be a close approximation to the minimal set of genes needed to sustain bacterial life. Using global transposon mutagenesis, we isolated and characterized gene disruption mutants for 100 different nonessential protein-coding genes. None of the 43 RNA-coding genes were disrupted. Herein, we identify 382 of the 482 M. genitalium protein-coding genes as essential, plus five sets of disrupted genes that encode proteins with potentially redundant essential functions, such as phosphate transport. Genes encoding proteins of unknown function constitute 28% of the essential protein-coding genes set. Disruption of some genes accelerated M. genitalium growth." (Glass J.I., et al., "Essential genes of a minimal bacterium," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, Vol. 103, No. 2, January 10, 2006, pp.425-430)

in my post, "Re: Improbability of Abiogenesis Calculations (A Response to Ian Musgrave)" and included it in my "Problems of Evolution" book outline, PE 8.1.5.2 "The minimal cell Minimum number of genes".

JG>That is quite a bit of CSI & IC to account for.

Agreed. And this was for a parasitic bacterium, Mycoplasma genitalium, which depends on the gene products of its host organism (in this case us) to survive. For a free-living bacterium, the minimum number of genes is ~1500-1700:

"One way to explore the minimum complexity of independent life is to survey the microbial database for the smallest genome. .... The data indicate that the microbes possessing the smallest known genomes and capable of living independently in the environment are extremophilic archaea and eubacteria. ... These organisms also happen to represent what many scientists consider to be the oldest life on Earth. This crude estimate seems to suggest that, to exist independently, life requires a minimum genome size of about 1,500 to 1,900 gene products. (A gene product refers to proteins and functional RNAs, such as ribosomal and transfer RNA.) The late evolutionary biologist Colin Patterson acknowledges the 1,700 genes of Methanococcus are "perhaps close to the minimum necessary for independent life." [Patterson C., "Evolution," Comstock: Ithaca NY, Second edition, 1999, p.23] ... Given the relatively small sample of organisms currently available for assessing life's minimum complexity, investigators may well find the minimum requirement for independent life extends below 1,500 gene products. ... So far, as scientists have continued their sequencing efforts, all microbial genomes that fall below 1,500 belong to parasites. Organisms capable of permanent independent existence require more gene products. A minimum genome size (for independent life) of 1,500 to 1,900 gene products comports with what the geochemical and fossil evidence reveals about the complexity of Earth's first life. Some 1,500 different gene products would seem the bare minimum to sustain this level of metabolic activity. For instance, the Methanococcus jannaschii genome (the first to be sequenced for the archaea domain) possesses about 1,738 gene products. This organism contains the enzymatic machinery for energy metabolism and for the biosynthesis and processing of sugars, nucleotides, amino acids, and fatty acids. In addition, the M. jannaschii genome can encode for repair systems, DNA replication, and the cell division apparatus. The genes for protein synthesis and secretion and the genes that specify the construction and activity of the cell membrane and envelope also belong as part of this organism's genome. The discovery of parasitic microbes with reduced genome sizes indicates that life exists, though not independently, with genome sizes made up of smaller than 1,500 genes. These microbes are not good model organisms for Earth's first life forms because they cannot exist independently. But they do have some relevance to life's beginning. These parasitic microbes help determine the barest minimal requirements for life, given that building block molecules (sugars, nucleotides, amino acids, and fatty acids as well as other nutrients) are readily available. Scientists from NIH have used the M. genitalium and H. influenzae genomes to estimate the minimum gene set needed for independent life. These researchers compared the two for genes with common function and reasoned that these constitute the minimum gene products necessary for life. This approach indicated that a set of 256 genes represents the lower limit on genome size needed for life to operate. Using a similar approach, an international team produced a slightly lower minimum estimate of 246. This group developed a universal set of proteins by comparing representatives from life's three domains-eukarya, archaea, and bacteria. In addition to theoretical estimates, researchers have also attempted to make experimental measurements of the minimum number of genes necessary for life. These approaches involve the mutation of randomly selected genes to identify those that are indispensable. One experiment performed on the bacterium Bacillus subtilis estimated the minimal gene set numbers between 254 and 450. A similar study with M. genitalium determined the minimum number of genes to fall between 265 and 350. Random mutations of the H. influenzae genome indicate that 478 genes are required for life in its bare minimal form. The genome of the extreme parasite Buchnera provides another means to determine the size of the minimal gene set. This parasite exists permanently inside aphid cells and has a remarkably tiny genome size. Scientists believe its gene set consists solely of those products essential for life. In contrast, M. genitalium's genome includes genes essential for life and genes that mediate host-parasite interactions. Presumably the genes disabled by mutation eliminated those involved in its host-parasite interactions. The genome size of the Buchnera species varies, with the smallest estimated to contain 396 gene products. Theoretical and experimental studies designed to discover the bare, minimum number of gene products necessary for life all show significant agreement. Life seems to require between 250 and 350 different proteins to carry out its most basic operations. That this bare form of life cannot survive long without a source of sugars, nucleotides, amino acids, and fatty acids is worth noting." (Rana F.R. & Ross H.N., "Origins of Life: Biblical And Evolutionary Models Face Off," Navpress: Colorado Springs CO, 2004 pp.161-163).

Yet there is no naturalistic process which can create from non-living chemicals even one gene! In fact, there is no naturalistic process which can create from non-living chemicals even one nucleotide!:

"In the 1980s a scientist named Thomas Cech showed that some RNA has modest catalytic abilities. Because RNA, unlike proteins, can act as a template and so potentially can catalyze its own replication, it was proposed that RNA-not protein-started earth on the road to life. Since Cech's work was reported, enthusiasts have been visualizing a time when the world was soaked with RNA on its way to life; this model has been dubbed `the RNA world.' Unfortunately, the optimism surrounding the RNA world ignores known chemistry. In many ways the RNA-world fad of the 1990s is reminiscent of the Stanley Miller phenomenon during the 1960s: hope struggling valiantly against experimental data. Imagining a realistic scenario whereby natural processes may have made proteins on a prebiotic earth-although extremely difficult-is a walk in the park compared to imagining the formation of nucleic acids such as RNA. The big problem is that each nucleotide `building block' is itself built up from several components, and the processes that form the components are chemically incompatible. Although a chemist can make nucleotides with ease in a laboratory by synthesizing the components separately, purifying them, and then recombining the components to react with each other, undirected chemical reactions overwhelmingly produce undesired products and shapeless goop on the bottom of the test tube. Gerald Joyce and Leslie Orgel-two scientists who have worked long and hard on the origin of life problem-call RNA `the prebiotic chemist's nightmare.' They are brutally frank: `Scientists interested in the origins of life seem to divide neatly into two classes. The first, usually but not always molecular biologists, believe that RNA must have been the first replicating molecule and that chemists are exaggerating the difficulties of nucleotide synthesis.... The second group of scientists are much more pessimistic. They believe that the de novo appearance of oligonucleotides on the primitive earth would have been a near miracle. (The authors subscribe to this latter view). Time will tell which is correct. [Joyce G.F. & Orgel L.E., "Prospects for Understanding the Origin of the RNA World," in "The RNA World," Gesteland R.F. & Atkins J.F., eds. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor NY, 1993, p.19] Even if the miracle-like coincidence should occur and RNA be produced, however, Joyce and Orgel see nothing but obstacles ahead. In an article section entitled "Another Chicken-and-Egg Paradox" they write the following: `This discussion ... has, in a sense, focused on a straw man: the myth of a self-replicating RNA molecule that arose de novo from a soup of random polynucleotides. Not only is such a notion unrealistic in light of our current understanding of prebiotic chemistry, but it should strain the credulity of even an optimist's view of RNA s catalytic potential.... Without evolution it appears unlikely that a self-replicating ribozyme could arise, but without some form of self-replication there is no way to conduct an evolutionary search for the first, primitive self-replicating ribozyme.' [Joyce & Orgel, 1993, p.13] In other words, the miracle that produced chemically intact RNA would not be enough. Since the vast majority of RNAs do not have useful catalytic properties, a second miraculous coincidence would be needed to get just the right chemically intact RNA." (Behe M.J., "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution," Free Press: New York NY, 1996, pp.171-172)]

JG>As I like to remind people-If life didn't arise from unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes, there would be no reason to infer that its subsequent diversity arose solely due to those type or processes.

Agreed. If the intervention of an Intelligent Designer/Creator is the inference to the best explanation for the origin of life, then that should be accepted. And then the existence of that Intelligent Designer/Creator should be the new starting point in revaluating the evidence of the subsequent history of life. In that case it would still be possible that the Intelligent Designer/God thereafter worked solely through natural processes, but that should be decided on the evidence not on scientists' personal religious (or rather anti-religious) preferences (especially if they were wrong on the origin of life).

JG>And as they say in Maine "You cahn't (can't) get heah (here) from theah (there)", meaning even with "descent with modification" there isn't anything that can be modified in the alleged LUCA to allow it to give rise to the diversity we see today.

Disagree (if I understand you correctly). Since I accept common ancestry, I also accept that there was a Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) and therefore that that LUCA's descendents underwent "descent with modification" to give rise to the diversity we have today. However, that does not mean that that "descent with modification" was fully naturalistic (see above).

JG>Heck we can't even conduct Dr. Behe's proposed "evolving a bacterial flagella experiment".

Well, for all their hot air, no evolutionist has yet been prepared to take up Behe's challenge: "Q. [Mr Muise] Now another complaint that we've heard in the course of this trial is that intelligent design is not falsifyable. [sic] Do you agree with that claim? A. [Prof. Behe] No, I disagree. And I think I further in slides from my article in Biology and Philosophy in which I wrote on that. If you get to the next slide -- oh, I'm sorry. Thank you. You got that. In this, I address it. I'm actually going to read this long quotation, so let me begin. Quote, In fact, intelligent design is open to direct experimental rebuttal. Here is a thought experiment that makes the point clear. In Darwin's Black Box, I claimed that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex and so required deliberate intelligent design. The flip side of this claim is that the flagellum can't be produced by natural selection acting on random mutation, or any other unintelligent process. To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure, for mobility, say, grow it for 10,000 generations, and see if a flagellum, or any equally complex system, was produced. If that happened, my claims would be neatly disproven. Close quote. So let me summarize that slide. It says that if, in fact, by experiment, by growing something or seeing that in some organism such as a bacterium grown under laboratory conditions, grown for and examined before and afterwards, if it were seen that random mutation and natural selection could indeed produce the purposeful arrangement of parts of sufficient complexity to mimic things that we find in the cell, then, in fact, my claim that intelligent design was necessary to explain such things would be neatly falsified. Q. I got a couple questions about the proposal that you make. First of all, when you say you place something under selective pressure, what does that mean? A. Well, that means you grow it under conditions where, if a mutation -- a mutant bacterium came along which could more easily grow under those conditions, then it would likely propagate faster than other cells that did not have that mutation. So, for example, if you grew a flask of bacteria and let them sit in a beaker that was motionless, and the bacteria did not have a flagellum to help it swim around and find food, they could only eat then the materials that were in their immediate vicinity. But if some bacterium, some mutant bacterium were produced that could move somewhat, then it could gather more food, reproduce more, and be favored by selection. Q. Is that a standard technique that's used in laboratories across the country? A. Yes, such experiments are done frequently. Q. And I just want to ask you a question about this grow it for 10,000 generations. Does that mean we have to wait 10,000 years of some sort to prove this or disprove this? A. No, not in the case of bacteria. It turns out that the generation time for bacteria is very short. A bacterium can reproduce in 20 minutes. So 10,000 generations is actually, I think, just a couple years. So it's quite doable. Q. Have scientists, in fact, grown bacteria out to 10,000 generations? A. Yes, there are experiments going on where bacteria have been grown for 40,000 generations. So again, this is something that can be done. Q. So this is a readily doable experiment? A. That's correct." (Behe M.J., "Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al.," Transcript, October 17, 2005, Morning session)

JG>Also I have an issue with pathogens being any UCA, for obvious reasons.

It would not have been a pathogen back then, since there was nothing else for it to be a pathogen of (except perhaps other bacteria which have since become extinct).

[To be continued in part #2]

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

Scientists Find Chickens Retain Ancient Ability to Grow Teeth, etc

Scientists Find Chickens Retain Ancient Ability to Grow Teeth, ABC News, Ammu Kannampilly ... Feb. 27, 2006 .... Scientists from the universities of Wisconsin-Madison and Manchester, U.K., have reason to rejoice after a successful experiment, which caused hens to grow conical, saber-shaped teeth. This curious experiment was carried out by researchers studying the ancestry of birds and their evolution from flying, nonavian reptiles to the feathered creatures we now know. "I was looking for feathers on the head of a mutant chicken embryo, and I noticed these formations along the edge of the beak that looked like alligator teeth," said lead researcher Matthew Harris, who specializes in the study of evolution and development. The mutant chicken embryos that Harris studied possess a recessive and lethal trait called talpid2. As embryos, they can survive in eggs for as long as 18 days, but they never make it to the hatching stage (chickens normally hatch after 21 days). During their incubation, these mutant embryos begin to grow nascent teeth, like those found in ancient bird fossils. When Harris and his colleagues "turned on" the talpid2 gene in the oral cavity of a normal chicken embryo, they found that the mutation caused the tissues in the embryo's jaw to initiate the formation of teeth, very much like those belonging to the bird's ancestors. What makes this experiment unique is the fact that, unlike earlier experiments, it involved no grafting or tissue transplants from a mutant chicken. John Fallon of the University of Wisconsin, who oversaw the project, said "These results provide clear evidence that these chickens possess the memory of the past; they have retained the ability to make teeth, under certain conditions. [See also EurekAlert! There is nothing really new in this. Gould in 1983 (~23 years ago), in an aptly named article, "Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes" (originally in Natural History and later reprinted in a book of essays of the same name) commented on a 1980 paper (Kollar E.J. & Fisher C., "Tooth induction in chick epithelium: expression of quiescent genes for enamel synthesis," Science, Vol. 207, February 29, 1980, pp.993-5) which reported on an experiment in which chicken and mouse embryonic tissues were combined and then transplanted into the eye tissue of a living mouse embryo, which then grew teeth:

"My latent interest in atavism was recently kindled by a report of something that has no right to exist if one of our most venerable similes expresses literal truthhen's teeth. On February 29, 1980 ... E.J Kollar and C. Fisher reported an ingenious technique for coaxing chickens to reveal some surprising genetic flexibility retained from a distant past. They took epithelial (outer) tissue from the first and second gill arches of a fiveday-old chick embryo and combined it with mesenchyme (inner embryonic tissue) of sixteen-to eighteen-day-old mouse embryos taken from the region where first molar teeth form. ... Kollar and Fisher took the combined embryonic tissue of mouse and chicken and grew it in ... the anterior chambers of the eyes of adult nude mice ... In ordinary teeth, made by a single animal, the outer enamel layer forms from epithelial tissue and the underlying dentin and bone from mesenchyme. But mesenchyme cannot form dentin (although it can produce bone) unless it can interact directly with epithelium destined to form enamel. (In embryological jargon, epithelium is a necessary inducer, although only mesenchyme can form dentin.) When Kollar and Fisher grafted mouse mesenchyme alone into the eyes of their experimental animals, no dentin developed, but only spongy bone-the normal product of mesenchyme when deprived of contact with enamel epithelium as an inducer. But among fifty-five combined grafts of mouse mesenchyme and chick epithelium, ten produced dentin. Thus, chick epithelium is still capable of inducing mesenchyme (from another species in another vertebrate class yet!) to form dentin. Archaeopteryx, the first bird, still possessed teeth, as did several fossils from the early history of birds. But no fossil bird has produced teeth during the past sixty million years, while the toothlessness of all modern birds ranks with wings and feathers as defining characters of the class. Nonetheless, although the system has not been used on its home ground for perhaps a hundred million generations, chick epithelium can still induce the formation of dentin when combined with appropriate mesenchyme (chick mesenchyme itself has probably lost the ability to form dentin, hence the toothlessness of hens and the necessity for using mice). Kollar and Fisher then found something even more interesting. In four of their grafts, complete teeth had developed! Chick epithelium had not only induced mouse mesenchyme to form dentin; it had also been able to generate enamel matrix proteins. (Dentin must be induced by epithelium, but this epithelium cannot differentiate into enamel unless it, in turn, can interact with the very dentin it has induced. Since chick mesenchyme cannot form dentin, chick epithelium never gets the chance to show its persistent stuff in nature.) ... Kollar and Fisher write of their best tooth: `The entire tooth structure was well formed, with root development in proper relation to the crown, but the latter did not have the typical first-molar morphology, since it lacked the cusp pattern usually present in intraocular grafts of first-molar rudiments.' In other words, the tooth looks normal, but it does not have the form of a mouse's molar. The odd form may, of course, simply result from the peculiar interaction of two systems not meant to be joined in nature. But is it possible that we are seeing, in part, the actual form of a latent bird's tooth-the potential structure that chick epithelium has encoded for sixty million years but has not expressed in the absence of dentin to induce it?" (Gould S.J., "Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes," in "Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History," [1983], Penguin: London, 1986, reprint, pp.183-184)

What I am describing is evolution." Fallon's specialty is developmental biology, particularly vertebrate limb development and pattern formation. The scientists discounted the possibility of this experiment having any direct medical application (to stimulate tooth regrowth in humans, for example). But they insisted on its importance to the human understanding of evolution, with Harris arguing that "the results of this experiment hit home, highlighting the potential in our genes to re-form what once existed. "There are so many examples of such atavistic traits -- snakes with vestigial limbs, horses with three toes, even human beings who have hair growing all over their body and face," he said. "As far as I am concerned, this experiment vindicates the theory of evolution as it exposes the evolutionary history of birds. [Since the only possibility allowed is "evolution" then by definition what Fallon is "describing is evolution." But that is to confuse common ancestry with evolution when quite clearly they are not necessarily the same thing.

And as Gould pointed out in his article, this was a problem for Darwinian evolution, which holds that "major transitions are a summation of the small changes that adapt populations ever more finely to their local environments" when "major transitions" may be the result of "Small changes in the timing of ... controllers" and "master switches" which "translate into major and discontinuous alterations of external form":

"I would suggest an opposite view-that atavisms teach an important lesson about potential results of small genetic changes, and that they suggest an unconventional approach to the problem of major transitions in evolution. In the traditional view, major transitions are a summation of the small changes that adapt populations ever more finely to their local environments. Several evolutionists, myself included, have become dissatisfied with this vision of smooth extrapolation. Must one group always evolve from another through all insensibly graded series of intermediate forms? Must evolution proceed gene by gene, each tiny change producing a correspondingly small alteration of external appearance? The fossil record rarely records smooth transitions, and it is often difficult even to imagine a function for all hypothetical intermediates between ancestors and their highly modified descendants. One promising solution to this dilemma recognizes that certain kinds of small genetic changes may have major, discontinuous effects upon morphology. We can make no one-to-one translation between extent of genetic change and degree of alteration in external form. Genes are not attached to independent bits of the body, each responsible for building one small item. Genetic systems are arranged hierarchically; controllers and master switches often activate large blocks of genes. Small changes in the timing of action for these controllers often translate into major and discontinuous alterations of external form." (Gould, Ibid, pp.180-181)

But then the problem for naturalistic `blind watchmaker' evolution is, what (or who) built these "Genetic systems ... arranged hierarchically" with "controllers and master switches" that can "activate large blocks of genes" such that "Small changes in the timing of action for these controllers often translate into major and discontinuous alterations of external form"?

Supporters of intelligent design will have to scramble to explain this one!" ... [First, Fallon pays " intelligent design" the compliment of conceding that it is a scientific rival that can be falsified by empirical facts! And I agree that those "supporters of intelligent design" who obligingly play their part in the script written for them by Darwin, in equating both creation (and intelligent design) with the straw man that Darwin erected abd attacked in his Origin of Species, namely "the dogma of separate creations." (Darwin C.R., "The Descent of Man," John Murray: London, Second Edition, 1874, p.92), will have difficulty in plausibly explaining this. But in fact Fallon shows his ignorance in confusing "intelligent design" with separate creations. One of ID's leaders, Bill Dembski, has stated that, "intelligent design is compatible with ... the most far-ranging evolution (e.g., God seamlessly melding all organisms together into one great tree of life)" (Dembski W.A., "Intelligent Design," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1999, pp.109-110). And another ID leader Mike Behe, accepts "the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor)" (Behe M.J., "Darwin's Black Box," Free Press: New York NY, 1996, pp.5-6), as I do. And what Harris demonstrated (albeit crudely) was not analogous to unintelligent `blind watchmaker' "evolution" but how intervention in normal natural processes by an intelligent agent can produce major changes in a single generation, which is analogous to intelligent design!]

Geologist Alvarez Wins Top Research Prize, ABC News/AP, Scott Sonner ... RENO, Nev. Mar 5, 2006 (AP) - A geologist who proposed the theory that a comet or asteroid smashed into the Earth and killed off the dinosaurs is the winner of a top research award. Walter Alvarez, a geologist at the University of California-Berkeley, is the 19th recipient of the nonprofit Desert Research Institute's silver medallion and its $20,000 prize. ... Alvarez's nearly two decade-long investigation produced an uncommon scientific drama of personal tenacity and ingenuity, said Stephen G. Wells, president of the institute. "Until the impact theory was finally proven, Dr. Alvarez and his colleagues were regarded as heretics by the `old guard' in the field of geology," Wells said. The theory dates to the 1970s in Italy, where Alvarez and his colleagues found high levels of the element iridium, which is extremely rare on Earth, but common in comets and asteroids. They theorized it must have come from a giant asteroid that sent smoke, dust and iridium into the sky, blocking the sun, lowering the earth's temperature and eventually killing off plants and many species. Alvarez's theory, first published in the journal Science in 1980, had few supporters until scientists found evidence of a huge impact crater on Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula in 1989. Later studies found evidence of debris from Mexico distributed by tsunamis that went as far as what is now Arkansas. ... [This is an example of how almost an entire scientific field can be wrong on a major issue, even when the "heretics" (Walter Alvarez and his father Nobel laureate Luis Alvarez) are scientific materialists. It is therefore not hard for me to imagine how an entire field, evolution, can be wrong on a major issue, namely in adopting "the standard scientific theory that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process.'" (Shermer M.B., "The Gradual Illumination of the Mind," Scientific American, February 2002. My emphasis). The point is that "human beings" may well "have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life" (in fact I accept that they have) but if God did have a part in this process (e.g. supernaturally intervened at strategic points to add new information), a science dominated (90-95%) by atheists/agnostics would never be able to even consider it, let alone accept it!]

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

Geneticists trace original organism, etc

Geneticists trace original organism, The Guardian, Ian Sample, March 3, 2006 ... Geneticists have drawn up the most accurate tree of life [click to enlarge] yet and pinpointed what they believe to be the organism from which all other life on Earth evolved. Scientists construct tree of life "maps" to show how different organisms evolved over millennia, and split into the myriad species that have emerged on Earth. But previous versions have been beset with uncertainties, not least because microbes near the bottom of the tree swap DNA, making them hard to classify. The new tree uses genetics to work out for certain where on the tree different organisms should be. In creating it, the researchers were able to cast back to see what lay at the bottom of the evolutionary tree, an organism dubbed the "last universal common ancestor" from which all other life sprung. The researchers found that our oldest ancestor was very similar to disease-causing bugs of today. It lived in a much hotter environment, had a single membrane to keep it intact, and falls into the same group of well-known pathogens, Bacillus, Listeria, Staphylococcus, Enterococcus, Clostridium and Streptococcus. The tree will help researchers classify unnamed organisms and reveal how they evolved. "It's the first time all three domains of life have been brought together," said Francesca Ciccarelli of the European Molecular Biology Laboratory. "You can compare the speed of evolution of different organisms and you can easily see that the pathogens evolve very fast, which makes sense because they have to adapt to the host's defences." Dr Ciccarelli and her team created the tree by first identifying 36 genes that are common to species in each of the three categories of life: bacteria, single celled organisms called archaea and the eukaryotes, which includes multi-celled organisms such as animals, plants and fungi. By combining the set of common genes with information from the genomes of 191 fully sequenced species, the researchers were able to work out precisely how one species was related to another, they report in the journal Science today. ... [See also Science Daily. Note that this "organism" represented by this molecular `tree' was the "last universal common ancestor" (my emphasis), not the first universal common ancestor. That is, it represents the common ancestor of all living organisms, not necessarily of all organisms. It is noteworthy that one line of bacteria went on to become the ancestor of all living things today, while its `cousins' are still here going nowhere. It is also worth considering that without the progressive addition of new features to that one line, neither we, nor any other plant or animal, would be here. Finally, starting with a pool of bacteria way back then, would naturaliastic`blind watchmaker' evolution have predicted that one line would go on to be all the multicellular organisms and all the rest would remain the same?]

Expert doubts 'Gospel of Judas' revelation, USA Today/AP, March 2, 2006, Richard N. Ostling ... NEW YORK - An expert on ancient Egyptian texts is predicting that the Gospel of Judas- a manuscript from early Christian times that's nearing release amid widespread interest from scholars - will be a dud in terms of learning anything new about Judas. ... James M. Robinson, America's leading expert on such ancient religious texts from Egypt, predicts in a new book that the text won't offer any insights into the disciple who betrayed Jesus. His reason: While it's old, it's not old enough. "Does it go back to Judas? No," ... The text, in Egypt's Coptic language, dates from the third or fourth century and is a copy of an earlier document. The National Geographic Society, along with other groups, has been studying the Judas text. The society said Thursday it will release its report on the document "within the next few weeks" ... Robinson ... assumes it is the same work assailed by Bishop Irenaeus of Lyons around A.D. 180. Irenaeus said the writings came from a "Cainite" Gnostic sect that jousted against orthodox Christianity. ... Robinson ... says the text is valuable to scholars of the second century but dismissed the notion that it'll reveal unknown biblical secrets. He speculated the timing of the release is aimed at capitalizing on interest in the film version of The Da Vinci Code ... "There are a lot of second-, third- and fourth-century gospels attributed to various apostles," Robinson said. "We don't really assume they give us any first century information." .... In The Secrets of Judas, a HarperSanFrancisco book on sale April 1, Robinson will describe secretive maneuvers in the United States, Switzerland, Greece and elsewhere over two decades to sell the "Judas" manuscript. ... [Robinson's comments apply to all the gnostic `gospels': "they [don't] give us any first century information." It is the original first century New Testament Gospels which do that. But then as St. Paul predicted, in 2 Timothy 4:3, "... the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear."]

Forecast shows Africa to face river crisis, The Guardian, Ian Sample, March 3, 2006 ... Africa's rivers face dramatic disruption that will leave a quarter of the continent severely short of water by the end of the century, according to a global warming study published today. In the first detailed assessment of climate change on the continent's waterways researchers found that watercourses on the continent are highly sensitive to shifts in rainfall patterns. Even modest decreases in rain in western Africa will see rivers lose as much as 80% of their water, triggering a surge of what the scientists call "water refugees". Maarten de Wit, a climate expert at the University of Cape Town who led the study, said the redrawing of Africa's waterways will pose serious political problems as people displaced by droughts are forced into other countries to be near water. "In those areas where people have little water as it is, it's going to have a devastating effect," he said. "If you're already walking 5km to the nearest stream to get water it's going to mean walking 30km or moving your whole household. The study, which appears in the journal Science today, is the first to identify how Africa's rivers will respond to climate change over the century. The extent to which slight changes in rainfall could impact on rivers had never been realised. The researchers used a computer to divide the continent into 1,000km wide squares (about 620 miles) and worked out the total length of streams and rivers in each block. They used climate change models to calculate the expected changes in rainfall across the continent and the effect they would have on river levels. The scientists found that in 75% of the countries, those that received between 400mm and 1,000mm of rain a year, shifts in rainfall caused larger than expected rises or falls in river levels. In Harare a 10% drop in rainfall is expected to lead to an 81% drop in fresh water from rivers, a situation the scientists believe will be mirrored in Madagascar, eastern Zambia and Angola. South Africa, which is experiencing a prolonged drought, can expect far less water from the Orange river. A 10% fall in rain over Johannesburg and Bloemfontein will lead to a 70% drop in river levels. The study predicts rain will increase over east Africa. Climate change is expected to bring 10% more rain to Tanzania before the end of the century, boosting water course levels by 136%, while Somalia faces a 20% rise in rainfall, leading to more than a 1,000% increase in the water it receives from waterways. However, increased rainfall could lead to more standing water, more mosquitoes, and widespread malaria. ...
Africa could face more droughts, BBC, 3 March 2006 ... Roland Pease ... Africa could be faced with 25% less water by the end of the century because of global warming, scientists have warned in a new report. The research, published in the journal Science, shows geographical factors will amplify changes in rainfall patterns resulting from climate change. Semi-arid areas such as southern Africa would be the most vulnerable. The authors add that water shortages could provoke conflicts over rivers that cross borders. ... Either way, the study ... shows adjusting to the effects of climate change could be even harder in Africa than previously realised. ... [There already is a prediction that there "will be as many as 50 million environmental refugees in the world in five years' time." As these millions flee to neighbouring countries, they will overwhelm their already inadequate economies. I interpret this as the start of the Great Tribulation [Gk. thlipsis "pressure"] predicted by Jesus in Mat 24:21 (KJV), "For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be," immediately after which Jesus will return: "Immediately after the tribulation of those days ... then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." (Mat 24:29-30 KJV). ]

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

'The Da Vinci Code' pure fiction, scholars say, etc

'The Da Vinci Code' pure fiction, scholars say: Experts find no historical basis for Jesus' marriage to Mary Magdalene, Daily Review/AP, March 4, 2006 Richard N. Ostling, ... Redeemed sinner, prostitute, wife of Jesus... Mary Magdalene's image has gone through myriad incarnations over the centuries, and this Lenten season she's drawing new attention thanks to the upcoming movie version of "The Da Vinci Code," a slew of books and Internet arguments. But those looking for a salacious side to the biblical figure will be disappointed: Serious religious scholars agree that characterizations that stray from faithful disciple and witness to the resurrection are bogus. Despite stage and screen portrayals, they say, the sinful Mary is a matter of mistaken identity. ... The "Da Vinci" yarn says Christians conspired to conceal the Jesus-Mary marriage and the royal French bloodline their offspring established. But there's no evidence that Jesus married Mary or anyone else, and we know that other first-century Jewish holy men remained celibate. Mary supposedly traveled to France, but the claim is suspect; the first mention of her relics located there dates from the year 745. The best source of material on Mary is a first-century account, the New Testament itself. ...
Da Vinci Code idea 'in public domain', Daily Telegraph, Richard Alleyne, 1 March 2006 ... Two British-based writers who claim that Dan Brown, the Da Vinci Code author, stole their ideas for his novel have repeatedly made "spurious and bogus" allegations, the High Court was told yesterday. Michael Baigent, 57, and Richard Leigh, 62, allege that the central premise of the book, which has sold 40 million copies, was cannibalised from their work Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, published more than 20 years earlier. They say that their "central theme", namely that Jesus had a child whose descendants live on in France, was plagiarised for the Da Vinci Code and are suing Random House, its British publisher. But yesterday John Baldwin, QC, for the publisher, said that much of their allegations, which he said had changed over the course of the court case, were "spurious and bogus". ... Mr Baldwin added that the law of copyright did not protect general ideas and that any similar themes in both books were in the public domain and known to Brown before he read Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. "We say the claim relies on and seeks to monopolise ideas at such a high level of generality they are not protected by copyright. ... [Personally, I regard this as two money-grubbing charlatans suing another money-grubbing charlatan, to get even more ill-gotten loot. However, having said that, I have no doubt that Brown plagiarised Holy Blood, Holy Grail and he will make Leigh and Baigent even more rich than he already has. It is BTW interesting that Brown's lawyers are not claiming The Da Vinci Code is historical fact and that cannot be copyrighted!]

Early Humans Walked Peculiarly?, Discovery News, Jennifer Viegas, Feb. 27, 2006 - At least two species of early humans were knock-kneed and walked rather uniquely, according to a new study on seven anklebones that belonged to various early human ancestors from eastern and southern Africa. The study, which will be published in the April issue of the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, suggests that although the early humans walked on two feet, they did not always do so with our relatively smooth stride. .... While the researchers think such early human relatives "had some gait peculiarities," they believe the ability to walk on two feet (bipedality) evolved only once because it requires so many anatomical changes in the pelvis, knees, lower legs and feet. "We find it difficult to believe that all of these changes could occur more than once," Gebo said. The scientists think bipedality must have occurred very quickly in human evolution, particularly since there was no three-limbed transitional phase. During the period of evolution, our ancestors lost their grasping big toe muscles. This "toe" in African apes, such as chimpanzees, helps in climbing trees. Gebo said we also developed platform-like, weight-bearing bodies, short toes, stocky foot bones and joints that can lock up so we do not need muscle power to remain erect. Bruce Latimer, executive director of The Cleveland Museum of Natural History, ... agrees bipedality evolved no more than once within the human lineage ... [I have added this admission that "the ability to walk on two feet (bipedality) evolved only once because it requires so many anatomical changes in the pelvis, knees, lower legs and feet." that "We find it difficult to believe that all of these changes could occur more than once" and "there was no three-limbed transitional phase" (which means that Darwinian natural selection of micromutations didn't do it), to my "Problems of Evolution" book outline, PE 14.1.2. "Man ... Uniqueness ... Bipedalism." I have also added the comment, "The problem for evolution is that if if it is so highly unlikely that a sequences of indendent major changes towards a single end (bipedalism) could naturalistically evolve "more than once," then maybe it didn't naturalistically evolve even "once"!]

Henry M. Morris, 87, a Theorist of Creationism, Dies, The New York Times, Jodi Rudoren, March 4, 2006 ... Henry M. Morris, the father of modern creationism, whose prolific writings sought scientific validation for a literal interpretation of the Bible and provided the intellectual underpinnings for attacks on evolution as an account of world history, died last Saturday in a hospital near San Diego. He was 87. ... Dr. Morris was a hydraulic engineer and taught at several universities before developing his critique of evolution and a history of Earth that spans 4.5 billion years in the 1961 work "The Genesis Flood." The book, written with the theologian John C. Whitcomb, was the first to take a scholarly approach to proving the Old Testament creation story, and it argued that Noah's flood, rather than eons of erosion, sculptured the earth. Considered the handbook of creationism, "The Genesis Flood" is in its 44th printing, having sold 250,000 copies in English. "It was a groundbreaking work in that he basically, in this culture, in this day and age, showed that there were scientific answers to be able to defend the Christian faith and uphold the Bible's account," said Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis .... "The grass-roots movement you see across America right now, with the school board battles, with the students questioning evolution in colleges, all of that is really in a big part due to the work of Dr. Henry Morris," Mr. Ham said. "All of us in the modern creationism movement today would say we stand on his shoulders." Dr. Morris wrote more than 60 other books interweaving science and theology .... His Institute for Creation Research, a hybrid of a ministry and a research organization that grants master's degrees, led to scores more books from like-minded scholars shunned by mainstream academia. .... Eugenie C. Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education, the leading defender of teaching evolution in public schools, said Dr. Morris's books "have no scientific merit." She said he was "the most important creationist of the 20th century, much more so than William Jennings Bryan." She recalled his "cordial, gentlemanly" manner when he invited her to lunch at his Santee research center a few years ago. "It was obvious that we are going to disagree on science; it's obvious that we disagree on evolution," Dr. Scott said. "I feel that he was absolutely sincere about his convictions that the Bible was literally true and that science would support it and creation science was good science." ... [A respectful obituary in the NYT and comments by Eugenie Scott. However, Scott's claim that "Morris's books "have no scientific merit" (my emphasis) is false. As I said in a previous post, while I did not accept Morris' YEC answer, he did raise genuine scientific problems with evolution. The most notable, for which he perhaps was most famous, is his argument from the Second Law of Thermodynamics (which in my experience evolutionists always misconstrue and/or introduce diversions, because they have no answer to it):

"There do exist a few types of systems in the world where one sees an apparent increase In order, superficially offsetting the decay tendency specified by the Second Law. Examples are the growth of a seed into a tree, the growth of a fetus into an adult animal, and the growth of a pile of bricks and girders into a building. Now, if one examines closely all such systems to see what it is that enables them to supersede the Second Law locally and temporarily (in each case, of course, the phenomenon is only ephemeral, since the organism eventually dies and the building eventually collapses), he will find in every case, at least two essential criteria that must be satisfied: (a) There must be a program to direct the growth. A growth process which proceeds by random accumulations will not lead to an ordered structure but merely a heterogeneous blob. Some kind of pattern, blueprint or code must be there to begin with, or no ordered growth can take place. In the case of the organism this is the intricately complex genetic program, structured as an information system into the DNA molecule for the particular organism. In the case of the building, it is the set of plans prepared by the architects and engineers. (b) There must be a power converter to energize the growth. The available environmental energy is of no avail unless it can be converted into the specific forms needed to organize and bond the components into the complex and ordered structure of the completed system. Unless such a mechanism is available, the environmental energy more likely will break down any structure already present. "We have seen that organization requires work for its maintenance and that the universal quest for food is in part to provide the energy needed for the work. But the simple expenditure of energy is not sufficient to develop and maintain order. A bull in a china shop performs work, but he neither creates nor maintains organization. The work needed is particular work; it must follow specifications; it requires information on how to proceed." [Simpson G.G. & Beck W.S., " Life: An Introduction to Biology," Harcourt, Brace & World: New York, Second edition, 1965, p.466] In the case of a seed, one of the required energy conversion mechanisms is the marvelous process called photosynthesis, which by some incompletely understood complex of reactions converts sunlight into the building of the plant's structure. In the animal numerous complex mechanisms-digestion, blood circulation, respiration, etc.-combine to transform food into body structure. In the case of the building, fossil fuels and human labor operate numerous complex electrical and mechanical devices to erect the structure. And so on. Now the question again is, not whether there is enough energy reaching the earth from the sun to support evolution, but rather how this energy is converted into evolution? The evolutionary process, if it exists, is by far the greatest growth process of all. If a directing code and specific conversion mechanism are essential for all lesser growth processes, then surely an infinitely more complex code and more specific energy converter are required for the evolutionary process. But what are they? The answer is that no such code and mechanism have ever been identified. Where in all the universe does one find a plan which sets forth how to organize random particles into particular people? And where does one see a marvelous motor which converts the continual flow of solar radiant energy bathing the earth into the work of building chemical elements into replicating cellular systems, or of organizing populations of worms into populations of men, over vast spans of geologic time?" (Morris H.M., "Scientific Creationism," [1974], Master Books: El Cajon CA, Second Edition, 1985, pp.43-45. Emphasis original)

I have added this quote to my "Problems of Evolution" book outline, PE 7.4.3. "Origin of Life ... Second law of thermodynamics." Note also Ratzch's comments there.]

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

Antarctic ice sheet melting fast: scientists, etc

Antarctic ice sheet melting fast: scientists, ABC/AFP, March 3, 2006. .. Scientists say Antarctica's mammoth ice sheet is in "significant decline", probably due to climate change. United States researchers at the University of Colorado at Boulder say online in the journal Science that the Antarctic ice sheet is losing up to 152 cubic kilometres of ice a year. Dr Isabella Velicogna from the University's Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences says it is the first study to indicate the total mass balance of the Antarctic ice sheet is in significant decline. The team calculated the ice sheet lost 152 cubic kilometres a year from April 2002 to August 2005, give or take 80 cubic kilometres. That is equivalent to global seas rising 0.4 millimetres a year, with a margin of error of 0.2 millimetres, the researchers say. ...
North Pole Meets South Pole: Both Ends of Earth Are Melting: Melting Ice Caps Could Spell Disaster for Coastal Cities, ABC News, Bill Blakemore, March 2, 2006 - For the first time, scientists have confirmed Earth is melting at both ends, which could have disastrous effects for coastal cities and villages. Antarctica has been called "a slumbering giant" by a climate scientist who predicts that if all the ice melted, sea levels would rise by 200 feet. Other scientists believe that such a thing won't happen, but new studies show that the slumbering giant has started to stir. ... Recent studies have confirmed that the North Pole and the South Pole have started melting. Experts have long predicted that global warming would start to melt Greenland's two-mile-thick ice sheet, but they also thought the more massive ice sheet covering Antarctica would increase in the 21st century. It seems they were wrong. ... [The first article says the ice sheet is an average of 1,981 metres thick, so even at 1 mm a year at current global average temperature it would take nearly 2,000 years to entirely melt. However, if it did entirely melt, the article says "the West Antarctic ice sheet alone would raise global sea levels by more than six metres." But that is just one ice-sheet and if the global average temperature accelerated (as there is evidence it will due to there being increasingly less ice to reflect solar heat) then there might be noticeable sea level increases in low-lying areas (where most of the world's major cities are) in the next few decades. My reason for posting these depressing global warming articles is because, as I have previously posted (e.g. 4 Dec 05, 29 Nov 05, 17 Sep 05), etc, I interpret us as living in the period covered by Luke 21:24b-32, between v.24, "Jerusalem" no longer "trampled on by the Gentiles" (which occurred in 1967) and v.27, Jesus "coming in a cloud with power and great glory." Jesus predicted that in intervening period "nations will be in anguish and perplexity" and "Men will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world," which reads like our daily newspapers!]

Study Shows Babies Try to Help: Study Suggests That the Capacity for Altruism Emerges As Early As 18 Months of Age, ABC News/AP, Lauran Neergaard ... WASHINGTON Mar 2, 2006 (AP) - Oops, the scientist dropped his clothespin. Not to worry a wobbly toddler raced to help, eagerly handing it back. The simple experiment shows the capacity for altruism emerges as early as 18 months of age. Toddlers' endearing desire to help out actually signals fairly sophisticated brain development, and is a trait of interest to anthropologists trying to tease out the evolutionary roots of altruism and cooperation. Psychology researcher Felix Warneken performed a series of ordinary tasks in front of toddlers, such as hanging towels with clothespins or stacking books. Sometimes he "struggled" with the tasks; sometimes he deliberately messed up. Over and over, whether Warneken dropped clothespins or knocked over his books, each of 24 toddlers offered help within seconds but only if he appeared to need it. Video shows how one overall-clad baby glanced between Warneken's face and the dropped clothespin before quickly crawling over, grabbing the object, pushing up to his feet and eagerly handing back the pin. ... [More evidence that humans are `hardwired' for altruism. I have added this to my "Problems of Evolution" book outline, PE 14.1.10 "Man ... Uniqueness ... Altruism"]

Cavemen Preferred Blondes: Research May Explain Why Light Hair Color Is So Common in Northern, Eastern Europe, ABC News, Jonathan Silverstein, March 2, 2006 - Back in the ice age, Northern European cavemen got all the chicks. Thanks to a food shortage and a man shortage about 10,000 years ago, men were in such demand they had their pick of mates. With so much competition among women to find a mate, nature and evolution kicked in to give some cave women a distinctive look to attract the opposite sex: blond hair and blue eyes. So says a new study published in the British science journal Evolution and Human Behavior. ... The study's author, Canadian anthropologist Peter Frost, concludes that although blond hair and blue eyes started as a genetic mutation, men were pulled in by the golden locks and baby blues, thus populating the area with blond and blue-eyed children. While the rest of the world has predominantly brown hair and brown eyes, Northern Europeans have the greatest variety of hair and eye color found anywhere, and Frost believes it resulted from the sexual appeal of these traits. "When an individual is faced with potential mates of equal value, it will tend to select the one that 'stands out from the crowd,' the study said. Still, the study admits it's unclear why the mutation happened in Europe and not elsewhere ... [This is a good (bad?) example of a Darwinist `just-so' story. The fact that "the mutation happened in Europe and not elsewhere" indicates that it is more to do with less sunlight in Northern Europe. Indeed, what has the alleged "food shortage and a man shortage about 10,000 years ago" when "men were in such demand they had their pick of mates" got to do with it? If blond hair and blue eyes had even a slight sexual selective advantage (which they may well have), that alone should be sufficient to fix that mutant gene in a population. ]

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

---

"In the second place, it was inevitable that a theory appearing to have very grave relations with questions of the most importance and interest to man, that is, with questions of religious belief, should call up an army of assailants and defenders. Nor have the supporters Of the theory much reason, in many cases, to blame the more or less unskilful and hasty attacks of adversaries, seeing that those attacks have been in great part due to the unskilful and perverse advocacy of the cause on the part of some of its adherents. If the odium theologicum has inspired some of its opponents, it is undeniable that the odium- antitheologicum, has possessed not a few of its supporters. It is true (and in appreciating some of Mr. Darwin's expressions it should never be forgotten) that the theory has been both at its first promulgation and since vehemently attacked and denounced as unchristian, nay, as necessarily atheistic; but it is not less true that it has been made use of as a weapon of offence by irreligious writers, and has been again and again, especially in continental Europe, thrown, as it were, in the face of believers, with sneers and contumely. " (Mivart S.J., "On the Genesis of Species," Macmillan & Co: London & New York , Second edition, 1871, pp.13-14)

New items that may reignite the Paul Mirecki controversy

Three new items that may reignite the Paul Mirecki controversy. My comments are bold and in square brackets.

Resolution touts academic freedom: Mirecki furor speeds legislative proposal, The Lawrence Journal-World, Scott Rothschild, March 1, 2006 Topeka - A Kansas University professor’s disparaging remarks about Catholics and fundamentalist Christians have helped prop up a measure in the Legislature that supporters say will guarantee academic freedom. But critics of the resolution say it is a wolf in sheep’s clothing and will stifle the freedom it ostensibly protects. They say government should butt out. "It’s important that these issues be considered on the campus, not in the government, and not have government dictating what fair and balanced is," said Mark Smith, director of governmental relations for the American Association of University Professors. The dispute is over what backers call the Academic Bill of Rights. Opponents point out that the resolution sprang from people and groups often critical of public education, and in particular those who have criticized KU for a recent incident involving religious studies professor Paul Mirecki. Rep. Brenda Landwehr, R-Wichita, a supporter of House Concurrent Resolution 5035, said Mirecki’s comments were part of the impetus pushing the measure forward. "The Paul Mirecki deal showed in detail what many of us have said for many years: Students are afraid to speak out because professors say, ‘It’s my way or the highway,’" Landwehr said. In November, Mirecki said he planned to teach a course on creationism and intelligent design at KU. But in a message posted on an online discussion board, he said the class would be a "nice slap" in the "big fat face" of fundamentalists. In the ensuing furor over his remarks, the course was canceled and Mirecki stepped down as chairman of the department of religious studies. ... The measure before Kansas lawmakers states faculty members should not use their courses or positions "for the purpose of political, ideological, religious or anti-religious indoctrination." It also says faculty should expose students to viewpoints other than their own and that curricula, reading lists and the selection of speakers should promote intellectual pluralism. If adopted, the resolution would strongly recommend that every college and university in the state comply with its requirements. "Any professor worth their salt would enjoy having a good debate and discussions with their students," Landwehr said. The American Association of University Professors has been the main source of opposition to the measure. "The concern is that these resolutions substitute a political criteria of balance - be it Republican, Democrat, conservative or liberal - for academic criteria," said Smith, the group’s spokesman. .... In answering criticism about heavy-handed faculty, Smith said if professors violate professional standards of neutrality and nonindoctrination, it should be handled by the university. "We are not in favor of professors indoctrinating students, but it’s important that the faculty deliver interpretations of their discipline," he said. The resolution is the brainchild of author and commentator David Horowitz, an outspoken critic of what he says are liberal biases on campuses. The measure’s sponsor in Kansas is Rep. Becky Hutchins, R-Holton, who said it was taken from "model legislation" provided by the American Legislative Exchange Council, which espouses "free markets, limited government, federalism and individual liberty." No hearing has been scheduled on the resolution, but it sits in the House Appropriations Committee, of which Landwehr is vice chair. Landwehr said she had been asking the Kansas Board of Regents, which supervises higher education, to respond to the resolution, but it hadn’t yet. Kip Peterson, a spokesman for the regents, said the resolution was being analyzed by faculty representatives at regents universities. "We are awaiting their response," he said. But Keith Yehle, director of government relations at KU, said, "Since the resolution impacts all the regents universities, we will leave that up to the board of regents." He added that KU already guarantees freedom of inquiry and speech. ... [To paraphrase Newton, "For every action there is an equal (if not greater) and opposite reaction! The Mirecki case exposed the rampant anti-religious (and especially anti-Christian) bias at the University of Kansas and presumably most (if not all) USA universities (remember that Mirecki claimed that the vast majority of phone calls and emails he received were supportive and presumably these were mostly from his fellow academics). If Mirecki had not been so stupid as to brag about his anti-Christian motives on a Yahoo atheist email list, he would have taught the course and the University of Kansas would not have lifted a finger to protect any victims of his anti-religous bigotry. It will be poetic justice if he turns out to be the cause of a new era of genuine neutrality towards religion at the University of Kansas and other universities.]

Magazine to feature article on Mirecki, The Lawrence Journal-World, February 21, 2006 Kansas University Professor Paul Mirecki continues to make headlines months after he first proposed teaching a religious studies course on intelligent design. Mirecki’s story will be the topic of an article in the March issue of "The Scientist," a 70,000 circulation magazine focused on life sciences. Staff writer Ishani Ganguli said she wanted to bring the story to readers of the magazine who may not be aware of it. Mirecki caused a firestorm late last year after he proposed teaching a course on intelligent design, and it was revealed he made disparaging remarks about Catholics and religious fundamentalists on a student message board. Mirecki later canceled the course and reported being attacked on a roadside by men who he said connected him to the controversy. He also stepped down as chair of the religious studies department. ... [It will indeed be interesting to see what line The Scientist will take on the Mirecki controversy. It is hard to believe it would be supportive of Mirecki.]

Atheist Alliance International ... the only democratic national atheist organization in the United States ... "We're not in Kansas anymore" AAI Heads to the Heartland For the first ever joint convention with the Secular Student Alliance! April 14-16, 2006 in beautiful Kansas City, Missouri Speakers to date are: ... * Dr. Paul Mirecki, Professor and past Departmental Chair of Religious Studies at the University of Kansas, the first to propose teaching ID as mythology, and author of Magic and Ritual in the Ancient World. [It will also be interesting to see what further fallout (if any) there will be to what Mirecki says at this atheist convention. That he is speaking at all, shows that his claim to be in fear of "more physical danger ... [from] religious extremists" was false and his report to police of having been beaten with an iron bar at the hands of creationist/IDists was just another hate-crime hoax. Also, the fact that he is a militant atheist and yet remains a Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Kansas, might strike some as incongruous (to say the least)! It certainly won't help the University of Kansas and the AAUP in their forthcoming battle with the Kansas legislature over the Academic Bill of Rights. Watch this space!]

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

Scientist Uses Dragonflies To Better Understand Flight

Another older article from my backlog, with my comments bold and in square brackets.

Scientist Uses Dragonflies To Better Understand Flight, ScienceDaily/Cornell University, February 21, 2006 If mastering flight is your goal, you can't do better than to emulate a dragonfly. With four wings instead of the standard two and an unusual pitching stroke that allows the bug to hover and even shift into reverse, the slender, elegant insect is a marvel of engineering. [What did she say, "a marvel of engineering"? By a Cornell professor at an AAAS seminar? Call the thought-police! Tell her that the DC (Darwinistically correct) terminology is "apparent engineering. Strike one!]

Z. Jane Wang, professor of theoretical and applied mechanics at Cornell University, presented her research on flying systems and fluid dynamics today (Feb. 19) at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. In a seminar "Falling Paper, Dragonfly Flight and Making a Virtual Insect," she said the best way to learn about flight is by first looking at what happens naturally. … Conventional wisdom holds that airplanes (airfoils) are more efficient because they travel from point to point with no wasted up-and-down motion. … "Of all these paths, are any better than a straight line? Some are -- that's what I found." The insight came from dragonflies. "Dragonflies have a very odd stroke. It's an up-and-down stroke instead of a back-and-forth stroke," she said. "Dragonflies are one of the most maneuverable insects, so if they're doing that they're probably doing it for a reason. [Strike two! "A reason"? What "reason" could there be if dragonflies evolved by a mindless, `blind watchmaker' process, hundreds of millions of years before reason itself evolved in man? ]

But what's strange about this is the fact that they're actually pushing down first in the lift. "An airfoil uses aerodynamic lift to carry its weight. But the dragonfly uses a lot of aerodynamic drag to carry its weight. That is weird, because with airplanes you always think about minimizing drag. You never think about using drag." The next question, she said, is whether engineers can use these ideas to build a flapping machine as efficient as a fixed-wing aircraft. Questions of size and feasibility remain. "To hover well or to fly for a long time is hard, especially at slow speeds," she said. "Power is limited. So finding these efficient motions is very important." Still, Wang's work moves researchers a step closer to building such a machine. "I want to build insects on a computer as a way of learning why almost all things that move in fluid use a flapping motion," said Wang. "Whether it's a fish which flips its fins or a bird, they're actually using the same principle. "The way paper or leaves fall, and how insects fly, may give us some ideas about why animals use these methods at all," she said. ... [Strike three and out! There is no "why animals use these methods." (That is teleological, i.e. end, design, purpose). They just do!]

Seriously, insect flight is just as (if not more) marvellous than bird or bat flight and just as (if not more) difficult to imagine how it ever began. Here is another quote from my zoology textebook (in the context it is only talking about insects at that stage):

"Wings and the Flight Mechanism. Insects share the power of flight with birds and flying mammals. However, their wings have evolved in a different manner from that of the limb buds of birds and mammals and are not homologous with them. Insect wings are formed by outgrowth from the body wall of the mesothoracic and metathoracic segments and are composed of cuticle. Most insects have two pairs of wings, but the Diptera (true flies) have only one pair, the hindwings being represented by a pair of small halteres (balancers) that vibrate and are responsible for equilibrium during flight. Males in the order Strepsiptera have only the hind pair of wings and an anterior pair of halteres. The males of scale insects also have one pair of wings but no halteres. Some insects are wingless. Ants and termites, for example, have wings only on males, and on females during certain periods; workers are always wingless. Lice and fleas are always wingless. Wings may be thin and membranous, as in flies and many others; thick and horny, as in the forewings of beetles; parchment-like, as in the forewings of grasshoppers; covered with fine scales, as in butterflies and moths; or with hairs, as in caddis flies. Wing movements are controlled by a complex of muscles in the thorax. Direct flight muscles are attached to a part of the wing itself. Indirect flight muscles are not attached to the wing and cause wing movement by altering the shape of the thorax. The wing is hinged at the thoracic tergum. and also slightly laterally on a pleural process, which acts as a fulcrum, In all insects, the upstroke of the wing is effected by contracting indirect muscles that pull the tergum down toward the sternum. Dragonflies and cockroaches accomplish the downstroke by contracting direct muscles attached to the wings lateral to the pleural fulcrum. In Hymenoptera and Diptera all flight muscles are indirect. The downstroke occurs when the sternotergal muscles relax and longitudinal muscles of the thorax arch the tergum, pulling the tergal articulations upward relative to the pleura. The downstroke in beetles and grasshoppers involves both direct and indirect muscles. Contraction of flight muscles has two basic types of neural control: synchronous and asynchronous. Larger insects such as dragonflies and butterflies have synchronous muscles, in which a single volley of nerve impulses stimulates a muscle contraction and thus one wing stroke. Asynchronous muscles are found in the more specialized insects. Their mechanism of action is complex and depends on the storage of potential energy in resilient parts of the thoracic cuticle. As one set of muscles contracts (moving the wing in one direction), they stretch the antagonistic set of muscles, causing them to contract (and move the wing in the other direction). Because the muscle contractions are not phase-related to nervous stimulation, only occasional nerve impulses are necessary to keep the muscles responsive to alternating stretch activation. Thus extremely rapid wing beats are possible. For example, butterflies (with synchronous muscles) may beat as few as four times per second. Insects with asynchronous muscles, such as flies and bees, may vibrate at 100 beats per second or more. The fruit fly Drosophila ... can fly at 300 beats per second, and midges have been clocked at more than 1000 beats per second! Obviously flying entails more than a simple flapping of wings; a forward thrust is necessary. As the indirect flight muscles alternate rhythmically to raise and lower the wings, the direct flight muscles alter the angle of the wings so that they act as lifting airfoils during both the upstroke and the downstroke, twisting the leading edge of the wings downward during the downstroke and upward during the upstroke. This modulation produces a figure-eight movement that aids in spilling air from the trailing edges of the wings. The quality of the forward thrust depends, of course, on several factors, such as variations in wing venation, how much the wings are tilted, and how they are feathered. Flight speeds vary. The fastest flyers usually have narrow, fast-moving wings with a strong tilt and a strong figure-eight component. Sphinx moths and horse flies are said to achieve approximately 48 km (30 miles) per hour and dragonflies approximately 40 km (25 miles) per hour. Some insects are capable of long continuous flights. The migrating monarch butterfly Danaus plexippus ... travels south for hundreds of miles in the fall, flying at a speed of approximately 10 km (6 miles) per hour." (Hickman C.P., Jr., Roberts L.S. & Larson A., "Animal Diversity," [1995], McGraw-Hill: Boston MA, Second Edition, 2000, pp.216-218. References removed. Emphasis original)

Which reminds me of Dawkins' `explanation' of "How did wings get their start?" His `just-so' story was about a "small animal" species which leaped "from bough to bough" with some falling to the ground, and natural selection favouring "slight, prototype wingflaps" to "break the fall":

"What use is half a wing? How did wings get their start? Many animals leap from bough to bough, and sometimes fall to the ground. Especially in a small animal, the whole body surface catches the air and assists the leap, or breaks the fall, by acting as a crude aerofoil. Any tendency to increase the ratio of surface area to weight would help, for example flaps of skin growing out in the angles of joints. From here, there is a continuous series of gradations to gliding wings, and hence to flapping wings. Obviously there are distances that could not have been jumped by the earliest animals with proto-wings. Equally obviously, for any degree of smallness or crudeness of ancestral air-catching surfaces, there must be some distance, however short, which can be jumped with the flap and which cannot be jumped without the flap. Or, if prototype wingflaps worked to break the animal's fall, you cannot say 'Below a certain size the flaps would have been of no use at all'. Once again, it doesn't matter how small and un-winglike the first wingflaps were. There must be some height, call it h, such that an animal would just break its neck if it fell from that height, but would just survive if it fell from a slightly lower height. In this critical zone, any improvement in the body surface's ability to catch the air and break the fall, however slight that improvement, can make the difference between life and death. Natural selection will then favour slight, prototype wingflaps. When these small wingflaps have become the norm, the critical height h will become slightly greater. Now a slight further increase in the wingflaps will make the difference between life and death. And so on, until we have proper wings." (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker," 1986, pp.89-90)

Well, since Dawkins is a zoologist, he must know that wings got their start with insects and being so light they would never have had a problem of falling from trees and being killed.

And Dawkins is also obviously wrong with his unsubstantiated claim that "there is a continuous series of gradations to gliding wings, and hence to flapping wings." Just consider in the quote above the muscular and neural controls necessary for powered flight. And just consider the Wright Brothers. Their first powered flight was not a mere slight incremental advance on gliding. Powered flight required a major, discontinuous increase in complexity over gliding. ]

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

T-rex ancestor 'feathered'?

Another older news item from my backlog. My comments are bold and in square brackets.

T-rex ancestor 'feathered', The Australian, Leigh Dayton, February 09, 2006 ... MACHO meat-eating Tyrannosaurus rex had a feathery forefather, which sported a delicate crest on its snout and long slender arms. This smaller and comparatively dandyish ancestor of fearsome T-rex was discovered in the badlands of Xinjiang in far-western China where it lived in the Late Jurassic period, about 160 million years ago. "It was a very spectacular animal," said paleontologist Steve Salisbury, of the University of Queensland in Brisbane. The new dinosaur had a mix of primitive characteristics - like three-fingered hands and blade-like teeth on the sides of its jaw - and more modern T-rex traits such as U-shaped teeth in the front of its upper jaw. The huge "nasal crest" on the dinosaur's nose was a surprise to the discovery team of Chinese, Canadian and US researchers, led by Xing Xu of the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology in Beijing. They speculate today in the journal Nature that it may have been a cumbersome sexual ornament, similar to the peacock's tail and the elk's antlers. Because the 3m-long dinosaur - named Guanlong wucaii , or "crowned dragon of the five-coloured rocks - and a more recent member of the same lineage, Dilong, apparently had primitive feathers, Dr Salisbury suggested another surprise: that T-rex may also have had a spot of plumage. "It may have had immature feathers, protofeathers, when it was young," said Dr Salisbury. He added that some sort of feathered covering was probably a characteristic of all coelurosaurs, a group of swift small-bodied creatures that were ancestral to several groups of bipedal three-toed animals, including birds and the Tyrannosauridae, T-rex and its kin. ... [Having followed this "feathered dinosaur" issue from the beginning in 1998, and accepting since 1995 that birds share a common ancestor with reptiles (and therefore possibly, but not necessarily dinosaurs), I have all along considered to be a `groupthink' delusion that the Chinese "feathered dinosaurs" upon which this whole paradigm is based, had true feathers.

There has always been a minority of eminent dissenters, like the leading ornithologist Alan Feduccia who have seen these fosssil "feathers" first-hand and up-close, and yet rejected them as not true feathers, declaring "Feathered dinosaurs ... a myth":

"In 1975 the late Jurassic bird Archaeopteryx was an earthbound, predatory, feathered dinosaur that could not fly. According to the dogma of the time, hot-blooded dinosaurs developed feathers to trap heat, and their wing feathers elongated as insect traps. Since then, however, the evidence for hot-blooded dinosaurs has been dismantled and Archaeopteryx has been shown to be a bird in the modern sense, with fully developed elliptical wings similar to modern woodland birds, and asymmetric flight feathers that form individual airfoils, a flight scapula/coracoid arrangement, and a reserved hallux, found only in perching birds, and known in no dinosaur. Too, as new specimens emerged, the creature has been shown to be more and more birdlike. As cladistic evidence for a dinosaurian origin of birds increased, other feathered dinosaurs (artistic inventions) have emerged, including feathered Coelophysis, Deinonychus, and more recently Unenlagia and Velociraptor; however, there has never been any evidence for these assertions. Most recently, feathered dinosaurs began to emerge from China. First was the downy dinosaur Sinosauropteryx, a rather typical compsognathoid with a line of filaform structures on the middorsal line. Of concern, however, is that down is a secondary adaptation in modern neonate birds and would be maladaptive in a terrestrial dinosaur; downy baby ostriches, when wet, will die from hypothermia unless they seek the shelter of the mother's wings. Today there is no doubt that these structures are not down or feathers but collagen fibers that support a frill or skin flap running along the back. However, after Sinosauropteryx, an article in Nature [Ji, Q., Currie, P.J., Norell, M.A. & Ji, S-A., "Two feathered dinosaurs from northeastern China," Nature, 25 June 1998, Vol. 393, p.753] announced the discovery of two additional feathered dinosaurs from China, named Protarchaeopteryx and Caudipteryx. A cladistic analysis using some 90 anatomical features showed these creatures to be more primitive than Archaeopteryx and therefore feathered dinosaurs. However, the specimens are some 15 to 30 million years younger than Archaeopteryx; half of the characters are primitive and should therefore not have been used, and half of the characters are not present in the fossils, thus leaving two to three skull characters that cannot be ascertained in the crushed specimen. Interestingly, the entire cladogram is rooted in the latest Cretaceous Velociraptor, which occurs some 80 million years after the earliest known bird. Indeed, Caudipteryx shows a suite of features that show it to be a secondarily flightless bird, a Mesozoic kiwi, including a protopygostyle (fused tail vertebrae), an avian occiput, reduced fibula, wing feathers attached as in archaic birds, etc. Finally, there are now excellent specimens of theropod skin, one even showing muscle fibers, and not one shows signs of anything but typical thick tuberculated reptilian skin. Feathered dinosaurs remain a myth." (Feduccia A., "1,2,3 = 2,3,4: Accommodating the cladogram," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, Vol. 96, Issue 9, 4740-4742, April 27, 1999)

It is now evident the `feathered dinosaur' paradigm is degenerating, with vague and meaningless statements like, "immature feathers, protofeathers" and "some sort of feathered covering," being "probably a characteristic of all coelurosaurs." That some dinosaurs had an integument made up of fibrous scales does not mean they were feathers or even "protofeathers" (whatever that means)!]

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

Wasps may help clean up blowies

It is now March and I have about 30 items in my backlog dated February that I haven't yet posted. So I am going to try cut them down to the bare minimum and post them singly or in small groups in rapid succession with my brief comments (bold and in square brackets), until I have cleared my February backlog. But then no doubt I will have a March backlog! I sympathise with Sisyphus!

Wasps may help clean up blowies, ABC, February 10, 2006. ... Queensland researchers are closer to coming up with a control for the age-old rural problem of blow flies. They are a particular concern in intensive agricultural systems like cattle feedlots and poultry farms. The Department of Primary Industries is trialing a native wasp at a cattle property in the Brisbane Valley. The department's Rudolf Urech says spalangia wasps are being bred in Mundubbera before being released into the feedlot near Toogoolawah. "The parasitic wasp will sting the fly pupae and by that they kill the fly and produce another wasp," he said. "Those parasitic wasps are one of the natural existing controls of flies and all we are doing is enhancing the number of wasps in the feedlot and by that helping nature along to control the flies." ... [These "parasitic wasps [that] are one of the natural existing controls of flies" presumably are in the Ichneumonidae family, of which Darwin after admitting to Asa Gray that he wrote "atheistically" claimed, "I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars":

"With respect to the theological view of the question. This is always painful to me. I am bewildered. I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed. On the other hand, I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe, and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws; with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance. Not that this notion at all satisfies me. I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton. Let each man hope and believe what he can." (Darwin C.R., letter to Asa Gray, May 22, 1860, in Darwin F., ed., "The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin," [1898], Basic Books: New York NY, Vol. II., 1959, reprint, p.105)

Actually, I have no problem with the "beneficent and omnipotent God" revealed in the Bible, for the purpose of having ecosystems of richer species diversity (see Ps 104:24), having created (mediately) parasitic wasps as a biological control of other rapidly multiplying insects like flies which, if they were allowed to multiply unchecked, would in short order cover the land to a depth of metres extinguishing all other land animal life and then extinguishing themselves!

Others like Macbeth (and I) see in such "marvels ... a tour de force by a virtuoso", citing the aptly namely "potter wasp" Eumenes amedei:

"... many animals behave in incredibly complicated and mysterious ways. ... These are marvels, beyond any doubt; but there is no compelling reason to regard them as adaptations. Each is a tour de force by a virtuoso, but the virtuoso seems to be exercising his own fantasy rather than adapting himself to mundane conditions in a utilitarian way. The books are full of examples of this virtuoso work, which is especially common among insects. I will set out one case at length to show how many refinements there can be and how the whole performance shows a master hand. In early summer the small wasplike Eumenes amedei of northern Africa and southern Europe emerges from the pupal state as an elegant insect with yellow and black bands. Soon after mating, the female prepares a house in which her young can develop and sufficient food can be stored. She chooses an exposed and sunny situation on a rock or wall, and builds a circular fence of small stones and mortar, the mortar being made from dry flinty dust mixed with her own saliva. The stones are chosen with care, flint being preferred to limestone, and the fragments selected are all much the same size. Her choice of the most polished quartz fragments suggests (if we are anthropomorphic) that she is not indifferent to the esthetic effect of her handiwork. As the wall grows higher, the builder slopes it toward the center and so makes a dome which, when finished, is about the size of a small cherry. A hole is left at the top, and on this is built a funneled mouthpiece of cement. The next task is to collect the food supply for the future grub. This consists of small caterpillars about half an inch long, palish green, and covered with white hairs. These caterpillars are partially paralyzed by the sting of the Eumenes and are unable to make any violent effort to escape. They are stored on the floor of the cell. Since they remain alive, they keep fresh until the grub is ready to eat them; if they were killed outright, their flesh would soon dry up or rot. When the cell is stocked, a single egg is laid in each house, and the mouthpiece at the top of the cell is closed with a cement plug, into which a pebble is set. The egg is not laid upon or among the caterpillars, as in many allied species. These caterpillars are only partially paralyzed, and can still move their claws and champ their jaws. Should one of them feel the nibblings of the tiny grub, it might writhe about and injure the grub. Both the egg and the grub must be protected, and to this tend the egg is suspended by tiny thread of silk fastened to the roof. The caterpillars may wriggle and writhe, but they cannot come near it. When the grub emerges from the egg, it devours its eggshell) then spins for itself a tiny silken ribbon-sheath in which it is enfolded tail- uppermost and with head hanging down. In this retreat it is suspended above the pile of living food. It can lower itself far enough to nibble at the caterpillars. If they stir too violently, it can withdraw into its silken sheath, wait until the commotion has subsided, then descend again to its meal. As the grub grows in size and strength, it becomes bolder; the silken retreat is no longer required; it can venture down and live at its ease among the remains of its food. The stone cells are not all stored with the same wealth of caterpillars. Some contain five and some ten. The young females, larger than the males, need twice as much food. But note that the cells are stocked before the eggs are laid, and that biologists generally believe that the sex is already determined when an egg is laid. How does the Eumenes know the future sex of her eggs? How is it that she never makes a mistake? (Macbeth N., "Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason," Gambit: Boston MA, 1971, pp.70-72)

The author of my zoology textbook, while not going as far as Macbeth, nevertheless considers the behaviour of Eumenes (which BTW is not in the family Ichneumonidae but in the (presumably closely related) family Vespidae) as something very special, for fashioning "dainty little narrow-necked clay pots, into each of which she lays an egg. ... paralyzes a number of caterpillars, pokes them into the opening of a pot, and closes up the opening with clay":

"Much of the behavior of insects, however, is not a simple matter of orientation but involves a complex series of responses. ... A female potter wasp Eumenes scoops up clay into pellets, carries them one by one to her building site, and fashions them into dainty little narrow-necked clay pots, into each of which she lays an egg. Then she hunts and paralyzes a number of caterpillars, pokes them into the opening of a pot, and closes up the opening with clay. Each egg, in its own protective pot, hatches to find a well-stocked larder of food awaiting it." (Hickman C.P., Jr., Roberts L.S. & Larson A., "Animal Diversity," [1995], McGraw-Hill: Boston MA, Second Edition, 2000, p.224)

No explanation is given how (or why) a Darwinian `blind watchmaker' process would go to such trouble! But I have (and indeed the article) explained why an Intelligent Designer would do it - biological control.

I have added Darwin's quote above to my "Problems of Evolution" book outline, section PE 3.4.1. "Evolution is anti-God (atheistic)", with the comment:

In the following quote, Darwin admitted to the Christian botanist Asa Gray that he wrote "atheistically" but then weakly tried to excuse himself by claiming that he "had no intention to" do so and then tried to shift the blame onto God for creating "the Ichneumonidae [a family of parasitic wasps which have an important role in maintaining biological control of flies] with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars" and even "that a cat should play with mice"!: [Darwin quote here] It is revealing that Darwin admitted that his reason for seeing "no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed" was because of his disbelief in "a beneficent and omnipotent God"! That is, Darwin's science was ultimately based on his religious views, i.e. his belief in what God would not do.

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