Titan moon occupies 'sweet spot', etc

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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