The ID Report

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

I was writing about this earlier. Michael Moyer at Scientific American notes,

Once again, the world is about to end. The latest source of doomsday dread comes courtesy of the ancient Mayans, whose calendar runs out in 2012, as interpreted by a cadre of opportunistic authors and blockbuster movie directors. Not long before, three separate lawsuits charged that the Large Hadron Collider would seed a metastasizing black hole under Lake Geneva. Before that, captains of industry shelled out billions preparing for the appearance of two zeros in the date field of computer programs too numerous to count; left alone, this tick of the clock would surely have shaken modern civilization to its foundations.

And more. Well, there is always a catastrophe somewhere; right now, the floods in Pakistan.

It looks like an interesting SciAm issue, though I don't think that fear of catastrophe is - as claimed - the outcome of "pattern-seeking brains." That's just another neuro Darwinism crock. For one thing, for most catastrophes, there is no pattern. That's the problem.

If there are 18 houses down the street from you, and 14 of the owners have been murdered in the last three weeks, I would be surprised if you were still living in #19 tonight. I wouldn't advise it. A decision to move in with your sister for a while would be an instance of pattern-seeking.

Pattern-seeking causes us to buy home insurance and auto insurance. Provided we have enough common sense to realize that bad things happen to heedless people. If we don't realize it, our mortgage bankers and motor vehicle departments usually realize it for us, via their lending rules or regulations.

No, I think the situation is more like this: We know we will die; we just don't want it to happen any time soon. So we seek to rid our lives of risk, sometimes going overboard in risk assessment and reaction, or leaning too hard in one direction vs others. Anyway, many of us do feel better going overboard than under water.

Such people can indeed be a pain in the neck. The guy who smokes two packs a day, but is worried about a supposed "metastasizing black hole under Lake Geneva" is a case in point. The two packs a day are a pattern; the supposed hole would be unique. The pattern is precisely what he avoids thinking about.

Toronto-based Canadian journalist Denyse O'Leary (www.designorchance.com) is the author of the multiple award-winning By Design or by Chance? (Augsburg Fortress 2004), an overview of the intelligent design controversy. She was named CBA Canada's Recommended Author of the Year in 2005 and is co-author, with Montreal neuroscientist Mario Beauregard, of The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul (Harper 2007).

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

We are told by Howard Falcon-Lang, science reporter for BBC news, that the fate of the universe is now revealed by the galactic lens and that the universe will expand forever (19 August 2010):

Knowing the distribution of dark energy tells astronomers that the Universe will continue to get bigger indefinitely.

Eventually it will become a cold, dead wasteland with a temperature approaching what scientists term "absolute zero".

Professor Priyamvada Natarajan of Yale University, a leading cosmologist and co-author of this study, said that the findings finally proved "exactly what the fate of the Universe will be".

Hmmm. I thought that pulpit-splintering, Bible-whacking fundamentalists had settled that one along time ago. And I give about as much credit to each view.

Also, don't miss this: "Tantalizing Clues as to Why Matter Prevails in the Universe: Surprisingly Large Matter/antimatter Asymmetry Discovered" from Science News Daily:

A large collaboration of physicists working at the Fermilab Tevatron particle collider has discovered evidence of an explanation for the prevalence of matter over antimatter in the universe. They found that colliding protons in their experiment produced short-lived B meson particles that almost immediately broke down into debris that included slightly more matter than antimatter. The two types of matter annihilate each other, so most of the material coming from these sorts of decays would disappear, leaving an excess of regular matter behind. This sort of matter/antimatter asymmetry accounts for the fact that just about all the material in the universe is made of the normal matter we're familiar with.

Which doubtless explains the absence of really unusual events in my neck of the woods.

Toronto-based Canadian journalist Denyse O'Leary (www.designorchance.com) is the author of the multiple award-winning By Design or by Chance? (Augsburg Fortress 2004), an overview of the intelligent design controversy. She was named CBA Canada's Recommended Author of the Year in 2005 and is co-author, with Montreal neuroscientist Mario Beauregard, of The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul (Harper 2007).

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

In "Is quantum theory weird enough for the real world?", Richard Webb explains why we might need a new theory of quantum mechanics:

In our day-to-day world, we are accustomed to the idea that two events are unlikely to be correlated unless there is a clear connection of cause and effect. Pulling a red sock onto my right foot in no way ensures that my left foot will also be clad in red - unless I purposely reach into the drawer for another red sock. In 1964, John Bell of the CERN particle physics laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland, described the degree of correlation that classical theories allow. Bell's result relied on two concepts: realism and locality.

Realism amounts to saying that the properties of an object exist prior to, and independent of, measurement. In the classical world, that second sock in my drawer is red regardless of whether or not I "measure" its state by looking at it. Locality is the assumption that these properties are independent of any remote influence.

In the quantum world, these are dangerous assumptions. "It turns out that either one or both of Bell's principles must be wrong," says Brukner. If quantum effects were visible in our everyday world, I might well find that my pulling on a red sock leads to the colour of the sock left in my drawer automatically changing to red.

[ ... ]

A world with this degree of interconnection would be weird indeed. I might find that by selecting a red sock from my drawer in the morning, I had predetermined the colour not just of my other sock, but that of my shirt, underpants and of the bus I ride to work.

( - New Scientist 23 August 2010)

The only time this ever happens in the macro world, in my own life experience, is if someone is fool enough to put dyed clothes in the javel water bleach wash. If you like white, buy it off the rack.

More quantum stories here.

Toronto-based Canadian journalist Denyse O'Leary (www.designorchance.com) is the author of the multiple award-winning By Design or by Chance? (Augsburg Fortress 2004), an overview of the intelligent design controversy. She was named CBA Canada's Recommended Author of the Year in 2005 and is co-author, with Montreal neuroscientist Mario Beauregard, of The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul (Harper 2007).

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Here is a photograph of Earth and its moon, taken from a distance of 114 million miles, by the U.S. spacecraft Messenger, headed out to orbit Mercury.

If I look really hard, I can see my kitchen sink and a pile of undone dishes.

Toronto-based Canadian journalist Denyse O'Leary (www.designorchance.com) is the author of the multiple award-winning By Design or by Chance? (Augsburg Fortress 2004), an overview of the intelligent design controversy. She was named CBA Canada's Recommended Author of the Year in 2005 and is co-author, with Montreal neuroscientist Mario Beauregard, of The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul (Harper 2007).

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

A friend commented on Stephen Hawking's "no boundary" proposal:

The no boundary proposal means that one can picture the origin of the universe as being like the formation of bubbles of steam in boiling water. Quantum fluctuations lead to the spontaneous creation of tiny universes out of nothing.

My friend points out that it is not really 'out of nothing' as Hawking states. Quantum fluctuations require some sort of space-time and energy, even if they different from our own. So we've only traded one problem (get rid of the idea of a beginning) for another (what caused the space-time and energy that gave rise to the tiny universes?).

Basically, something isn't nothing. And nothing comes of nothing.

By the way, here are some varying definitions of "nothing", as seen by a physicist.

Here are some other links to recent posts to Colliding Universes, my blog about differing views of our universe:

Here Stephen Hawking explains why we are doomed if we don't vamoose Earth. Speaking for myself, I would probably be doomed if I did. I'm doomed anyway, but I belong to a culture where people hope to die peacefully in their sleep.

Aliens should be better than termites

Favourite quote on extraterrestrials: "If for some reasons the aliens are actually interested in us, I think they are probably already here, and given a certain level of technology, if would probably be easy to hide from us, even on a daily basis."

Yes, I should think so. Termites do it all the time. So do the rats at a nearby dumpster. (That's why the rule of thumb is, for every rat you happen to spot, there are a dozen.)

Now, what I''’d be interested to know is, the ETs never phone, they never write. Why do we assume they exist?

Most of the reasons I have heard are based on attitudes, values, and beliefs, not science.

Toronto-based Canadian journalist Denyse O'Leary (www.designorchance.com) is the author of the multiple award-winning By Design or by Chance? (Augsburg Fortress 2004), an overview of the intelligent design controversy. She was named CBA Canada's Recommended Author of the Year in 2005 and is co-author, with Montreal neuroscientist Mario Beauregard, of The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul (Harper 2007).

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

I wrote this to an American friend recently, about the importance of intellectual freedom today:

I agree, but respectfully suggest that the main question is whether your country's government agrees.

Against much hostility and opposition, some of us got inserted into the Constitution of another (big and unimportant) country:

"Whereas [don't fall asleep while using heavy machinery] is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:"

As a result, even the worst justices on that country's supreme bench have been forced to acknowledge that truth is a defense to libel.

By contrast, in Holland, which belongs to an EU system Constitution that pointedly excludes God, Geert Wilders was informed that it made no difference if his angry claims against Islam are true, if they "insult" Muslims.

That is precisely the difference we need to note. Excluding God means that truth does not matter.

The trouble with trying to found governments without God is that no one recognizes ideas like truth, let alone the rights and dignities of the human individual.

You might find that your mom is in competition with a baboon for health care - and she might lose, if some sentimental animal rights campaign starts up in favour of the baboon.

Big whoop. Your taxes are paying for the baboon's health care, but not your mom's. Group huggie! Group huggie!, right?

Look, there ARE people out there with nothing better to do, and all day to do it in. It is possible that some are funded by your taxes.

As I see the Comer decision (where a Texas education administrator was fired for advocating Darwinism), it set a limit on the extent to which a lobby can just take over government when most people actually think that the policy is reasonable, and represents a cultural consensus [that reasonable challenges to Darwinism are permissible].

PS: I hold no brief for Wilders - like all free speech journalists, I am concerned about the principle itself. Here, a Muslim is free to argue that Wilders's claims are untrue, in any available forums, most of them free. But the Muslim takes the risk that he had better have an opposing case to offer, other than that he is merely offended. We have been in this battle for a while here and so far, we are winning! - d.

More from The Mindful Hack (Denyse O'Leary's blog on issues of mind and brain):

(Denyse O'Leary's blog on issues of mind and brain):

The New Atheists are God's prophets?

Why we must make sure the Darwinists lose

Single neurons can detect sequences?

Neuroscience journal changes policy on last-minute add-ins

Linguistics and Darwinism: Noam Chomsky

I can't make this stuff up: Magnet impairs morality

Toronto-based Canadian journalist Denyse O'Leary (www.designorchance.com) is the author of the multiple award-winning By Design or by Chance? (Augsburg Fortress 2004), an overview of the intelligent design controversy. She was named CBA Canada's Recommended Author of the Year in 2005 and is co-author, with Montreal neuroscientist Mario Beauregard, of The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul (Harper 2007).

In Christian Darwinism: Why Theistic Evolution Fails As Science and Theology (Broadman and Holman, November 2011), mathematician Dembski and journalist O’Leary address a powerful new trend to accommodate Christianity with atheist materialism, via acceptance of Darwinian ("survival of the fittest") evolution.

This trend includes "Evolution Sundays" at churches and endorsements by high administration officials like Francis Collins.

Dembski and O'Leary say it all just doesn't work. How can we accommodate self-sacrifice as the imitation of Christ with "altruism is just another way you spread your selfish genes!" How can we accommodate monogamy as the image of Christ and his church - for which he gave himself up - with "The human animal was never meant to be monogamous!"?

In the authors' view, no accommodation is possible. More to the point, accommodation is not even necessary. There are good reasons for doubting Darwin and good reasons for adopting other models for evolution - or for deciding that there is not enough evidence to make a decision.

Dembski and O'Leary insist that this conflict has nothing to do with the age of the Earth. Darwinism is, as they will show, the increasingly implausible creation story of atheism, which diverges at just about every point from the Christian worldview on which modern science was founded.

Yet Darwinism is publicly funded, and taught, in many jurisdictions, without any criticism permitted.

Reactions - not only praise but criticism - are expected and much appreciated! Regular updates will be provided at www.uncommondescent.com, so persons who wish to comment on the project can post there.

Contact: Denyse O'Leary oleary@sympatico.ca

Toronto-based Canadian journalist Denyse O'Leary (www.designorchance.com) is the author of the multiple award-winning By Design or by Chance? (Augsburg Fortress 2004), an overview of the intelligent design controversy. She was named CBA Canada's Recommended Author of the Year in 2005 and is co-author, with Montreal neuroscientist Mario Beauregard, of The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul (Harper 2007).

By Robert Deyes
ARN Correspondent

When I first picked up neurobiologist Jerome Siegel's recent Nature review on the evolutionary significance of sleep, I was expecting to find a scientifically-buttressed counter-position to the age-old assertion that describes sleep as "a vulnerable state...incompatible with behaviors that nourish and propagate species". Siegel's evolutionary discussion was nonetheless unconvincing (1). While he supplied a nice primer on the neurobiology of sleep, Siegel gave no real riposte to the outstanding question of survivability posed above other than to iterate a rather uninformative statement: "In each species the major determinant of sleep duration is the trade-off between the evolutionary benefits of being active and awake and those of adaptive inactivity" (1).

To understand why Siegel fell short it is important to re-familiarize ourselves with the rich diversity of sleep behaviors that we find in the mammalian world. Children learn about these behaviors from an early age: giraffes nap for anywhere between 10 minutes to two hours, elephants for five hours and anteaters for as long as fourteen hours (2). Marine mammals exhibit their own unique sleep patterns, notably a unilateral (unihemispheric) slow down of brain wave activity (contrast this with the bilateral (bihemispheric) slow down of non-REM sleep in land mammals) (1,3). And seals make use of both bilateral and unilateral modes depending on whether they are in terrestrial or aquatic environments (1,3). Researchers readily proclaim that "mammalian sleep is extremely diverse" with the unihemispheric sleep of dolphins being "nothing like the rapidly cycling sleep of rodents, or the single daily block of humans" (3).

While a direct correlation between body mass and sleep quantity has been reported in herbivores, the impact of mass and other physiological variables on sleep patterns across the animal kingdom remains highly controversial (1). Moreover there appear to be significant mammalian species-specific differences regarding the lethality of sleep deprivation as well as in hormone release patterns during sleep and wake times (1). In all three subclasses of mammals (placentals, marsupials and monotremes) there are noticeable differences in REM/NON-REM sleep patterns. Extant monotremes for example are unique in their display of brainstem associated REM and forebrain Non-REM (1).

Many mammals and several invertebrate species can regain lost sleep (sleep rebound) in about 30% less time than it would have taken during their normal sleep routine (1). Understandably evolutionists have pondered over the question of why in such cases shorter sleep durations and concomitantly longer wake times have not evolved so as to maximally capitalize on opportunities for hunting and foraging (1). Strikingly dolphins, killer whales and seals can survive the winter months without sleep rebound after extended periods of activity in the open sea (1). In all, these results are at odds with the expectation that sleep would be "physiologically similar across mammals" (1).

Speculation over why animals would spend significant portions of their lives in vulnerable states of dormancy has focused on the benefits of brain energy conservation and the concomitant reduced risks of injury and detection by predators. Siegel defined the adaptive benefits of sleep as the suppression of activity at times that have "maximal predator risk and minimal opportunity for efficiently meeting vital needs" and the allowance of activity at times of "maximal food and prey availability and minimal predator risk" (1). Yet in light of the rather complex and varied sleep behavior patterns described thus far, Siegel's conclusions seem empirically un-testable. How can we truly ascertain whether some poorly defined threshold of ill-timed predatory risks and inefficient brain energy conservation has been reached?

If anything real life observations contravene expectations. A few examples make this plainly clear: the 19th century zoologist James Edward Gray recorded crossing paths with bowhead whales "sleeping so soundly a few meters from the pack ice that they did not even react to his approaching boat" (4). Owls are prone to large mob lynchings from hawks, crows and jays as they doze atop exposed tree trunks (5). Humming birds make themselves susceptible to attack by adopting an almost lifeless state called torpor as part of an energy-recovery sleep regimen (3). And mortality in certain reef teleost fish is higher during the night when resting than during the day when swimming in open waters (6). Such life-threatening vulnerabilities do not support the existence of trade-offs acting as effective evolutionary operatives over the course of time as Siegel might have envisaged.

World-renowned biochemist James Krueger concurs- sleep is by all counts maladaptive unless "a greater need is served" (7). What that need might be remains to be seen although there is no shortage of ideas. Krueger for example believes that sleep may somehow facilitate the integration of new memories into existing neuronal circuits (7). Some speculate that sleep serves the role of removing dangerous free radicals from the brain [6]. Others hold to the veracity of the Null Hypothesis which, simply stated, maintains that sleep is nothing more than "a kind of extreme indolence that animals indulge in when they have no more pressing needs, such as eating or reproducing" [6]. Sleep quite clearly performs a restorative function although the exact details have eluded even the most dedicated of investigative minds [8]. In what way can the current data be reconciled with a picture that shows sleep behaviors evolving as a result of selective pressures across the millennia?

In the June, 2010 issue of PLOS Computational Biology, a cross-disciplinary group from the University of Sydney and Harvard Medical School headed by Amesh Abeysuriya provided what was touted as the definitive answer to this question (3). At the heart of mammalian sleep behaviors is a collection of diverse molecules called somnogens that accumulate during wake times and generate a "homeostatic drive to sleep". Cells in the monoaminergic brainstem nuclei (MA) and the ventro lateral preoptic area of the hypothalamus (VLPA) form what Abeysuriya et al consider to be a sleep-wake switch that functions through antagonistic inhibition (3). For aquatic mammals in which unihemispheric activity is observed, a "mutually inhibitory connection" is thought to exist between VLPA populations that prevents both hemispheres being activated simultaneously. Abeysuriya et al devised a model that they claim accounts for the sleep patterns observed in 17 species of mammals (3).

Krueger is one of a handful of sleep experts who believe that sleep is not an "all or nothing" affair even in bihemispheric-operating mammals (9). Krueger has proposed that in all mammals groups of neurons can be selectively shut down after being used for the tasks they routinely perform (4). What we call sleep might therefore simply be a state in which a large number of neurons have been shut down to the extent that they are no longer able to function (9). Washington State University electrophysiologist David Rector has built up enough hard evidence to support such a proposal. Following experiments with lab rats Rector is confident that "there's no central control, no on-off switch". He remains adamant that the need for sleep arises as a result of the progressive use of neuronal cell clusters over the course of a wake period (9).

Several somnogens have now been extensively reported on in the peer-reviewed literature (3). The universality of the homeostatic drive that results from these somnogens coupled with the MA-VLPA cellular interactions have led Abeysuriya et al to conclude that differences in sleep patterns across species represent nothing more than evolutionary attenuations of a system that existed before mammals roamed the earth (3). But blatantly lacking in this evolutionary picture is a genetic basis for explaining how these attenuations supposedly came into effect. Ever since the early 1970s, when researchers began a frantic search for a mysterious sleep hormone dubbed "Factor S", the idea of a single sleep gene has been gradually but emphatically turned on its head (7,9). There are now over a hundred such genes, most of them encoding a class of immune proteins called cytokines, that in one way or another play a role in regulating sleep patterns (7,9). Of these there are about fifteen big players with TNF, IL-1, Growth Hormone Releasing Hormone (GHRH) and adenosine (with its receptor) being perhaps the best characterized of them all (3,9,10).

A complex network of positive and negative feedback loops called the sleep homeostat forms the molecular foundation of non-REM phase sleep which varies predictably in response to physiological cues such as feeding and illness (10). Importantly Krueger's research has brought into sharp clarity the role of a gene called preproghrelin which is now known to modulate sleep and regulate body temperature as a function of food availability (11). The preproghrelin gene expresses multiple protein products one of which, the ghrelin hormone, acts in suppressing sleep during bouts of hunger (11). Another preproghrelin product, the obestatin hormone, induces sleep and maintains stable body temperatures when food is scarce (11). These antagonistic functions are critical for survival in the wild where "natural shortages of food and low environmental temperature are commonly encountered" (12). Indeed preproghrelin gene knockout mice have been shown to suffer from severely disrupted sleep and uncontrollable hypothermia when doubly challenged by an absence of food and cold external temperatures (12)

Any model that purports to explain the evolution of sleep throughout nature has to account for the multi-layered genetic and cellular complexity that undergirds its panoply of forms. Clearly involved are exquisitely regulated and species-tailored communication systems, with key biological processes and molecular determinants playing an integral role in sleep/wake regulation. None of the work to-date on evolution has given us much beyond deeply-held assumptions served up in a manner that leaves out the full extent of what we now truly know about this captivating topic. It can be said that at its core the current evolutionary story has become nothing more than the materialists' dreamy solution to a nightmare of a problem.

Further Reading
1. Jerome M. Siegel (2010) Sleep Viewed As A State Of Adaptive Inactivity, Nature Rev Neurosci, Volume 10, pp. 747-753
2. Richard and Louise Spilsbury, A Herd Of Elephants, Heinemann Library, p.20; Jennifer McDougall, Giraffes, Scholastic, p.25; Lorien Kite, Anteaters, Grolier Educational, p.30
3. Andrew J. K. Phillips, Peter A. Robinson, David J. Kedziora , Romesh G. Abeysuriya (2010) Mammalian Sleep Dynamics: How Diverse Features Arise from a Common Physiological Framework, PLOS Computational Biology, June 2010, Volume 6, Issue 6, e1000826
4. Jacques Cousteau and Yves Paccalet (1986) Whales, W.H. Allen & Co, London, pp. 219
5. Helen Rodney Sattler (1995) The Book Of North American Owls, Clarion Books, NY, p. 23
6. Chiara Cirelli, Giulio Tononi (2008) Is Sleep Essential? PLOS Biology, Volume 6, Issue 8, e216
7. Tim Steury (2010) Why Do We Sleep?, Washington State Magazine, See
http://researchnews.wsu.edu/health/78.html
8. The New Book Of Popular Science, Volume 5, Grolier Publishing, pp. 405-409
9. Cherie Winner (2006) The Secrets Of Sweet Oblivion, Washington State Magazine, See http://wsm.wsu.edu/s/index.php?id=130
10. James M Krueger, David M Rector, Sandip Roy, Hans P A Van Dongen, Gregory
Belenky, and Jaak Panksepp (2008) Sleep As A Fundamental Property Of Neuronal Assemblies, Nat Rev Neurosci Volume 9, pp. 910-919
11. Eat, sleep, stay warm: How our bodies find the right balance, See
http://www.wsutoday.wsu.edu/Pages/Publications.asp?Action=Detail&PublicationID=15160&PageID=
12. Eva Szentirmaia, Levente Kapa, Yuxiang Sun, Roy G. Smith, and James M. Krueger (2009) The preproghrelin gene is required for the normal integration of thermoregulation and sleep in mice, PNAS, Vol. 106, pp.14069-14074

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Here's something worth knowing if you don't want your kids spending a lot of time on Darwin worship when they could be learning something useful:

Last year, during the bicentennial anniversary of Darwin's birth, Nature released a free online packet titled "15 Evolutionary Gems." Its subtitle was "A resource from Nature for those wishing to spread awareness of evidence for evolution by natural selection." It might have been better subtitled 'A evangelism packet for those wishing to spread the good news about Darwinism.' After all, when Nature announced the packet, they said they were heeding a prior call which "urged scientists and their institutions to 'spread the word'" about evolution and "highlight reasons why scientists can treat evolution by natural selection as, in effect, an established fact." The packet is to be used not just in schools, but also in home evangelism or relationship evangelism.

[ ... ]

The packet is simply an extension of Nature's "campaign" for Darwin. But it is quite useful in one important respect: the packet is from the world's top scientific journal and purports to show us "just what is the evidence for evolution by natural selection." So if the evidence isn't very strong, then that should tell you something.

As we'll see, far from being "incontrovertible," most of the "evolutionary gems" in the packet do not show any significant amount of evolution and might be best views as "microevolutionary" gems. A couple of the "gems" have little to do with evolution, but an evolutionary interpretation is added in after-the-fact.

Right now, Darwinism is right up there with "recovered memories" in believability, which is the main reason I would want it minimized in tax-funded schools.

Maybe my local used car salesman can spout it, along with extolling the glories of the used Lada he is trying to unload before it falls to pieces on the sales lot.

Toronto-based Canadian journalist Denyse O'Leary (www.designorchance.com) is the author of the multiple award-winning By Design or by Chance? (Augsburg Fortress 2004), an overview of the intelligent design controversy. She was named CBA Canada's Recommended Author of the Year in 2005 and is co-author, with Montreal neuroscientist Mario Beauregard, of The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul (Harper 2007).

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Must have been a slow news day in Ottawa.

This is a tough one to understand. How could a fish just grow legs? It mystifies us, and so this part of evolutionary theory is a common target for cheap attacks from creationists. Therefore, it's extremely valuable that a scientist has now found a way in which a genetic tweaking makes a zebrafish embryo stop growing fins, and start growing an appendage that looks like a leg. If she can tweak a gene in the lab, maybe one of the many mutations that pop up in nature could do the same.

- Tom Spears, "How the tetrapod got its legs" (June 27, 2010)

Read more here.

Priceless. You can't make this stuff up.

In fairness to journalist Spears, he is properly uncertain about just what has been discovered here, for good reason. "An appendage that looks like a leg" is what, exactly?

It only counts if it acts like a leg. Ask an amputee.

And it better act soon, too, because otherwise the fish is a cripple. What happens when predator fish arrive, as would happen in nature, if not in a lab?

Oh, we did remember to install quills among the gills, didn't we? And a system for making them stand up ...

Obviously, fish moved onto land some time (and do today), but legs are not the point. (If they were, snakes and legless lizards would not exist.) The critical issue is breathing apparatus.

Toronto-based Canadian journalist Denyse O'Leary (www.designorchance.com) is the author of the multiple award-winning By Design or by Chance? (Augsburg Fortress 2004), an overview of the intelligent design controversy. She was named CBA Canada's Recommended Author of the Year in 2005 and is co-author, with Montreal neuroscientist Mario Beauregard, of The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul (Harper 2007).

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Go here for the latest unbelievable research.

Look, read that, but this much I know is true:

I am a faithful daughter who goes out to visit her Alzheimer-riddled, stroke-addled father, 91, every week.

He never at any time changed from his traditional morality.

He knows that his parents are dead. He constantly asks how his sibs, his children and grandchildren are doing. He worries that his wife, joining him in the seniors' home, had to give up some prized furniture. Just what you would expect of him.

He looked after the animals, too. He even has a cat in the apartment.

I guess the magnets must have missed their target in his case.

Toronto-based Canadian journalist Denyse O'Leary (www.designorchance.com) is the author of the multiple award-winning By Design or by Chance? (Augsburg Fortress 2004), an overview of the intelligent design controversy. She was named CBA Canada's Recommended Author of the Year in 2005 and is co-author, with Montreal neuroscientist Mario Beauregard, of The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul (Harper 2007).