The ID Report

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

This post was about an atheist facing death, and it is inspiring. This one is about an atheist blowhard - an evolutionary biologist who seems determined, so far as I can see, to collapse in the ruins of Darwinism. Some excerpts from Jerry A. Coyne's "Religion in America is on the defensive" (USA Today, October 11, 2010):

Atheist books such as The God Delusion and The End of Faith have, by exposing the dangers of faith and the lack of evidence for the God of Abraham, become best-sellers. Science nibbles at religion from the other end, relentlessly consuming divine explanations and replacing them with material ones. Evolution took a huge bite a while back, and recent work on the brain has shown no evidence for souls, spirits, or any part of our personality or behavior distinct from the lump of jelly in our head. We now know that the universe did not require a creator. Science is even studying the origin of morality. So religious claims retreat into the ever-shrinking gaps not yet filled by science. And, although to be an atheist in America is still to be an outcast, America's fastest-growing brand of belief is non-belief.

As neuroscientist Mario Beauregard and I demonstrate in The Spiritual Brain, materialist explanations have utterly failed in explaining the human mind. They continue to ail even as I write and you read, with one limp speculation after another.

Soft! There is ancient evil about:

But faith will not go gentle. For each book by a "New Atheist," there are many others attacking the "movement" and demonizing atheists as arrogant, theologically ignorant, and strident.

Well, if so, you just heard from Exhibit 1.

It gets better:

Science operates by using evidence and reason. Doubt is prized, authority rejected. No finding is deemed "true" - a notion that's always provisional - unless it's repeated and verified by others. We scientists are always asking ourselves, "How can I find out whether I'm wrong?"

To that, I can only reply Climategate, which made clear that a number of key climate scientists were willing to manipulate the system to insert their opinion contra evidence. And in the age of Signature in the Cell (Harper One, 2009), Expelled (about attempts to suppress findings that contradict atheist materialism) did not help the new atheists' image.

My favourite lines are

And this leads to the biggest problem with religious "truth": There's no way of knowing whether it's true. I've never met a Christian, for instance, who has been able to tell me what observations about the universe would make him abandon his beliefs in God and Jesus. (I would have thought that the Holocaust could do it, but apparently not.) There is no horror, no amount of evil in the world, that a true believer can't rationalize as consistent with a loving God. It's the ultimate way of fooling yourself. But how can you be sure you're right if you can't tell whether you're wrong?

Well, if one does not believe that one's mind has an independent reality, one cannot tell whether anything at all is right or wrong. After all, if morality is all about survival of the fittest, then there is no morality, only survival of the fittest.

The funniest part is this:

Out of 34 countries surveyed in a study published in Science magazine, the U.S., among the most religious, is at the bottom in accepting Darwinism: We're No. 33, with only Turkey below us.

Well, the United States put men on the moon, mapped the outer planets, and generally leads in science. And it is more religious than other countries. So, if religion makes a difference, bring it on.

The real lesson is that leading nations lead. They can lead in both science and religion. There are nations out there having a fit about both.

More on the new atheism (atheism on stilts):

The new atheists: Santa's sleigh came and went, and never gave them what they needed

Salvo 7: Just released edition features batty bioethicists, suckered scientists, senseless psychologists ...
(And we don't mind sayin' it either.)

Imagine no Religulous

Also just up at The Mindful Hack, my blog on neuroscience and spirituality issues:

African religion: Begin by trying to understand

Media and religion: If people cannot safely say what they think, what effect can media have?

Christopher Hitchens: Attempting the good death without God

Branded but stranded? How seriously does Generation Y really take brands?

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

The blogosphere is brimming with commentaries over the ever-visible changes that usher in the arrival of Autumn in the northern hemisphere (1). The beckoningly bright colors of the foliage on our trees and the seasonal appearance of pumpkins that adorn our porches and abound in the fields around our cities serve as reminders of a festive transition. Throw the occasional honking of migrating Canadian geese into the mix and it is easy to see why many of us cannot help but momentarily stop in awe. The geese in particular are my gaze-catchers. Craning my neck as I look straight up I have become obsessed with capturing the flight of these birds on camera.

But there is more that interests me about Canadian geese than simply their migratory 'order of business'. Unknown to many a bird watcher, Canadian geese are one of several 'gold mine' species that harbor a strain of bacteria called Bacillus licheniformis in the tufts of their plumage (2). These feather-degrading bugs are prevalent in all manner of ground-foraging birds and occur in greatest numbers during the late autumn and winter months. Because of their tough keratin-rich microfibril composition, feathers are extraordinarily resistant to biodegradation (2). But not so tough that keratinolytic bacteria such as B. licheniformis cannot break them down (2). And biotechnologists are exploiting this ability to the full.

B. licheniformis has spawned much excitement in the agricultural world (3). Bird feathers are routinely used in animal feed. But until the early 1990s steaming was the only means by which they could be made more digestible (3). Scientific acumen and ingenuity changed all that. By putting B.licheniformis to work on a feathery meal, an inter-disciplinary group from North Carolina State University generated "appreciable degradation products" of digestible protein (3). In so doing they opened the door for a commercially-viable process that improves on the nutritional value of traditional steaming methods.

And its agricultural relevance has not stopped there. This multi-purpose bacterium is also finding application in pest control as a pre-harvest treatment for eradicating diseases that attack fruit (4). Mangos, which today constitute "one of the most important fruit crops grown in tropical and subtropical regions" have been targeted for trials against bacterial blackspot (Xanthomonas campestris), anthracnose and soft rot (4). Chemical treatments such as Copper Oxychloride have been heavily legislated against because of their detrimental effects on soils (4). B.licheniformis has proven to be an effective antagonist against these diseases and is therefore gaining traction as the way of the future for pest control.

Enzymes are commonly deployed in laundry products where they function as potent digesters of dried-on grime. And those of B.licheniformis are best-in-class when it comes to getting the job done. Look down the ingredients list of most brands of washing powder and you are likely to find two components- alpha-amylase and Subtilisin-A- that respectively perform the job of breaking down starch and proteins (5). Thankfully detergents do not adversely affect the ability of these enzymes to get to work on food splurges (6). Microbially-derived proteases form more than half of the industrial enzyme market (6). And those of alkaline-dwelling organisms such as B.licheniformis are particularly attractive given the high pH of laundry detergents (9.0-12.0) (6).

B.licheniformis has also joined a fast growing club of microorganisms able to synthesize gold nanoparticles which are used in the development of pharmaceuticals (7). Microorganisms such as B.licheniformis carry periplasmic proteins on their outer surface that bind and reduce Aureum Chloride and in the process generate 10-100nm sized nanoparticles that can be isolated from the bacterial fraction as a dried powder (7). The microorganismic approach to gold nanoparticle production has the unique advantage of being more ecologically sound than current procedures that use harmful reducing agents (7).

From our houses to our farms and onwards into the pharmaceutical development lab B.licheniformis is fast becoming an indispensable workhorse. Its many secrets are being exploited in novel ways. And its revolutionary attributes continue to amaze. Higher eukaryotes sport elaborate olfaction mechanisms to detect gas molecules (8). Up until earlier this year there had been no reports of similar mechanisms in bacteria (8). All that changed with the news that a couple of European biotechnologists had incontrovertibly demonstrated olfaction in B.licheniformis cultures (8). By putting B.licheniformis adjacent to inducer strains of B.subtilis, M.luteus and E.coli, Reindert Nijland and J. Grant Burgess observed notable color changes and a tendency for formation of dense pellicles (known in the trade as biofilms) (8,9). Some simple experiments gave Niijland and Burgess the clues they needed to home in on the molecular exchange that lay at the heart of this response- a rise in concentrations of gaseous ammonia (8,9).

Seen in the wider context of the discoverability of our planet that authors such as Guillermo Gonzalez, Jay Richards and Michael Denton have exposed in their best-selling tomes, B.licheniformis is just one of a vast number of available resources that are helping us reshape the way we live. "The stupendous success of science since 1600" writes Denton "is testimony enough to the remarkable fitness of our mind to comprehend the world" (10). "We've seen that scientific progress and discovery depend on nature being more than meaningless matter in motion...It's an exquisite structure that preserves vast stores of information...We in turn possess the materials and the physical and intellectual capacity to create technologies...As eyeglasses and light bulbs have improved our ability to read written texts so the microscope and telescope have allowed us to read the book of nature more deeply...The myriad conditions that make a region habitable are also the ones that make the best overall places for discovering the universe in its smallest and largest expressions" (11).

Whether the olfaction aptitude of B.licheniformis can be translated into a useful application that aids in the "betterment of human life" (in accordance with the biotechnologists' mantra, 12) remains to be seen. Yet the story of this robust microorganism seems far from over. And as the geese continue to pass overhead during this year’s autumnal leaf-fall I cannot help but see it as a bacterial 'high-flyer' that has taken center stage in the biotechnology arena.

Further Reading

1. Sara Klink (2010) A Time For Harvest, Promega Connections, September, 24th, 2010, See http://promega.wordpress.com/2010/09/24/a-time-for-harvest/

2. Edward Burtt, Jann Ichida (1999) Occurrence of feather-degrading bacilli in the plumage of birds, The Auk, See http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3793/is_199904/ai_n8834646/

3. C.M.Williams , C.S Richter, J.M. MacKenzie Jr, Jason C.H. Shih (1990) Isolation, Identification and Characterization of a Feather-Degrading Bacterium, Applied And Environmental Microbiology, Volume 56 (6), pp. 1509-1515

4. Evaluation of pre-harvest Bacillus licheniformis sprays to control mango fruit diseases, Crop Protection, Volume 26, pp. 1474-1481

5. Measurement of endo-Protease and Þ±-Amylase in Biological Washing Powders & Liquids using AZO CASEIN and AMYLAZYME TABLETS www.megazyme.com/GetAttachment.aspx?id=17e0f84c-9ba1

6. Nedra El Hadj-Ali, Rym Agrebi, Basma Ghorbel-Frikha, Alya Sellami-Kamoun, Safia Kanoun and Moncef Nasri (2007) Biochemical and molecular characterization of a detergent stable alkaline serine-protease from a newly isolated Bacillus licheniformis NH1, Enzyme and Microbial Technology, Volume 40, pp. 515-523

7. Kalimuthu Kalishwaralal, Venkataraman Deepak, Sureshbabu Ram Kumar Pandian, Sangiliyandi Gurunathan (2009) Biological Synthesis Of Gold Nanocubes From Bacillus Licheniformis, Bioresource Technology, Volume 100, pp. 5356-5358

8. Reindert Nijland and J. Grant Burgess (2010) Bacterial Olfaction, Biotechnology Journal, DOI 10.1002/biot.201000174

9. Janelle Weaver (2010) Bacteria sniff out their food, Nature 16 August 2010, See http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100816/full/news.2010.411.html

10. Michael Denton (1998) Nature's Destiny: How The Laws of Biology, Reveal Purpose in the Universe, 1st Edition Published by the Free Press, New York, p.260

11. Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards (2004) The Privileged Planet, How Our Place In The Cosmos Is Designed For Discovery, Regnery Publishing Inc, Washington D.C, New York, p.334

12. Abdelali Haoudi (2003) New Forum for Innovative Research in Biomedicine and Biotechnology, J Biomed Biotechnol. 2003, Issue 3, p.161

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

A number of red flags have shot up recently about comfy relationships between science, media, and corporate interests. Here's a small batch to contemplate:

- Elizabeth Landau asks at CNN, "Where's the line between research and marketing?" (October 13, 2010):

JAMA, one of the premier peer-reviewed health publications in the United States, published the Jenny Craig-funded study that had to do with -- surprise! -- women losing weight in the Jenny Craig weight-loss program. The study found that women in the Jenny Craig program lost between three and four times as much weight as those who dieted independently.

Fontanarosa says the study passed the journal's requirements for a privately funded study: the sponsor - Jenny Craig - tried to minimize its influence over the management analysis of data and reporting of the findings. An academic investigator had access to all data, and an academic biostatistician conducted the analysis.

But some experts say the public should have extra skepticism than when viewing the results of a study like this.

The experts' further advice, as properly recounted by Landau, is no substitute for plain old hardline skepticism. Here's some skeptical advice on weight loss programs in general.

- In "Lies, damn lies, and medical science"(The Atlantic, November 2010) David H. Freedman reports on the shifting sands of health dangers uncovered by peer-reviewed studies:

That question has been central to Ioannidis’s career. He’s what’s known as a meta-researcher, and he’s become one of the world’s foremost experts on the credibility of medical research. He and his team have shown, again and again, and in many different ways, that much of what biomedical researchers conclude in published studies—conclusions that doctors keep in mind when they prescribe antibiotics or blood-pressure medication, or when they advise us to consume more fiber or less meat, or when they recommend surgery for heart disease or back pain—is misleading, exaggerated, and often flat-out wrong. He charges that as much as 90 percent of the published medical information that doctors rely on is flawed. His work has been widely accepted by the medical community; it has been published in the field’s top journals, where it is heavily cited; and he is a big draw at conferences. Given this exposure, and the fact that his work broadly targets everyone else’s work in medicine, as well as everything that physicians do and all the health advice we get, Ioannidis may be one of the most influential scientists alive. Yet for all his influence, he worries that the field of medical research is so pervasively flawed, and so riddled with conflicts of interest, that it might be chronically resistant to change—or even to publicly admitting that there’s a problem.

[ ... ]

It didn’t turn out that way. In poring over medical journals, he was struck by how many findings of all types were refuted by later findings. Of course, medical-science “never minds” are hardly secret. And they sometimes make headlines, as when in recent years large studies or growing consensuses of researchers concluded that mammograms, colonoscopies, and PSA tests are far less useful cancer-detection tools than we had been told; or when widely prescribed antidepressants such as Prozac, Zoloft, and Paxil were revealed to be no more effective than a placebo for most cases of depression; or when we learned that staying out of the sun entirely can actually increase cancer risks; or when we were told that the advice to drink lots of water during intense exercise was potentially fatal; or when, last April, we were informed that taking fish oil, exercising, and doing puzzles doesn’t really help fend off Alzheimer’s disease, as long claimed. Peer-reviewed studies have come to opposite conclusions on whether using cell phones can cause brain cancer, whether sleeping more than eight hours a night is healthful or dangerous, whether taking aspirin every day is more likely to save your life or cut it short, and whether routine angioplasty works better than pills to unclog heart arteries.

Go here for more.

- And don't expect the legacy mainstream media to run to help. Too many of them are part of the pattern themselves, as Paul Raeburn at Knight Journalism Tracker points out:

Yesterday, I criticized the foundation for taking funding from Pfizer for its “all-expenses-paid” annual cancer conference for reporters.

This morning, I looked at the press foundation’s donors. In its 2009 annual report, the foundation said “nearly 300 journalists benefitted from our training in Washington, around the world, online and through webinars. And it boasted that “in one of the tumultuous years in the U.S. media business, we did all this without charging journalists a dime, with programs that received some of our highest evaluations ever.”

How did the National Press Foundation do it?

Raeburn figures they did it because pharmaceutical corporations contributed about one quarter of the money and the journalism organizations' contributions were "far smaller." He adds,

When the National Press Foundation says in its annual report that it is funded, in part, by “concerned corporations,” it’s right on the money. You can bet that Pfizer, Merck, and the others are concerned about what appears in the press!

No kidding. The corruption here isn't open, it's insidious. The questions one does not ask, the research one does not do, the people one knows better than to confront, the backing down and the sliding away ... Sound familiar, anyone?

Do I say peer review is bad? No, but it can be useless or misleading. The key problem is that it is treated as a seal of approval. Yet it can often be the means by which third rate stuff gets attention and serious stuff is suppressed. The system is now corrupt enough that one can no longer take seriously claims like "Orthodox science doesn't accept this." My immediate response is, "Is THAT all you got by way of objection?"

I have written about the peer review scandal elsewhere:

"Peer review, mere review, and smear review"

"Peer review: Life, death, and the British Medical Journal"

Science: A year-end wad of fraud, falsified data, and other award-winning tenure strategies ...

Peer review: What if your peers would have to be otherconspiracy theorists? (No, really!)

Peer review: Gold standard or gold in "them thar hills"

* In fairness, journalism has been hit hard in recent years by layoffs, etc. But that's when we should just hold cheaper conferences and lump it until good stories start making money again.

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 "Looking for Life in the Multiverse: Universes with different physical laws might still be habitable" Scientific American Magazine (December 16, 2009) By Alejandro Jenkins and Gilad Perez make clear what is and is not accepted in science (as they understand it) and why:

The laws of physics-and in particular the constants of nature that enter into those laws, such as the strengths of the fundamental forces-might therefore seem finely tuned to make our existence possible. Short of invoking a supernatural explanation, which would be by definition outside the scope of science, a number of physicists and cosmologists began in the1970s to try solving the puzzle by hypothesizing that our universe is just one of many existing universes, each with its own laws. According to this"anthropic" reasoning, we might just occupy the rare universe where the right conditions happen to have come together to make life possible. Amazingly, the prevailing theory in modern cosmology, which emerged in the1980s, suggests that such "parallel universes" may really exist-in fact, that a multitude of universes would incessantly pop out of a primordial vacuum the way ours did in the big bang. Our universe would be but one of many pocket universes within a wider expanse called the multiverse. In the overwhelming majority of those universes, the laws of physics might not allow the formation of matter as we know it or of galaxies, stars, planets and life. But given the sheer number of possibilities, nature would have had a good chance to get the "right" set of laws at least once. Our recent studies, however, suggest that some of these other universes-assuming they exist-may not be so inhospitable after all. Remarkably, we have found examples of alternative values of the fundamental constants, and thus of alternative sets of physical laws, that might still lead to very interesting worlds and perhaps to life. The basic idea is to change one aspect of the laws of nature and then make compensatory changes to other aspects.

Our work did not address the most serious fine-tuning problem in theoretical physics: the smallness of the "cosmological constant," thanks to which our universe neither recollapsed into nothingness a fraction of a second after the big bang, nor was ripped part by an exponentially accelerating expansion. Nevertheless, the examples of alternative, potentially habitable universes raise interesting questions and motivate further research into how unique our own universe might be.

Well, the supernatural may be "outside the scope of science," but universes whose existence is not demonstrated, which are imagined principally to get out of a jam with the evidence from this universe, are reasonably doubted, despite thought experiments. The tentative tone here is well justified. It should be used more often.

See other multiverse and fine tuning stories:

Cosmology: If you needn't worry about paying the rent Friday, you can worry about this stuff

Cosmology: Science's leader in things that don't make sense

Cosmology: Crisis of the month: gravitation

Cosmology: Multiverse - getting comfortable with a zillion of everything that is unique.

Cosmology: I seem to have yanked particle physicist Lawrence Krauss's chain

Cosmology: Wow. It takes guts to wage war with Stephen Hawking. He appeared in Star Trek

Cosmology: Arguments against flatness (plus exposing sloppy science writing)

Cosmology: If the universe has free will, where do I go to file a claim for damages?

Anr2

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

A recent news story featured an astronomer whose personal feelings about the chances for life on a recently discovered planet orbiting a star other than our sun were 100%:

Personally, given the ubiquity and propensity of life to flourish wherever it can, I would say, my own personal feeling is that the chances of life on this planet are 100 percent," said Steven Vogt, a professor of astronomy and astrophysics at the University of California, Santa Cruz, during a press briefing today.

"I have almost no doubt about it.”

He might have done with a few doubts about planet Gliese 581 g, which has a 37-day orbit around a dim, red dwarf star. The
latest story is that other astronomers can’t establish that Gliese exists.

Two weeks after one team of astronomers announced finding the habitable planet Gliese 581 g, another team says it can find no evidence of the world in its data.

Last month, a team of astronomers announced the discovery of the first alien world that could host life on its surface. Now a second team can find no evidence of the planet, casting doubt on its existence.

[ ... ]

But it might be too early to claim a definitive detection. A second team of astronomers have looked for signals of Gliese 581 g in their own data and failed to find it.

"We easily recover the four previously announced planets, "b", "c", "d", and "e". However, we do not see any evidence for a fifth planet in an orbit of 37 days," says Francesco Pepe of the Geneva Observatory in Switzerland. He presented the results on Monday at an International Astronomical Union symposium in Turin, Italy.

Although the Geneva team cannot find evidence for the new planet, they cannot exclude the possibility that Gleise 581 g exists. "We are not trying to prove the nonexistence of a planet," Pepe says. "It's really difficult to prove that something does not exist. We are just saying we do not see a significant signal that is really different from noise."

- Rachel Courtland, "First life-friendly exoplanet may not exist", 1(3 October 2010)

Well, as we, and they, all know, one cannot prove that a physical thing really does not exist. One simply reaches the point where one considers its existence too improbable to spend more time looking.

If Gliese is not found, the episode will demonstrate one important thing: Many people badly need to believe in life on other planets, and many more people are eager to hear them tell about it. The legendary caution of science stands no chance against the onslaught of such yearnings.

See also Exoplanets: The recent pilgrimage to Darwin's shrine.

Does our solar system occupy a unique position in the universe or just an ordinary one?

Rare? Solar systems like ours are rare?

Astronomer argues that we can test whether Earth is fine-tuned as a science lab

Serious push to find more exoplanets

Exoplanets: Will intelligence be common or rare?

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).

During the 1990s I had untold opportunities to witness the full exuberance of nature's rich offerings. My parents' house on the southwestern edge of Ecuador's capital Quito was set in a prime location for observing all manner of wildlife. And most memorable of all were the hummingbirds that frequented our garden attracted as they were to the blooming plants that had been strategically potted next to the outside walls of our living room. These veritable masters of flight, the smallest of warm blooded creatures on our planet, arrived with the sole purpose of extracting sweet nectar from the flowers we had laid before them. Their hovering maneuverability was their most striking attribute.

To date over 330 different species of hummingbird have been identified across the expanse of the American continent (1-3). And the mechanisms behind their supreme agility are being dissected out by the likes of UC Riverside biologist Doug Altshuler (1,4). Using revolving feeders filled with nectar and cameras that record minute positional adjustments relative to feeder rotation, Altshuler has uncovered one of the secrets behind these birds' exquisite capabilities: flexible rotating shoulder bones that allow them to hover while maintaining their bills firmly inside flowers (1,2). With little to no opportunity to perch during feeding, their wing anatomy is indispensable for survival (1). On average 'hummers' consume more than half their body weight in nectar extracted from as many as 1000 flowers each day (1). To sustain this extraordinary rate of consumption their berry-sized hearts must beat 600 times a minute during rest and almost double that during flight (1). This totals up to 4.5 billion times during their 12-17 year lifespan (4). A continuous feeding binge supplies them with the energy they need to beat their tiny wings a staggering 80-200 times per second (1,2).

In the mountain forests of Ecuador, not far from where my parents lived, there exists a species of hummer whose popular name, the swordbill, accurately describes the appearance of its feeding accoutrement (1,5). With its four inch beak the swordbill is able to feed on the nectar of the Datura plant (1,5). And it turns out that it is uniquely equipped for the job. Because Datura blossoms hang straight down, a four inch bill is what it takes to gorge on the effusions coming out of nectaries at the very base of the flower. But there is a trade-off. As the bird feeds, it is dusted with pollen that it carries to its next port of call (1).

Although hummers are built to feed on nectar, they cannot sustain themselves on sugar alone. They depend heavily on insects as a primary source of protein (3). It is little wonder then that bugs form 1/4 of their daily diets (1). With deadly accuracy hummers can pick out their prey mid-flight by opening their flexible bills to the widest capture position possible (1). And that is not the only way their bills are so refined for the functions they perform. Today eight thousand plant species depend on the hummer for pollination. Like a lock and key, each bill fits into a limited set of blossoms. The Purple-throated Carib even exhibits marked gender differences in bill length tailored as they are to feed on different species of the colorful Heliconia plant (1).

At nighttime hummers thwart the clutches of starvation by fluffing up their feathers to conserve heat and entering into a low energy sleep state called Torpor (3). By lowering their heart rates to a sluggish 36 beats per minute and their body temperatures from a comfortable 105 degrees Fahrenheit to the 'hypothermic threshold' of life, they barely manage to stay alive (1,3). The process is easily reversed however. And when day breaks, vital signs ramp up to normal in 20 minutes or less in readiness for another day of high cost flying (3).

Flight behaviors amongst hummers challenge even our most optimistic preconceptions of avian aerobatics. UC-Berkeley biologist-engineer Chris Clark has captured the steep death-defying 60 miles/h dive of the male Anna's on camera as they perform a carefully choreographed mating display (6). By taking high definition shots at 500 frames per second Clark estimates that g forces in the Anna's dive match those at which military fighter pilots black out (1). Males descend at such an angle and speed that their tail feathers vibrate at the appropriate acoustic frequency to woo female onlookers (6). When it comes to heroic feats, most hummer votaries will wax lyrical over the seasonal migrations of their feathered icons. Licensed 'banders' devote much time to the study of feeding and migration habits by crimping tiny uniquely-coded metal rings onto the hummers' toothpick-sized legs (7,8). And their work has brought the hummers' continent-wide peregrinations into sharp focus. Some fly as many as 6000 miles between North and Central America breeding in the temperate zones of the north and wintering in the warmer climes of the south (3). One species, the Ruby Throat, even endures an 18 hour, 500 mile long trek across the open waters of the Gulf of Mexico with no place to stop or feed, by storing the extra 2-3 grams of fat it needs to make it across (3).

The hummer story tells of irreducible complexity at key levels of functionality. Anatomically these birds require not only a unique hovering system and long beaks but also a heart that can keep up with their voracious appetites. And the exacting nature of their specific behaviors leaves little room for evolution's undirected mutational 'potshots'. Species like the Ruby Throat, for example, need to binge on the grub that will get them through their sea-crossing expedition. But their food quota must be carefully regulated. Too little nourishment means not enough energy to make it across. Too much nourishment and they risk over-weighting themselves and plunging into the unrelenting waters below.

There is one hummer that is indelibly etched into my wish list of nature's must-sees- the Peruvian Spatuletail (9). The furious waving of its long tail feathers during courtship has recently been captured on camera (9). And like everything else in the hummer, these movements are made at neck-breaking speed (9). The Spatuletail waves the spoon-shaped spatules at the ends of its feathers while hopping on a twig 14 times a second (10). Awakened by such feats, my parents and I indulged in a little ecotourism by traveling down to the Maquipucunia nature reserve about 50 miles to the north of Quito in Ecuador (9). Even though we knew little about the birds that graced the hills of this unspoiled paradise, we were able to appreciate the numerous hummers as they flaunted their iridescent colors. The setting could not have been more visually arresting. And while we never made it down to Peru what we saw more than made up for that particular missed opportunity.

Further Reading

1. Hummingbirds: Magic In The Air, See PBS Nature Special at http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/hummingbirds-magic-in-the-air/introduction/5424/

2. Mike Klesius (2007) Hummingbirds: Flight Of Fancy, National Geographic, January 2007, See http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2007/01/hummingbirds/klesius-text/1

3. How do Hummingbirds survive cold nights? Hummingbirds and Torpor, See http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2006/04/hummingbirds_and_torpor.php

4. Biologist's Lab at UC Riverside Is a Hummingbird Health Spa, See http://newsroom.ucr.edu/news_item.html?action=page&id=2233

5. Mary O'Leary (2009) Local filmmaker captures hummingbirds for PBS, New Haven Register, December 27th, 2009, See http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2009/12/27/news/new_haven/doc4b36ce70697f1930415349.txt

6. Robert Sanders (2008) Anna's hummingbird chirps with its tail, http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2008/01/30_hummingbird.shtml

7. Like Banding A Toothpick! Talking With Sarah Driver, Hummingbird Bander, See http://www.learner.org/jnorth/tm/humm/HumBander_Sarah.html

8. Hummer/Bird Banding Research Collaborative (HBBRC) http://www.hbrcnet.org/index.htm

9. The Maquipucunia Reserve: http://maqui.myweb.uga.edu/

10. Matt Walker (2009) A Marvelous Hummingbird Display, BBC Earth News, 3rd November, 2009, http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8338000/8338728.stm

Review Of Programming of Life By Donald Johnson, ISBN-10: 0982355467
By Robert Deyes
ARN Correspondent

There are some science writers that quite simply have a knack for combining the detail of their subject of expertise with a talent for exposition that a wide audience can easily understand. Donald Johnson is one of them. After carefully defining the various types of information- functional, prescriptive and Shannon- that information theorists have set out in their realm of study, Johnson takes the reader on a tour of cellular gene expression by focusing on the digital code of DNA. Shannon information, which provides a mathematical measure of improbability without regard to functionality does not help us in the description of life since the digital code of DNA is rich in what Johnson terms 'functional prescriptive information'.

While initiatives such as the Origin Of Life Prize have encouraged researchers to find non-super-naturalistic processes that might explain the origins of prescriptive information, no offerings to-date have withstood the test of scientific scrutiny. Indeed all known cases of such information invariably point to the work of a mind. Johnson emphasizes the relevance of probability in his espousal of this inference- the simplest form of life was found to be 10exp80,000 times more likely of having a mindful than a non-mindful source.

Johnson repeatedly stresses how the information content of DNA is analogous to the information carried on a computer disk drive.Within such a schema, each of the enzymes that decode the information can be seen as individual computers that bring meaning to the code through the RNA that is transcribed and the proteins that are translated. 23,000 genes make up the human genome. And the multi-functional nature of these genes in self evident in the way that RNAs are differentially spliced and glued together.

Johnson's perspective packs a might punch on the evolutionary edifice. Computer simulations and evolutionary algorithms such as MeThinksItIsLikeAWeasel and AVIDA have failed to show how evolution can generate prescriptive information since pre-specified targets, unrealistic protection of replication instructions and unrealistic energy rewards abound in each of these systems.

While the battle over the categorization of junk DNA rages on amongst biologists, Johnson gives us a succinct and well-buttressed view on the subject: "Researchers are discovering that what has been dismissed as evolution's relics are actually vital for life". There is no evidence that new prescriptive information can be built up by genetic rearrangements such as transposition, inversion, duplication or point mutation. We can therefore understand Lynn Margulis' reference to the Darwinian claim as a `half truth' grounded in religious ferocity. This half truth forms the foundation for Johnson's final attack as he considers the merits of irreducible complexity and Craig Venter's recently produced artificial genome. Rather than showing how an organism could arise from scratch, Venter's enterprising achievement revealed the need for careful engineering of existing parts into a form that could be introduced into an existing organism.

Johnson's writing style is captivating. The extensive range of resources he draws from only serves to build confidence in the factual accuracy of his case. What a terrific read. Sheer brilliance.

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

How do we know?

"Personally, given the ubiquity and propensity of life to flourish wherever it can, I would say, my own personal feeling is that the chances of life on this planet are 100 percent," said Steven Vogt, a professor of astronomy and astrophysics at the University of California, Santa Cruz, during a press briefing today.

"I have almost no doubt about it."

Well, that settles it, I guess.

James M. Kushiner points out, at Mere Comments blog, re Odds of Life on Nearby Planet '100 Percent,' Astronomer Says":

Did you hear about the astronomer, who said, get this, that the odds of life on nearby planet are 100 Percent? What was he thinking? What do astronomers know about biological life, and, besides, if the odds are 100 percent, then there are no odds--at least if I go to Arlington Race Track and find a horse that has a 100 percent chance of winning, they probably won't be taking bets on him. No odds there.

[ ... ]

I am not saying this planet could not support life. I am just wondering what are the chances that any given astronomer would peg a planet with so many unknowns or uncertainties with a probability of having life on it at 100 percent? Of course, if a news story is in play with a possible headline, I'd up those chances considerably, whatever they are.

If you want to read science, don't read the news.

Read more here.

Kushiner is editor of the science and popular culture mag Salvo, which publishes my Deprogram column, and many authors you recognize.

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, "Document Sheds Light on Investigation at Harvard (Chronicle Review, August 19, 2010)," Tom Bartlett reports that Harvard has told evolutionary psychologist Marc D. Hauser to explain issues around a few of his journal articles:

The experiment tested the ability of rhesus monkeys to recognize sound patterns. Researchers played a series of three tones (in a pattern like A-B-A) over a sound system. After establishing the pattern, they would vary it (for instance, A-B-B ) and see whether the monkeys were aware of the change. If a monkey looked at the speaker, this was taken as an indication that a difference was noticed.

The method has been used in experiments on primates and human infants. Mr. Hauser has long worked on studies that seemed to show that primates, like rhesus monkeys or cotton-top tamarins, can recognize patterns as well as human infants do. Such pattern recognition is thought to be a component of language acquisition.

Researchers watched videotapes of the experiments and "coded" the results, meaning that they wrote down how the monkeys reacted. As was common practice, two researchers independently coded the results so that their findings could later be compared to eliminate errors or bias.

According to the document that was provided to The Chronicle, the experiment in question was coded by Mr. Hauser and a research assistant in his laboratory. A second research assistant was asked by Mr. Hauser to analyze the results. When the second research assistant analyzed the first research assistant's codes, he found that the monkeys didn't seem to notice the change in pattern. In fact, they looked at the speaker more often when the pattern was the same. In other words, the experiment was a bust.

But Mr. Hauser's coding showed something else entirely: He found that the monkeys did notice the change in pattern—and, according to his numbers, the results were statistically significant. If his coding was right, the experiment was a big success.

Well, the long and short of it is that no one in Hauser's own lab could replicate his results.

The research that was the catalyst for the inquiry ended up being tabled, but only after additional problems were found with the data. In a statement to Harvard officials in 2007, the research assistant who instigated what became a revolt among junior members of the lab, outlined his larger concerns: "The most disconcerting part of the whole experience to me was the feeling that Marc was using his position of authority to force us to accept sloppy (at best) science."

Hauser was found to be solely responsible for the discrepancies, and as of the date of the Chronicle Review article, was on leave.

The whole story is testimony to the sheer need some have to prove that apes and monkeys are just fuzzy people or we are just naked apes. Life, whatever it is, is not that simple.

According to Hauser's Edge bio,

MARC D. HAUSER, an evolutionary psychologist and biologist, is Harvard College Professor, Professor of Psychology and Program in Neurosciences, and Director of Primate Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratory. He is the author of The Evolution of Communication, Wild Minds: What Animals Think, and Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong.

[ ... ]

Along with Irv Devore, he teaches the Evolution of Human Behavior class, a Core Course at Harvard with 500 undergraduate students. The interdisciplinary course, "Science B29" (nickname: "The Sex Course"), has been running for 30 years, was started by Devore and Robert Trivers, and is the second most popular course on campus, behind "Econ 10". Section teachers over the years comprise a who's who of leading thinkers and include people such as John Tooby and Leda Cosmides, and Sarah B. Hrdy. In 1997-98, he sponsored a trial run of "Edge University" in which the students in Science B29 received Edge mailing as part of required reading in the course.

Re his book, Wild Minds: What Animals Think, it was what humans think that proved his undoing.

See also:

Wisdom from your local zoo

Evolutionary psychology: All wrong all the time

Humans are unique - get used to it, or get therapy. Do NOT get a chimpanzee

Dogs more like humans than chimpanzees are?

"Loving" chimpanzee eats its victims alive, new research shows

New assessment of ape language skills is dramatically scaled back

A defense of Apes r us - and insider look at the pygmy chimpanzee enthusiasts

Apes R Not Us, and we have to get used to it

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

Conventional, and fairly obvious, wisdom would suggest that the bear avoids being noticed by its prey by blending in with the landscape and moving through the snow on silent feet. Evolving that way should be easy enough - the colour gene drops out, and ...

We readily assume that the prey is on land, casting a wary eye around. Not necessarily. Some remarkable BBC footage suggests it may not be so simple:

Here, you will hear the bear stomping and see it clearly visible above clear ice - as it would be to a seal approaching a blowhole. Presumably, the seal - apprised of an unexpected caller - goes to another of its many blowholes. But once the bear sits down to wait quietly at one ... which one is it? The bear, observed, is apparently lucky one time in ten, by invisible patience alone. I don't see that anything would change if the bear was green or purple or ...

Is it possible that white coats are favored because they are less conspicuous to other bears, who tend to be crabby and territorial much of the time?

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

Okay, pass on the zinger sauce. There's no insurance against head explosions.

I will be speaking at the God and Evolution event at Biola University in Los Angeles, October 16, 2010, on "Catholics and Evolution", from 10:50 - 11:15 am. They want $25 but the event lasts from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m, seems to include lunch, and a free copy of the book in which I have a chapter, God and Evolution.

Here are the details:

God And Evolution:

Protestants, Catholics, and Jews Explore Darwin's Challenge to Faith
with Marvin Olasky, Ph.D., Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., Ph.D., Jay Richards, Ph.D., Denyse O'Leary, John West, Ph.D., David Klinghoffer, Casey Luskin, J.D., Craig J. Hazen, Ph.D., John Bloom, Ph.D., Ph.D.

Click Here for more details & to RSVP now!

Can you believe in God and evolution at the same time? What is "theistic" evolution, and how consistent is it with traditional theism? What challenges does Darwin's theory pose for Protestants, Catholics, and Jews? Is it "anti-science" to question Darwinian theory? Explore these questions and more at this upcoming conference at Biola University.

Sponsored by the Discovery Institute and Biola's Master of Arts in Science and Religion.

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).

Darwinian "triggers to persuasion and captivation" read more like the seven deadly sins.

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

From my recent MercatorNet column:

The Darwinian world of brand marketing

We all know what evolutionary psychology (EP) has meant for sociology, psychology, and religious anthropology: a serious effort to explain human behaviour in terms of ape behaviour or "hardwired" Stone Age genes. For example, you get your selfish genes from your mother, so it's her fault if you don't visit her...

The EP academics, however pernicious their ideas, are doubtless just trying to understand. But what happens when their theories hit the business world? Fascinate: Your 7 Triggers to Persuasion and Captivation by Sally Hogshead (Harper Business, 2010) gives us a glimpse of the Darwinian universe, as opposed to the Judeo-Christian one.

Hogshead is a brand marketing specialist. She helps executives persuade us to pay more for a brand than for a reliable service. Her special theory, gathered from research studies of apes and brain scans, is that the best strategy is "fascinating" people, and she has identified seven triggers for the spells a perceptive marketer can cast on them: lust, mystique, alarm, prestige, power, vice, and trust.

This list vaguely echoes the seven deadly sins, except for the last. But caution! Here, trust is not an intuition about how the universe really works; it is manipulative. We are told, "trust doesn't demand a moral absolute - only absolute consistency." (p. 175)

Hogshead begins by disposing of free will. (MercatorNet, 30 September 2010) And she'll end by disposing of your bank account if you don't look sharp.

For example,

Still more news from the world of privilege: "Not so long ago, the height of epicurean indulgence was a gold box filled with Godiva chocolates ... Then, in an effort to expand, in 1999 Godiva made a fateful decision to distribute in mass retailers such as Barnes and Noble. The chocolates, which for the first time now included preservatives, were no longer a treat to be craved and desired. Now you could buy the gold box in strip malls. (Strip malls!)" (p. 79)

Huh? Does this writer really not know that millions of her fellow Americans crave the goods of strip malls in vain?

Read more here.

So tell me again, Uncle Doddy: Given the stats, how does sin promote survival - for anyone but the rackets downtown?

Denyse O'Leary is co-author of The Spiritual Brain.

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).