The ID Update

Despite the intense interest in transitional forms, nearly all the candidates offered for our attention relate to stages of diversification within an Order or Family assemblage. These provide examples of morphological change, but rarely bridge the discontinuities that distinguish the higher taxa. In a minireview, Rodney Honeycutt introduces the problem in this way:

"The evolutionary biologist George Gaylord Simpson defined major morphological discontinuities among higher taxa, specifically the orders of mammals, as the result of macroevolution or 'quantum evolution'. In many cases, these discontinuities lack fossil evidence of transitions, appearing as what Simpson termed 'breaks in the fossil record', [. . .]
These discontinuities, as well as the short time periods associated with the diversification of many mammalian orders, are still presenting a challenge to paleontologists, geneticists and developmental biologists attempting to reconstruct the 'Mammal Tree of Life', a first step in understanding the geological and biological processes that are responsible for mammalian diversity."

There are legitimate questions that need to be asked about this methodology of "attempting to reconstruct the 'Mammal Tree of Life'". The fossil data speaks 'discontinuity' but the evolutionary biologists are committed to 'continuity' (common ancestry). They do not ask the question whether some or all of these discontinuities are real. The 'common ancestry' theoretical model governs completely the way research proceeds and what outcomes are deemed acceptable.

Evolutionary biology is locked within the common ancestry paradigm, and discontinuities merely provide structure for the classification. (Source: go here.)

Molecular data provides another avenue for developing cladograms and, subsequently, evolutionary trees. The methodology in general use adopts the same evolutionary presuppositions - namely, that all taxa can be fitted into the theoretical model known as the Tree of Life. Sometimes, the molecular data and the morphological data complement each other, but there are numerous examples of conflict. One of these, noted by Honeycutt, concerns the Afrotheria. This group of African animals has been defined using genetic data and links together elephants, manatees and dugongs, hyraxes, elephant shrews, aardvarks, golden moles and otter shrews.

"The superorder Afrotheria is another challenging case of morphological discontinuity in mammalian evolution, containing animals as morphologically distinct as elephants and aardvarks. [. . .] Despite the obvious morphological differences distinguishing the members of this superorder, extensive molecular phylogenetic studies consistently support a monophyletic origin for the Afrotheria (that is, the group all descend from a single common ancestor). But there are few unequivocal morphological synapomorphies (shared-derived characteristics) supporting monophyly of this clade. As indicated by Archibald, the superorder is "not predicted by fossils"."

This tension can be eased, it is proposed, via the evo-devo approach. Honeycutt refers to recent work on the genetics of mammalian tooth formation, with some very tentative conclusions. He then links this research with the general message emerging from evo-devo advocates and declares:

"As with many other examples, changes in gene regulation probably account for morphological similarities and differences among the Afrotheria."

Turning to bats, which appear abruptly in the fossil record, Honeycutt's review leads to the same general explanation:

"it is now clear that small changes in the spatiotemporal pattern of gene expression during development account for the dramatic changes represented by the chiropteran forelimb, and the genes responsible are beginning to be identified. [. . .] Although the processes responsible for the evolution of powered flight in mammals are not yet known in detail, these comparative studies indicate that small changes in the timing and extent of expression in key genes can have large developmental effects."

Reading this minireview has raised some serious concerns about the way evolutionary biology is practised.
1. There is an unhealthy dominance of the Tree of Life presupposition. This is steering and controlling thinking and effectively cuts off other avenues of legitimate enquiry (e.g. are the discontinuities real?).
2. There is a tendency to elevate tentative research findings to the status of being a panacea for solving major research questions. The reported research is said to be in its infancy, with very little known in detail, but this does not prevent drawing grand (and unwarranted) conclusions. Evo-devo enthusiasts should be more open to the possibility that their research is uncovering vast storehouses of complex specified information that explains stasis and diversification within an Order or Family but actually prevents transformation between discontinuities.

Small changes, big results: evolution of morphological discontinuity in mammals
Rodney L Honeycutt
Journal of Biology, March 2008, 7:9, 1-4 | doi:10.1186/jbiol71

Abstract: Comparative morphological and developmental studies, including a recent comparative study of tooth development among the Afrotherian mammals, are indicating the types of genetic mechanisms responsible for the evolution of morphological differences among major mammalian groups.

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Men and women communicate differently, an irritated commenter informed me over at Mindful Hack.

Science has settled the issue!

Well, I am not sure that the matter is simple enough to be "settled" by science.

And, as it happens, the Gender Genie has just popped out of its lamp or castaway bottle or whatever today's genies use, to provide me with a handy tool.

Using an algorithm developed by Moshe Koppel, Bar-Ilan University in Israel, and Shlomo Argamon, Illinois Institute of Technology, you can find out whether the genie thinks you are a man or a woman by submitting a sample of your writing.

Given that the genie works best on texts of more than 500 words, I decided to submit my five most recent columns for ChristianWeek.

What do YOU think the Genie discovered from analyzing my writing?
Go here to find out, or to test your won writing, if you wish. (Hint: The Genie disagrees with my doctor ...)

Also Today at The Mindful Hack

American Psychological Association reviewer likes The Spiritual Brain!

Neuroscience: Let the machine read your mind! We offer an instalment plan ...

Neuroscientist Mario Bearegard's New Dimensions Café interview

Monks lead protest for civil rights in Tibet

Social science: Why are the religious more charitable?

Neuroscience and the arts: But how does meat think?

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 forthcoming The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul (Harper 2007).

Katherine Phan, of the Christian Post, reports that The Florida Senate's pre-K-through-12 education committee approved a bill Wednesday that protects teachers who include theories questioning evolution in their coverage of the much-debated topic.

Legislators voted 4-1 to advance the "Academic Freedom Act," or SB2692, which provides "public school teachers with a right to present scientific information relevant to the full range of views" on evolution.

More...

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

I was in a press conference this afternoon for the Expelled documentary (about scientists who are persecuted for questioning Darwinism and other materialist evolution theories). Ben Stein, the film's lead, producer Mark Mathis, and others were there.

Mathis confirmed that he kicked PZ Myers out of the film to make a point (Myers endorses the destruction of the careers of those who question Darwinism, yet he was really upset about getting booted from a film).

And ... Myers apparently somehow got into the press conference itself! - "under false pretences" according to the moderator. He was told to be quiet, and he rung off (to the best of my knowledge). He told the media to phone HIM instead. Greg, at Hollywood Jesus live blogged the affair and is promising updates.

For more, go here.

Pretty clever operator, the man who said,

The only appropriate response should involve some form of righteous fury, much butt-kicking, and the public firing of some teachers, many school board members, and vast numbers of sleazy, far-right politicians … I say, screw the polite words and careful rhetoric. It's time for scientists to break out the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles, and get out there and hammer on the lunatics and idiots.

Strangely, while he was in the telemeeting, Myers insisted that Darwinism had nothing to do with Nazi Germany. Of course, historically, Darwin was an enormous influence on the Nazis because his Descent of Man appeared to put racism on a scientific footing. That does not mean (and the Expelled guys made clear that they did not think it means) that today's Darwinists have anything to do with Nazism. But it is a historical fact that Darwin was one of the Nazis' heroes, as historian Richard Weikart painstakingly shows.

Note: I update the Expelled story at this page, to keep it all in one place. So if you are intrested in my coverage, it is all there by date.

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 forthcoming The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul (Harper 2007).

During this past week a new war was declared that went unnoticed by most Americans. And it was announced in the most unlikely venue of movie theatres all across America, where previews of the new movie "Expelled", starring Ben Stein, were being screened. I attended one such showing in Seattle on March 24th, and while I was struck with the Fahrenheit 9/11-like approach it takes, I was more smitten with the impact this movie is going to have on American culture in coming days and years. Mark my words, the debate between evolution and Darwin skeptics is about to take a seminal turn with the release of this film, which I consider to be a significant tipping point with far reaching and long lasting effects.

Years ago Rosa Parks got on a bus and sat where she shouldn't have - a form of protest letting the world know she'd had enough. Ben Stein, about as unlikely a candidate as Rosa for similar notoriety, has now done much the same thing, only this time the issue isn't about racial prejudice, it's about prejudice against those who question any aspect of evolution. And this time the vehicle for the protest isn't a bus, but a documentary.

In this must-see documentary, Stein traverses across America and even to Paris and Germany in search of experts who can provide him with rational answers to questions about why it is that Darwin skeptics are treated so poorly and why dissent over evolution is such a no-no. He ends up taking a contemplative review of the Holocaust and then sits down one-on-one with Richard Dawkins (one of the most outspoken atheists of our day) in what starts out as a needling of Dawkin's views on God but ends up with Dawkins making some very embarassing admissions about Intelligent Design, which leaves viewers thinking - wait a minute - Dawkins is not arguing against the notion of Intelligent Design, just one particular brand of ID. You'll need to see the movie to learn which brand he opposes. The movie injects lots of humor via appropriately placed 1950's era black and white film snippets, and many belly laughs are to be had. And, during Ben Stein's sobering reflections on the Holocaust, you'll be able to hear a pin drop anywhere in the theatre.

While most Americans are likely aware of some level of conflict between evolution and creation in our culture, most have not been informed about the degree of ubiquitous and absolute seething hatred and intolerance that has been growing ever more hostile in academia and the halls of science against Darwin skeptics for the past several decades. Academia largely regards Darwin doubters as the intellectual lepers of our day, and have exacted untold misery as their nefarious acts of discrimination, persecution, and good-old-boy politiking have been allowed to run rampant against students, scientists, and professors. I'm not kidding when I say it's been a career bloodbath, and is perhaps THE reason why there seem to be so few people in science and academia today who openly challenge any aspect of evolution. For those who have managed to survive with their careers intact, rather than risk professional suicide, many prefer to stay in the closet.

Expelled will bring all of this home to viewers, and will provide them with a glimpse of what has been going on by presenting case studies of a handful of victims of this discrimination. What Expelled does not explore is the agonizing after-effects created by the treatment extended to many other victims. Not mentioned in this movie is the fact that some marriages and families have collapsed under the strain, and some have been driven to such depths of desperation and depression as a result of how they were treated that they committed suicide. And though Expelled hints at the likelihood that other victims have been discriminated against, viewers might wonder if the movie exaggerates the idea of widespread discrimination and persecution. Well, as someone who has studied and investigated this issue for over a quarter century, allow me to add my two cents: Expelled reveals just the tip of the iceburg. There have been literally thousands of instances where qualified students have been denied degrees, scientists and science writers have been fired, and professors have been denied tenure (or were moved to their University basement if they already had tenure) only because they questioned some aspect of evolution.

Even our government, which is sworn to uphold the rights and freedoms of Americans, has largely stood idly by to what can only be described as one of the most blatant forms of discrimination currently being practiced openly in America today. And now the release of "Expelled" not only opens a window on the wall of demagaugery but has already become a very hot topic even before it's release on April 18th.

Blogster and University of Minnesota Associate professor PZ Myers, one of the more strident opponents of Darwin skeptics and featured in the film, found himself on the receiving end of a mild form of the same treatment he likes to dish out to Darwin Doubters - he was expelled from the screening of "Expelled". Though claiming that he found such treatment to be laughable, his brand of hatred for those who question evolution is no laughing matter. And believe me when I say that when American moviegoers view Expelled next month, they won't be laughing either as they leave theatres.

This is the kind of rhetoric Myers throws out on his web site:

"The only appropriate response should involve some form of righteous fury, much butt-kicking, and the public firing of some teachers, many school board members, and vast numbers of sleazy, far-right politicians … I say, screw the polite words and careful rhetoric. It's time for scientists to break out the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles, and get out there and hammer on the lunatics and idiots."
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/03/get_meaner_angrier_louder_fier.php

(note - this is a blended quote from two different Myers sources)

Myers, ever on alert for others who share his appetite for roasting evolution skeptics, is quick to post comments on his blog from others who are like-minded. Take this one for example:

"I'd like to suggest a very simple strategy for American liberals: Get mean. Stop policing the language and start using it to hurt our enemies. American liberals are so busy purging their speech of any words that might offend anyone that they have no notion of using language to cause some salutary pain." http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/80507/?page=1

This is an open call to encourage even more hate speech directed at Darwin Doubters of all stripes.

But Expelled reveals that this is much more than simply a war of words: real people are losing real careers right and left, all because they dare to dissent against one or more aspects of evolution.

And while PZ Myers critcizes Expelled, saying

"Unlike watching a movie, being awarded a professorship should require some substantial understanding of a discipline"

I would counter by suggesting that Expelled pulls back the hypocrisy of such misleading statments by revealing that "understanding of a discipline" is NOT the issue here. Many people with plenty of understanding and competence have been egregiously eviscerated from their careers simply because they dared to dissent. Make no mistake, this debate is not just a polite dialogue about a conceptual disagreement - its all about how to rid the planet of those lying, stupid, ignorant fundies. As Expelled gets viewed nationwide, I predict both sides will see this event as a defining moment of truth: can we really afford to allow our freedoms to get thrashed in the name of militant and arrogant demagoguery? If there was ever any need of evidence for the depth of hatred harbored against people who disagree about evolution, the PZ Myers blog has plenty to offer. The hate speech alone ought to give any rational American pause. We don't tolerate such talk against minorities on the basis of race or sexual preference, so I have to ask why we would tolerate it against Darwin skeptics? The answer is (according to those of Myers' ilk) because they are perceived to be "religious kooks", and that is considered to be reason enough for them.

Here's a wake up call to my readers: If you think Myers' comments (and those from others who respond to his blog) are directed only against "fundamentalist" creation science advocates, think again. The intolerance extends way beyond that small group to include evolutionists who have doubts (because they give comfort to the "enemy") -- that means literally anyone who is skeptical about any aspect of neo-Darwinian logic is a target of Myers-like inquisitioning. Who are the likely targets? If you are a teacher, and you want to share periodical articles from widely respected and refereed science journals -- articles that question some aspect of evolution -- you are a target. If you are a student, you will be asked "Do you fully believe in evolution?" If you say no - then kiss your GPA goodbye, look for a special love note in your school transcript, brace yourself for hard questions during your oral exams (designed to deny you a degree), and forget about that summer science project you were hoping to participate in. Do you question evolutionary suppositions based on non-religious reasons (as is true of many evolutionists and ID advocates?) Too bad - you too are a target, and worse, your doubts will be earmarked as "religious" no matter how much you might protest.

As Expelled makes clear, declaring yourself a Darwin skeptic in today's culture is the absolute kiss of death for those seeking a career in many university and scientific venues in America today.

But, as bad as all that is, why else is Expelled so important? Two big reasons.

First, for the simple reason that it marks a turning point. No longer will Americans be able to say they are unaware of what is going on with regard to this issue - this movie will forever be remembered as the vehicle that brought this issue out of the background and into the mainstream. And second, because at the end of this movie, Ben Stein issues a call to action. This is where the value factor of this movie hits home. The movie is not just an expose. It ends with Stein issuing a challenge to viewers: now that you've seen this, what are you going to do about it?

Incredibly, those who oppose Darwin skeptics are already coming out of the woodwork with their own call to action because of this movie using flaming rhetoric much like that of PZ Myers. And we have "Expelled" to thank for this, because it has taken an issue that has been simmering in the background and exposed it publicly for what it is. Critics like Myers relish the thought of tearing this movie apart:

I will go see this movie, and I will cheer loudly at my 30 seconds or whatever on the screen, and I will certainly disembowel its arguments here and in any print venue that wants me. That's going to be fun.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/im_gonna_be_a_movie_star.php

However, Myers and Co. fail to acknowledge the legitimacy of a central claim in this movie - that freedom of expression is under attack. No amount of "disembowelment" will get around that point, in fact, it simply underscores it.

That's why I say that for Darwin skeptics of all stripes, Expelled is our vehicle, and Ben Stein is our Rosa Parks.

That's not meant to be quaint, PZ - its meant to let you know that you're going to find yourself kicked out of more than a movie screening down the road.

Oh, and I should also mention that a new book will be coming out soon called "Slaughter of the Dissidents". That book will add even more insight to this issue as it chronicles the despicable and often heart-wrenching forms of intimidatiion, bigotry, prejudice, attacks on our freedoms, and outright discrimination that has been an ongoing blight in academia for years. It will pick up where Expelled left off. Stay tuned to this blog for more info on this in coming weeks.

Seattle area writer and Darwin skeptic Kevin Wirth is the publisher and editor of the forthcoming book "Slaughter of the Dissidents: The Shocking Truth About Killing the Careers of Darwin Doubters" by Dr. Jerry Bergman. He has investigated and researched issues related to the persecution of Darwin Doubters since 1982.

"The tuatara (Sphenodon punctatus), found only in New Zealand, is the last surviving member of a distinct reptilian order Sphenodontia that lived alongside early dinosaurs and separated from other reptiles in the Upper Triassic."

Tuatara declared world's fastest evolving animal

The tuatara is so close to fossil forms that it has been dubbed a "living fossil". Animals like this were contemporary with dinosaurs. They are not typical reptiles. They have several uncommon physiological features:

"They have low body temperatures (they are active down to 5 deg C in the wild); slow rates of growth (about 50 cm in 35 years); a slow metabolism; a long generation time (sexual maturity at 10-15 years) and a slow reproductive rate (at 2- to 5-year intervals)."

Since slowness is a characteristic, it has been assumed that this is relevant to the lack of morphological change. "It has been argued that generation time, metabolic rate, body temperature and body size modulate the rate of neutral molecular evolution." This has led to an expectation that rates of neutral DNA sequence evolution also would be slow. So this is what the new research has tested.

Mitochondrial DNA has been used, taken from living animals and from sub-fossil bones ranging in age from 650 to 8750 radiocarbon years. The results were surprising:

"The rate estimates [. . .] show that the evolutionary rate of the tuatara HVR regions is the highest among the vertebrate species studied to date.This rate is >50% faster than that of other vertebrates."
[and, after exploring alternative explanations - ]
"These factors further confirm that there was minimal post-mortem damage to the DNA, that the ancient sequences obtained are authentic and that the unexpectedly high tuatara evolutionary rates are real."

The researchers have expressed some surprise at this finding. In their paper, they say: "Given this high rate of molecular evolution, the stable morphology of tuatara over tens of millions of years is remarkable." Their Press Release has this:

"Of course we would have expected that the tuatara, which does everything slowly - they grow slowly, reproduce slowly and have a very slow metabolism - would have evolved slowly," Lambert said. "In fact, at the DNA level, they evolve extremely quickly."

The paper points out that their findings challenge many hypotheses and notions about evolutionary change. The most substantial conclusion that can be drawn is that it supports the general hypothesis that the rate of molecular evolution is not coupled to the rate of morphological evolution. But this, of course, challenges the neoDawinian synthesis, which insists on small incremental changes acted on by natural selection.

The authors do not discuss the more fundamental question of how far DNA information is responsible for the form of organisms, or whether the form of organisms is determined by other information embodied in embryonic cells. This question is not being asked by Darwinists, who insist that all biological information must be traced back to the genome. However, some biologists (including those advocating Intelligent Design) are actively exploring alternatives.
"Previous studies on living fossils such as the coelacanth and the horseshoe crab have suggested a substantial nucleotide diversity in these phylogenetically distinct species, perhaps indirectly suggesting a high evolutionary rate."
The evidence is accumulating that much contemporary evolutionary theory is not supported by data. If you want a prediction arising out of the tuatara research, it is that the gulf between the genome and the development of form will widen, and the association of molecular evolution with morphological evolution will be weakened.

Rapid molecular evolution in a living fossil
Jennifer M. Hay, Sankar Subramanian, Craig D. Millar, Elmira Mohandesan and David M. Lambert
Trends in Genetics, March 2008, 24(3), 106-109.

Abstract: The tuatara of New Zealand is a unique reptile that coexisted with dinosaurs and has changed little morphologically from its Cretaceous relatives. Tuatara have very slow metabolic and growth rates, long generation times and slow rates of reproduction. This suggests that the species is likely to exhibit a very slow rate of molecular evolution. Our analysis of ancient and modern tuatara DNA shows that, surprisingly, tuatara have the highest rate of molecular change recorded in vertebrates. Our work also suggests that rates of neutral molecular and phenotypic evolution are decoupled.

See also:

Tuatara, the fastest evolving animal, EurekAlert, 20 March 2008

The controversy around Premise Media's upcoming movie Ben Stein's EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed became the hottest topic in the blogosphere. According to BlogPulse, a service of Nielsen Buzzmetrics, the issue held the number one slot throughout the day on Monday, March 24th (http://www.blogpulse.com). There were also over 800 results on Technorati (www.technorati.com).

"It is amazing to see the reaction of PZ Myers, Richard Dawkins and their cohorts when one of them is simply expelled from a movie. Yet these men applaud when professors throughout the nation are fired from their jobs and permanently excluded from their profession for mentioning Intelligent Design," said producer Mark Mathis. Mathis was at the event that has raised this controversy.

--------------------------------------------------------

Some are wondering why Premise did not use Myers' comment about taking out the steel toes boots and brass knuckles.

This shows Myers expicit intemperance and hostility.

More...

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

At Overwhelming Evidence, today, I reflect on the comments of Matthew Nisbet at the Framing Science blog.

His comments are a more interesting - and far more significant - illustration of what is wrong with science today than the uproar over Myers's ejection from the Expelled screening.

In his post, Nisbet pleads with Dawkins and Myers to just pipe down.

They are doing more harm than good by linking science with atheism, and he knows that that is not good public relations.

Look, it’s just not good public relations, okay? Things go on from there ...

[ ... ]

Note: I have myself attempted to resolve Myers's expulsion problem by paying for his ticket, if he will agree to watch the whole film, and not run out to trash it halfway through or something similar. I have e-mailed producer Mark Mathis with my offer. It will likely cost me US$8.00 or so, and my freelance writing business can easily spring for it.

It is much easier to solve Myers's problem about getting a ticket than to solve the more serious, science-related problems detailed in the documentary - the problems of people whose careers were destroyed by Darwinists simply because they know reasons why Darwinism isn't true.

For more, go 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 forthcoming The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul (Harper 2007).

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Why was an American Darwin fan kicked out of the screening of Expelled?

Templeton winner trashes design?

The Big Bang as a creationist theory

At last, a useful encyclopedia entry on intelligent design theory

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 forthcoming The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul (Harper 2007).

Human beings are much better talking about Darwinism than being explained by it. One of the major anomalies concerns altruism. Despite the many proposals to explain, on biological grounds, why humans help others before looking after their own interests, the central questions are still unresolved. Consequently, Darwinists continue to search for ways of interpreting altruistic behaviour in a way consistent with selfish genes.

We need a philosophy of life that allows us to make sense of all our experiences

New research emanating from social psychology brings challenges to economists as well as Darwinists. The starting point was the question: "Can money buy happiness?" Several studies have found that, once basic needs are met, happiness levels are not correlated with income.

"Indeed, although real incomes have surged dramatically in recent decades, happiness levels have remained largely flat within developed countries across time. One of the most intriguing explanations for this counterintuitive finding is that people often pour their increased wealth into pursuits that provide little in the way of lasting happiness, such as purchasing costly consumer goods."

The finding is counterintuitive because the received wisdom in economics is that "spending money on yourself gives the greatest happiness bang for the buck". Against this is growing evidence that "prosocial behaviour" brings significant experiences of happiness to benefactors. The researchers devised three methods of testing their hypothesis that altruism promotes happiness. These involved a survey of the spending behaviour of 632 Americans, an analysis of the actual spending patterns of bonuses given to employees by a Boston-based company, and a spending behaviour experiment utilising psychology undergraduates. In all cases, emphasis was not on disposable income, but on patterns of expenditure (whether on self or on others). In all three avenues of enquiry, "happiness correlated with the amount of money people spent on others rather than the absolute amount of the bonus or income".

"Dunn says the results "confirmed our hypothesis more strongly than we dared to dream." The effects of altruistic spending are probably akin to those of exercise, she notes, which can have immediate and long-term effects. Giving once might make a person happy for a day, but "if it becomes a way of living, then it could make a lasting difference," she says."

According to the ScienceNOW report, these results will surprise most economists. A UK academic is reported as saying: "It's an intriguing result you won't find in Economy 101 textbooks". It is worth adding that the observed behaviours do not fit well into Darwinian thinking either, because no genetic advantage ensues from these forms of altruism.

In situations like this, it is reasonable to ask fundamental questions about the validity of the conceptual framework of the theorists. In particular, have economists and evolutionary biologists got the right tools for understanding human behaviour? Answering this question takes us far beyond the scope of this blog, but here are a few thoughts to suggest a way ahead.
There are millions of people around the world who are not at all surprised by the research findings. They have learned that it is better to give than to receive - from a Teacher whom they regard as the supreme example of self-sacrifice. They have proved by practical experience that it is worth excelling in generosity. This message is particularly relevant today - Easter Day 2008. For these people, the human race cannot be understood solely in terms of material entities. When economists and evolutionary biologists come to recognise that design permeates all aspects of human nature, this will be a big step forward towards the development of a holistic worldview.

Spending Money on Others Promotes Happiness
Elizabeth W. Dunn, Lara B. Aknin, and Michael I. Norton
Science, 319, 21 March 2008: 1687-1688.

Although much research has examined the effect of income on happiness, we suggest that how people spend their money may be at least as important as how much money they earn. Specifically, we hypothesized that spending money on other people may have a more positive impact on happiness than spending money on oneself. Providing converging evidence for this hypothesis, we found that spending more of one's income on others predicted greater happiness both cross-sectionally (in a nationally representative survey study) and longitudinally (in a field study of windfall spending). Finally, participants who were randomly assigned to spend money on others experienced greater happiness than those assigned to spend money on themselves.

Youngsteadt, E., The Secret to Happiness? Giving, ScienceNOW Daily News, 20 March 2008

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Apparently, an uproar has erupted over the fact that well-known Darwinist PZ Myers was not permitted to attend a screening of the Expelled movie - but Richard Dawkins was! (Expelled, starring Ben Stein, deals with the persecution of scientists whose work unearths evidence against atheist materialism.)

I don't know what to think, but this comes to mind. If PZ can trash The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul without reading it, surely, he can trash a film without seeing 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 forthcoming The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul (Harper 2007).

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Religion in the United States: Cool new mythbuster tool

Forensic audit clears prayer palace

Neuroscience: ID-friendly neurosurgeon uses design inference

Neuroscience: Beware the evil moron neuron defense!

Amateur atheism? Religion prof says it is best left to the pros (and he DOESN'T mean Richard Dawkins)

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 forthcoming The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul (Harper 2007).

A new, provocative book, attempts to take a middle road in the origins and evolution debate.

Born in London, Shaun Johnston's father was a Church of England clergyman, He read biochemistry at London's University College, then turned to graphic design. On moving to New York City he became a medical and science writer.

He claims his upbringing makes him immune to the lure of the supernatural. He says he matured first into epiphenomalism, from that into a non-supernatural intelligent design theory. As a result he finds himself lodged halfway between the two extremes of scientific materialism and creationism.

This could be a unique niche...an atheist who believes in intelligent design. Excuse me? See for yourself.

More...

The Fairfax Community Church, in Fairfax, Virgina, invites all ASA members in the area to participate in their conference "Awesome Wonders: The Genome, the Oceans, and the Heavens".

Details...

For years, we have been told that whilst most mammals can make Vitamin C from glucose, this ability is absent in humans, higher primates, guinea pigs and fruit bats. This trait, we are told, has an evolutionary explanation: an "inborn metabolic error" associated with an unfortunate mutation in past times. Instead of a gene for synthesising Vitamin C, these animals have a pseudogene. As a consequence, humans have struggled with scurvy whenever our diets have lacked natural sources of Vitamin C. The most vivid example of this involved British seamen in the late 18th century, who were eventually supplied with limes to avoid succumbing to the disease.

For a sailor, some lime juice a day keeps scurvy away

However, the loss of function story does not stop there. New research reveals a fascinating twist.

"[T]he red blood cells of the handful of vitamin C-defective species are specially equipped to suck up the vitamin's oxidized form, so-called L-dehydroascorbic acid (DHA) [. . .]. Once inside the blood cells, that DHA--which is immediately transformed back into ascorbic acid (a.k.a. vitamin C) - can be efficiently carried through the bloodstream to the rest of the body."

Emphasis really should be given to the word "efficiently". Animals making Vitamin C do not appear to be particularly adept at using it. "The recommended daily dose of vitamin C for humans is just one mg/kg, while goats, for example, produce the vitamin at a striking rate of 200 mg/kg each day." The remarkable efficiency of human red blood cells is described as a form of recycling:

"In essence, the red cells of animals that can't make vitamin C recycle what little they've got. Earlier studies had described the recycling process, Taylor said. "Our contribution to the whole story is to show that this process of recycling exists specifically in mammals that don't make vitamin C.""

This research is framed within an evolutionary perspective:

"Evolution is amazing. Even though people talk about this as an 'inborn error'--a metabolic defect that all humans have--there is also this incredible manner in which we've responded to the defect, using some of the body's most plentiful cells," said Naomi Taylor of Universite Montpellier I and II in France, noting that the body harbors billions of red blood cells. "[Through evolution], we've created this system that takes out the oxidized form of vitamin C and transports the essential, antioxidant form."

However, the research is also perfectly capable of a design perspective. Animals generating Vitamin C do not use it very efficiently. The alternative system of efficient recyling of Vitamin C in the diet avoids making for waste and, most of the time, it works very well. The only problems are when diets leave out foods that supply the Vitamin C. Instead of thinking of this mechanism as an evolutionary adaptation, the new research reveals processes that have optimised functionality.

Erythrocyte Glut1 Triggers Dehydroascorbic Acid Uptake in Mammals Unable to Synthesize Vitamin C
Amelie Montel-Hagen, Sandrina Kinet, Nicolas Manel, Cedric Mongellaz, Rainer Prohaska, Jean-Luc Battini, Jean Delaunay, Marc Sitbon, and Naomi Taylor
Cell, Vol 132, 1039-1048, 21 March 2008

Summary: Of all cells, human erythrocytes express the highest level of the Glut1 glucose transporter. However, the regulation and function of Glut1 during erythropoiesis are not known. Here, we report that glucose transport actually decreases during human erythropoiesis despite a >3-log increase in Glut1 transcripts. In contrast, Glut1-mediated transport of L-dehydroascorbic acid (DHA), an oxidized form of ascorbic acid (AA), is dramatically enhanced. We identified stomatin, an integral erythrocyte membrane protein, as regulating the switch from glucose to DHA transport. Notably though, we found that erythrocyte Glut1 and associated DHA uptake are unique traits of humans and the few other mammals that have lost the ability to synthesize AA from glucose. Accordingly, we show that mice, a species capable of synthesizing AA, express Glut4 but not Glut1 in mature erythrocytes. Thus, erythrocyte-specific coexpression of Glut1 with stomatin constitutes a compensatory mechanism in mammals that are unable to synthesize vitamin C.

See also:

Troadec, M-B. and Kaplan, J. Some Vertebrates Go with the GLO, Cell, Vol 132, 921-922, 21 March 2008.

How Humans Make Up For An 'Inborn' Vitamin C Deficiency, ScienceDaily (Mar. 21, 2008)

Christianity Today reports that several critics have worked their way in to some of the screenings, most notably Roger Moore of The Orlando Sentinel, who recently trashed the movie in his blog.

A critic of another kind "crashed" a screening in Minnesota on Thursday night - Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion and arguably the most outspoken critic of Intelligent Design and Creationism. Dawkins himself appears in the documentary - but claims he was duped into believing it was going to be an objective account of Darwinism vs. ID.

More...

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

There has been a Darwinian vs. human-directed evolution experiment running in North America for centuries. It is the horse.

That is, the mustang vs. humanly directed horse breeds. What did natural selection do? What did intelligent design (specified complexity) do?

For more, go 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 forthcoming The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul (Harper 2007).

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Language matters.

And my recent search on the terms "post-Darwinist" and "post-Darwinian" suggests that getting over Darwin may be catching on. Check the figures.

I would not have named my personal blog the "Post-Darwinist" in April 2005 if the use of the term then had been anything like what it is now.

Someone else searched on "intelligent design", minus the supposed chief culprits (you can do that with a Google Advanced search), also with some very interesting results.

And all this in the year of ridiculous Darwin hagiography - with more to come in 2009!

Excerpt:

When I first started researching this controversy in 2001, I kept turning up promotional copy for products or ideas that show "intelligent design".

Today I doubt that Hill Clinton could claim that her proposed health care program shows "intelligent design" without igniting an uproar. But twenty years ago, a politician could have put it that way without controversy.

That too is a cultural change.

Legacy media are losing this one and they deserve to. They did not examine the issues, they simply dusted off stale story formulas.

For more go
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 forthcoming The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul (Harper 2007).

Whatever you think of Rush Limbaugh, one thing is sure; he has influence. Seems he got a hand delivered copy of Expelled from Ben Stein. Check out his take on the upcoming documentary.

More...

The New World Encyclopedia has an entry for Intelligent Design available online that fairly and accurately represents ID concepts and history. It is well referenced and includes a list of books and websites that are both pro and con ID. This entry is highly recommend for any student doing a report on ID.

With the Darwin celebrations gaining momentum, it is worth noting an acknowledgment of error in the great man's thinking. The Press Release says: "Study shows Darwin was wrong about the origins of chickens" and this was echoed in some media reports. Darwin wrote he was confident that the domestic chicken was descended from the red junglefowl, but this turns out to be incorrect.

The yellow legs of chickens reveal their hybrid origin

The clue is in the yellow leg colouration which links to a genetic marker. This marker is not present in the red junglefowl but it is found in the grey junglefowl. The inference is that domestication involved hybridisation. Co-author Greger Larson said:

"Darwin recognized the importance of studying domestic animals as a model of evolution and this insight has proved enormously influential. The ironic thing is that he believed that dogs were hybrids of several wild ancestors but that chickens only had one, and he was wrong on both counts."

Why are these matters worthy of note? Not because Darwin happened to be wrong in his judgment in this matter, because new knowledge has come about with new evidence. We can be confident that Darwin would have changed his mind in the light of this research.

Rather, it is worthy of note because it contrasts strongly with far more important errors Darwin made that are not being brought to the attention of the public. He confused artificial and natural selection; he grossly exaggerated what natural selection is able to do; he assumed variation has no limits; he advanced the concept of common ancestry despite numerous evidences of discontinuity; he dabbled with inheritance by pangenesis (which we don't hear a lot about nowadays); and tried to present embryology and early development as evidence for his theory. We are not confident that Darwin would have changed his mind in the light of new evidences relating to these issues, because Darwin was primarily deductive in his thinking. He was not an empiricist who saw science developing by the testing of hypotheses but be brought a theoretical model to the data and explored 'best fit' scenarios. This approach he learned from Charles Lyell, who did much the same for geological science in his Principles of Geology. We have moved beyond Lyellism in the Earth Sciences - it is time we moved beyond Darwinism in the biological sciences. (For more on moving beyond Darwinism, go here.)

Identification of the Yellow Skin Gene Reveals a Hybrid Origin of the Domestic Chicken
Eriksson J, Larson G, Gunnarsson U, Bed'hom B, Tixier-Boichard M, et al. (2008)
PLoS Genetics, March 2008, 4(2): e1000010 | doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1000010

Abstract: Yellow skin is an abundant phenotype among domestic chickens and is caused by a recessive allele (W*Y) that allows deposition of yellow carotenoids in the skin. Here we show that yellow skin is caused by one or more cis-acting and tissue-specific regulatory mutation(s) that inhibit expression of BCDO2 (beta-carotene dioxygenase 2) in skin. Our data imply that carotenoids are taken up from the circulation in both genotypes but are degraded by BCDO2 in skin from animals carrying the white skin allele (W*W). Surprisingly, our results demonstrate that yellow skin does not originate from the red junglefowl (Gallus gallus), the presumed sole wild ancestor of the domestic chicken, but most likely from the closely related grey junglefowl (Gallus sonneratii). This is the first conclusive evidence for a hybrid origin of the domestic chicken, and it has important implications for our views of the domestication process.

See also:

Study shows Darwin was wrong about the origins of chickens, EurekAlert, 29-Feb-2008

Highfield, R., Darwin was wrong about (chicken) evolution, The Daily Telegraph, 29 February 2008.

Darwin C., 1868. The variation of animals and plants under domestication. London: John Murray. Volume 1, Chapter VII, Fowls, 236-237.
From the extremely close resemblance in colour, general structure, and especially in voice, between Gallus bankiva and the Game fowl; from their fertility, as far as this has been ascertained, when crossed; from the possibility of the wild species being tamed, and from its varying in the wild state, we may confidently look at it as the parent of the most typical of all the domestic breeds, namely, the Game-fowl.

In Scoop Independent News, Susan Mazur reports that atheist evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins spoke to a packed auditorium at Manhattan's Ethical Culture Society recently night about his best-selling book, The God Delusion. He admitted in a Q&A that followed of being "guilty" of viewing Darwinism as a kind of religion and vowing to "reform" (no one was allowed to tape Dawkins' confession, however, with organizers of the event threatening to march offenders around the corner to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints). She met up with Richard Dawkins the night before at Barnes & Noble in Tribeca where he told her in front of an audience of roughly 200 people (tape recorders were allowed) of the importance of the role of form in making a proper theory of evolution. Dawkins has long been associated with the gene-centered theory of natural selection.

More...

In the blogspot "Reasonable Kansans", a summary of recent posts are given.

Michael Egnor comments on why he became skeptical of Darwinism.

Also, why do Darwinists consider ID a science stopper? How does the idea of common descent advance science more than the idea of commonality among organisms due to intelligent design. Would scientific progress have slowed if someone had not advanced a materialistic view of change over time in the 19th century? I doubt it...

More...

"Evolutionary biologists are - as modern scientists go - a historically minded lot" says Armand Leroi. Yet the perceptions of many are coloured by our secular culture: "The pre-1859 theoretical landscape is shrouded in a Judeo-Christian gloom that reaches without interruption to the dawn of recorded time, where it dissolves into the Stygian darkness of pagan creation myth." Happily, historians of science are generally able to challenge these revisionist cardboard images of the past. Leroi is reviewing a book by David Sedley, who is Laurence Professor of Ancient Philosophy at the University of Cambridge. Regarding the coffee-table myth, Leroi observes:

"David Sedley's book will change that view. He argues that, for the philosophers of ancient Greece, the central cosmological question was this: is the world, and all that it contains, the handiwork of an intelligent designer?"

"Even when Plato and Aristotle walk side by side, as in Raphael's famous painting The School of Athens, they do not see eye to eye or point in the same direction. We can't hear what the two are saying in Raphael's scene, but it seems clear enough that they belong to different generations and aren't listening too carefully to one another." (Source: go here)

The intellectual ferment of Athens threw up all sorts of ideas. Many were cranky, some indulged in poetry and metaphor, but the central issues could be explored with reasoned arguments.

"The brilliance of this book is that Sedley lets the Greeks talk to us and, surprisingly, we can understand what they're saying. Listen to Empedocles describing a time when the world was filled with a diversity of creatures with improbable combinations of features, most of which were then winnowed out, and you hear the late Stephen Jay Gould illuminating the body plans of the Burgess Shale fossils. Listen to Aristotle heaping scorn on Democritus for supposing that living things self-assemble from accidental combinations of atoms, and you hear Fred Hoyle's gambit that "a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein". Truly it has been, as Darwin said, just "one long argument"."

As the abstract of the review says, an exploration of these ancient debates "should broaden biologists' horizons". The puzzle is why debates about this central, cosmological question should not be an integral part of the discourse of the scientific community today? When there are numerous scientists who provide reasoned arguments that "the world, and all that it contains, [is] the handiwork of an intelligent designer", why are those advancing these arguments treated as though they have betrayed science? Why are they not welcomed as helping to broaden the minds of their colleagues? Sad to say, this stimulating debate is being crushed and we have a growing list of people who have been EXPELLED!

One long argument
Armand M. Leroi
Nature, 452, 153 (13 March 2008) | doi:10.1038/452153a

Abstract: Revisiting ancient Greek debates about the natural world should broaden biologists' horizons.

BOOK REVIEWED-Creationism and its Critics in Antiquity
by David Sedley, University of California Press: 2008. 296 pp.

Evolutionary biologists are - as modern scientists go - a historically minded lot. All of us acknowledge the greatness of Charles Darwin and some have even read On the Origin of Species. A few speak of Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, Lamarck or Goethe. Yet our historical horizon is actually very near. The pre-1859 theoretical landscape is shrouded in a Judeo-Christian gloom that reaches without interruption to the dawn of recorded time, where it dissolves into the Stygian darkness of pagan creation myth.
David Sedley's book will change that view. He argues that, for the philosophers of ancient Greece, the central cosmological question was this: is the world, and all that it contains, the handiwork of an intelligent designer? [snip]

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Why SETI hasn't found any space aliens yet

Excerpt: Gonzalez and fellow astronomer Hugh Ross have pointed out,

Over the last four centuries the CP [Copernican Principle] has evolved from a simple claim that the Earth is not located at the center of the solar system to an expansive philosophical doctrine that the Earth, and particularly its inhabitants, are not special in any significant way.

It is worth noting that the Copernican principle is not testable. It is simply an assumption. If right, it will aid research, but if wrong, it will impede research.
Suppose it is wrong? Could that be one reason why the SETI search for extraterrestrial civilizations has not turned up any results for forty years, despite early optimism? Visit SETI and see for yourself.

Plus: "Anti-science" and the mind-body problem

Excerpt: Is knowing reasons why materialism isn't true "anti-science"?

What should scientists do if they find evidence that does not confirm materialism? There is quite a lot of that in neuroscience, including the hard problem of consciousness and the placebo effect.
[ ... ]

Under promissory materialism, scientists are expected to ignore or explain away evidence that doesn't support materialism.

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 forthcoming The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul (Harper 2007).

Gailon Totheroh, of CBN News, reports that national attention has been drawn to the looming state battle over science and health textbooks that teach evolution. Attorney Cynthia Dunbar is serves on the Texas State Board of Education.

"What we want is for our students to be taught critical thinking skills, to be taught the scientific method," Dunbar explained to CBN News. "And what rises to the level of being deemed a theory - teach the strengths and weaknesses of any and every theory."

Amid the controversy, which evolutionists deny, the new documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" will shed light on the past and present academic struggles.

More...

There is an interesting discussion going on about "How do you prove purpose", Helena Petrovna Blavatsky lead blogger, at Overwhelming Evidence.

Here was my contribution:

One question that commonly arises when people discuss design in the universe is "how can you tell it is design if you do not know the motive of the designer?" Or perhaps the "purpose" of the designer?

Actually you can. The police do it every day in criminal investigations.

For one thing, there is a difference between motive and intent. Confusion on that subject can sometimes result in confusion about detecting design.

Legal cases t