Scientists Connection With The Public On Research

When a scientist goes to work doing scientific research for a living, there is a tendency at times to take public support for granted, believing their work is justified on grounds for its own sake.  There have been articles written that are warning scientists and scientific institutions to re-think their presumed authority. Mistakes and surprises are partly responsible for the given warning to scientists on their understanding of nature, and the universe in general.

The public invests a lot of their hard-earned money and in turn they expect results. Often times scientists are back peddling on previously well established theories. For example, the “Crab Nebula has shocked astronomers by emitting an unprecedented blast of gamma rays, the highest-energy light in the Universe” says the BBC. It defies any explanation known to man which has worked on studying it for many years.

Exploration of Saturn’s moons like Enceladus with its geysers and Titan with its lack of an ethane ocean, contradicted previously long-held established predictions. They continue to work on various explanations for their evolutionary story to fill in the falsifications but nothing established yet.  In physorg, astronomers the past few years haven been observing planets orbiting the wrong way! The significance of this particular falsification when it comes to evolutionary thinking, it “obviously violates our most basic picture of planet and star formation.”

Then there is creating a story using a lot of imagination to fill in gaps in evolutionary thinking because the  evidence doesn’t point to it. For example, New Scientist reports, “Horsetail fossil tells tale of plant evolution.” But does it? When the reader looks for the evidence to start telling this tale, there is none to be found anywhere! The article does in fact talk about a fossilized horsetail that must have been preserved in a hot spring environment but goes on to say it looks modern. Channing’s work now “clears up” the story about evolution in this matter, claiming there was innovations conducted by natural selection the article suggests. But does it?

Channing’s study pushes the origin of modern-looking horsetails back another 14 million years, to 150 million years before the present. Then claiming this plant had suddenly popped into existence 150 million years ago (stuff happens theory in evolution) and never dreamt up any new innovations all the way to the present except, if anything, the older ones were bigger and better!

Like New Scientist’s article, studies on evolution are among the worst who take on the label of “scientist” but provide no return on investment to society – in fact, who do much to misuse and harm society while bragging about their status as scientists. When it comes to a  PhD, it confers no more authority on a scientist than a real estate license does on a realtor; it depends on what the individual person does with the skills and learning they acquired.

Look at the good work being done by citizen scientists! Better a field amateur with years of observations than an armchair professor pontificating from his PhD microphone! This in no way is intended to insult many honorable scientists working out there using their position for the good of mankind, doing honest work each day, and providing society with a good return on the public’s investment.

However, let me make this clear! Professional scientists need to realize, they must earn their wings each day.  Not everything they do is scientific, and not everything a non-scientist does is unscientific.  A scientist speaking outside his or her area of knowledge can have opinions no better than those of anyone! One of the solutions to this problem with scientists lack of connection with the public is the media. The media needs to practice “critical thinking” in its articles rather than hype up everything that comes out as though it were gospel. Also, scientists ought to serve society not preach to it!

Poetry Discovered In A Bacterial Genome

Can scientists detect intelligently-designed complexity in nature? It’s an interesting question that came to mind with this latest discovery. Poetry has been detected for the first time in nature although it’s known that this was done intentionally in a lab. The BBC reports on this work…

“Poet Christian Bok has encoded his verse into a strip of DNA and had it inserted into a common bacterium, E.coli. DNA is at the heart of every cell. It is a string of molecules called nucleotides which come in four types – adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C) and thymine (T).

This genetic sequence is used as an instruction manual for cellular operations. Individual commands are contained in shorter chunks of the DNA called genes. Dr Bok used cryptography to embed his poem into the genetics of the bacterium, devising a chemical alphabet in which each letter is represented by a specific triplet of nucleotides. So, for example, the nucleotide sequence “ATA” codes for the letter “y” and GTG stands for the letter “n”. It took him four years just to work out the code.”

Natural section was brought up in the article as claiming it would remove the poem because there was no benefit. Since natural section is being missed used and often times has a variety of meanings for example, Hodge, M. J. S. 1992. Natural Selection: Historical Perspectives. Keywords in Evolutionary Biology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 218 which was quoted in ICR states the following… “A quite general issue has still received no canonical treatment: what kind of a thing is natural selection anyway? A law, a principle, a force, a cause, an agent, or all or some of these things? The view that natural selection is a law has been countered by the view that it is a principle, while that conclusion has been countered in turn by an insistence that it is neither.”

The fact of the matter is it’s possible for scientists to intentionally insert messages into the genetic code which therefore should alert everyone to the idea that creationism or intelligent design is a scientific theory! As a matter of fact, it’s possible for an unbiased observer to distinguish natural law from intelligent design in a living organism by examining the code for the presence of specified information!

Natural section is mindless, there is no caring on what gets tossed out, but a Darwinist would claim functional information aids the survival of the organism but poetry would not, but what’s the difference? In a study to help evolutionary scientists understand natural selection as predicted by evolution, Peter A. Lind, Otto G. Berg, and Dan I. Andersson from Uppsala University conducted an experiment on Salmonella bacterium which was published in the journal of science during November 2010.

Their aim was to come up with new insights on how evolution increases fitness. The researchers were surprised about the results about this experiment because evolutionary expectations were not met. The mutations caused a loss in fitness rather than an increase in fitness! Fitness is supposed to be the strong evidence for evolution yet this experiment adds a new twist, now evolution evidence consists of loss of fitness and gain, another way of the data predicting the theory…

This brings us back to the first question, Can scientists detect intelligently-designed complexity in nature? The answer is, “yes” of course evolutionists will deny that “poetry” is not fitness, the same way they embrace loss in function or fitness as being new evidence for evolution which is why you have a soup full of definitions for natural selection. The evidence however which is detectable, points to a creator, namely God!

New Dinosaur Forced Into The Evolutionary Framework

Dubbed as a “nasty” and fierce predator who’s size was only 4 foot tall was found in Argentina with an assumed time frame of 230 million years ago, a new study suggests. Eodromaeus, whose name means “dawn runner” is supposed to be revealing new light on the evolution of dinosaurs. When you examine this particular small dinosaur it certainly appears it was well designed animal for running and taking care of itself, but the BBC in it’s report, argued to the contrary, “Even though their descendents may have gone on to great things, neither of the creatures were dominant in their time, and the researchers believe their eventual rise may be down to blind chance, and perhaps some unknown environmental catastrophe.”

Stuff happens with blind chance (as it’s always claim to do), according the BBC which means the interpretation is outrunning the bones. Keep in the mind, the dating method used was a complete assumption. As it states in the journal of science, “A current geologic time scale, which assumes an average rate of sedimentation between radioisotopically dated horizons.”

What if that assumption is inaccurate as a result of human error? The impact of such an error would radically change the story of evolution. Another interesting observation when you look at their chart, there is decreasing diversity over a period of time.  So if we are to assume their long-age interpretation of the formation, the evidence contradicts evolutionary predictions – and their paper is very honest about this particular observation in their data as they admit to it!

“One explanation for the rise of dinosaurs has been that a few key features led gradually to the competitive dominance of dinosaurs.  This view has been overtaken by a hypothesis of noncompetitive replacement, in which their rise is split into two successive episodes of extinction and noncompetitive infilling of vacant ecospace.  In the replacement hypothesis, the earliest dinosaurs are regarded as particularly rare (1 to 3% of terrestrial vertebrates), their abundance and diversity increasing successively at the Carnian-Norian and Triassic-Jurassic boundaries coincident with mass extinction of rhynchosaurs, traversodontid cynodonts, and dicynodonts and later of (noncrocodyliform) crurotarsal archosaurs.”

“In contrast, the fossil record from Ischigualasto indicates that early dinosaurs in the latter half of the Carnian (231 to 228 Ma) were more common and diverse than previously thought, equaling the percentage of dinosaurian genera in the late Norian fauna from the overlying Los Colorados Formation (Fig. 4).  Thus, in terms of taxonomic diversity, dinosaurs did not increase their percentage among terrestrial vertebrates toward the end of the Triassic in southwestern Pangaea.”

They continued on with the disappearance of the other creatures (assuming their timeline) had nothing to do with the rise of dinosaurs: “The disappearance of rhynchosaurs at the Carnian-Norian boundary was not linked to an increase in dinosaur diversity but rather coincided with the local extinction of dinosaurs.” It’s not like the dinosaurs were taking advantage of space vacated by the unlucky ones that had gone extinct, in other words (vacated perhaps due to their lack of Darwinian fitness).

Also, they went on about speculation with increases in the size of the body that was supposed to become something like dominate T-Rex. But Eodromaeus was a well-designed, complex creature with fast legs and grasping claws, which in no way indicates that this animal like the study wants us to believe (because otherwise it would mess up the story of evolution), was inferior to later dinosaurs in terms of complexity and fitness!  Here is what they say about him…

“The discovery of Eodromaeus, the reinterpretation of Eoraptor as a sauropodomorph, and the faunal record of the Ischigualasto Formation provide additional evidence that, by mid Carnian time (~232 Ma), the earliest dinosaurs had already evolved the most functionally important trophic and locomotor features characterizing ornithischians, sauropodomorphs, and theropods.  These attributes are thus unlikely to have functioned as the competitive advantage to account for the dominance of dinosaurs in abundance and diversity in terrestrial habitats some 30 million years later in the earliest Jurassic (~202 Ma).  Eodromaeus increases the range of salient theropod features present in the earliest dinosaurs, and Eoraptor shows that the enlarged naris, basally constricted crowns, and a twisted pollex were present in the earliest sauropodomorphs.”

This suggests that so-called, evolutionary advances must have appeared all at once (hyper-evolution, which is growing in popularity for explanations) in the earliest dinosaurs,  according to their own timeline, with variations on the same theme appearing in future animals. Is this something evolutionists envisioned or Charles Darwin for that matter? Folks, the Bible says creation suddenly was produced by God (not out of nothing by blind chance), creating animals which are designed to vary within their own species. Basically if you take out the interpretation of evolution in the study, that is exactly what the evidence is suggesting!

Did Unique Dinosaurs Turned Into Birds?

Haplocheirus is labeled as a transitional fossil but why? Well according to science daily, “it shows an early evolutionary step in how the bizarre hands of later alvarezsaurs evolved from earlier predatory dinosaurs.” A typical metaphysical statement not a science one, then the BBC had it’s take on it, declaring it solving the mystery between dinosaur and bird evolution!

This is hype and misleading  journalism in a desperate attempt to convince the public at large to conceptualize dinosaurs turning into birds. The original paper says little about evolution, in fact Richard Stone and “feathered-dinosaur” hunter Xing Xu say the fossil does not solve anything but rather confuses the alleged dinosaur-to-bird transition.

Xu suggests that the fossil demonstrated the basal Maniraptorans which were not secondarily flightless birds and then he uses metaphysical reasoning claiming it convergently evolved!

“Haplocheirus is the largest alvarezsauroid known from complete material (see SOM), and its basal phylogenetic position suggests a pattern of miniaturization for the Alvarezsauroidea, relatively rare in dinosaurs but convergently evolved in Paraves.”

“Derived alvarezsauroids have a simplified, homogeneous dentition convergent with that of some extant insectivorous mammals, but Haplocheirus has recurved, serrated teeth and caniniforms that suggest carnivory was the primitive condition for the clade.”

“The presence in Haplocheirus of only slightly reduced second and third manual digits and curved unguals with flexor tubercles on these digits implies that the hand was fully functional and Haplocheirus retained some grasping ability, unlike the presumably limited function of the greatly reduced lateral manual elements of Mononykus and Shuvuuia.”

The mediolaterally narrow McIII (metacarpal three) and the greatly shortened and slender McIV suggest that the extensive digital reduction and fusion seen in derived alvarezsauroids was already under way by the earliest Late Jurassic, proceeded from lateral to medial on the manus and, surprisingly, initially involved reduction in length of only McIV.”

There is no mention of a dinosaur evolving into a bird here as the media like science daily and the BBC have claimed. What they did find was a unique dinosaur with fully functioning arms and grasping claws. Convergent evolution is just being used to fix the data into the framework in which they believe it to be rather than allowing the evidence to lead them!