Paleoanthropologist Frustrated Over Assumptions

In a field dedicated to the advancement of the evolutionary story, it has come up road block after road block. Considered a science in crisis! When they come up with a solution, it just creates more problems to solve and eventually gets overturned with direct evidence  which is an indication, the framework namely, evolution is faulty.

Paleoanthropologist Barnard Woods wrote an interesting, honest and frank reality of his work as well as others in his commentary in PNAS. His comments revolve around this premise; “The origin of our own genus remains frustratingly unclear.” In a previous paper, Wood points out there is confusion in his field about being certain which is which, “it’s not so easy to determine whether relatively new fossil finds are early members of the human evolutionary family or prehistoric apes.”

In physorg

“The anthropologists question the claims that several prominent fossil discoveries made in the last decade are our human ancestors.  Instead, the authors offer a more nuanced explanation of the fossils’ place in the Tree of Life.  They conclude that instead of being our ancestors the fossils more likely belong to extinct distant cousins.”  Bernard Wood and Terry Harrison chided fellow paleoanthropologists for their jumping to conclusions: “to simply assume that anything found in that time range has to be a human ancestor is na ve.”

This reminds one of the hype with this assumption in a headline, “Prehuman Lucy on a Walking Path” to humanity.”  Barnard Woods is right in this regard, jumping to conclusions is not good but he also stated in 2006 when a research team claimed to have discovered bones in Ethiopia from three hominid species lined up in a vertical row, showing a clear progression toward humans “When you find 30 new hominid fossils, you are allowed a certain amount of conjecture.”

Now back to Woods recent comments…

“Although many of my colleagues are agreed regarding the “what” with respect to Homo, there is no consensus as to the “how” and “when” questions.  Until relatively recently, most  paleoanthropologists (including the writer) assumed Africa was the answer to the “where” question, but in a little more than a decade discoveries at two sites beyond Africa, one at Dmanisi in Georgia and the other at Liang Bua on the island of Flores, have called this assumption into question.”

“The results of recent excavations at Dmanisi reported in PNAS , which suggest that hominins visited that site on several occasions between ca. 1.85 and ca. 1.77 Ma, together with recent reassessments of the affinities of Homo habilis, are further reasons for questioning the assumption that Homo originated in Africa.”

Dmanisi specimens are hard to classify in the evolutionary framework, no doubt because you have things like Liang Bua specimens dubbed Homo floresiensis, that seem primitive but yet they overlap substantially with modern humans! The miniature humans remain very confusing to paleoanthropologists. Wood points out there is evidence that could support an opposite viewpoint too concerning our ancestors which to them migrated either out of Africa or into Africa. Not sure which, confused? They are!

It’s not surprising that Paleoanthropologists like Woods are frustrated with what’s going on over evolutionary assumptions. What progress have they done since Darwin’s time? It’s the wrong path, nothing more than a invented fictional story being passed along as factual! His field is full of rivalry, contradiction, deception, exaggeration and outright fraud and requires more faith than any known religion! Real science has some setbacks but does contain a progression in knowledge whether it be technology or medicine, yet it also is able to confirm the Bible!

Adult Stem Cell Research Continues To Progress

The number one breakthrough in science of 2009, continues its amazing progress in 2011 with promising treatments with no ethical questions like embryonic stem cell research. A breakthrough in fighting lung disease, physorg reports on how Duke scientists discovered a signal used by airway stem cells that regulate which tissues are produced.

“Our work has identified the Notch signaling pathway as a central regulatory ‘switch’ that controls the differentiation of airway basal stem cells,” said Jason Rock, Ph.D., lead author and postdoctoral researcher in Brigid Hogan’s cell biology laboratory.”

“Studies like ours will enhance efforts to develop effective genetic, cellular, and molecular therapies for airway diseases – a leading cause of death worldwide. Interestingly, the press release likened the Notch signalling pathway to “executive software” governing the stem cells’ fate.”

Some more research consists of a new way to reprogram skin cells directly into brain cells! Science daily reports this particular breakthrough…

“The new technique avoids many of the ethical dilemmas that stem cell research has faced. For the first time, a research group at Lund University in Sweden has succeeded in creating specific types of nerve cells from human skin. By reprogramming connective tissue cells, called fibroblasts, directly into nerve cells, a new field has been opened up with the potential to take research on cell transplants to the next level.”

“The discovery represents a fundamental change in the view of the function and capacity of mature cells. By taking mature cells as their starting point instead of stem cells, the Lund researchers also avoid the ethical issues linked to research on embryonic stem cells.”

Collecting ES stem cells from the umbilical cord blood which hold no ethical dilemmas either, has been a focus of research which shows promise. Where maternity wards,  have previously discarded as medical waste, are becoming gold mines for stem cells!

Science daily reports…

“The prototype is still in the testing stage, but initial results are promising. The student inventors have obtained a provisional patent covering the technology and have formed a company, TheraCord, to further develop the technology, which may someday be used widely in hospital maternity units. The students say the need for this system is obvious.

“Cord blood, collected from the umbilical cord and placenta after live birth, is the most viable source of stem cells, yet over 90 percent is uncollected and discarded,” the team members wrote in a presentation of their project at the university’s recent Biomedical Engineering Design Day. “One of the main reasons valuable cord blood is so frequently discarded is because no adequate collection method exists.”

However, it’s not all good news there is some bad news too. Some scientists continue advocating more funding for ES research. Concerns that it might be banned all together which is highly unlikely because not all ES research collected is not ethical rather there is no controversy with collecting and using ES through the umbilical cord and placenta after live birth which are improving with new research. On April 29, a federal appeals court blocked Lamberth’s decision restoring federal financing of human embryonic stem cell research for now. Still some scientists in this field make a faulty argument for their position.

Phyorg reports…

“If federal funding stops for human embryonic stem cell research, it would have a serious negative impact on iPS cell research,” said Stanford University bioethicist Christopher Scott, one of the co-authors. “We may never be able to choose between iPS and ES cell research because we don’t know which type of cell will be best for eventual therapies.”

The research is clear, adult and ips stem cells are the future for treatments, let the evidence lead rather than trying to force taxpayers to fund something that many are not support of, for there is no compelling and logical need to do so!

Flooding Brings Up An Interesting Question

It’s been an incredible year for floods, in the United States alone there has been flooding going on across bottomland farms in the river’s upper valley in Illinois and Missouri. Also, record rains and major storms across the Midwest and South have added to the flow along with major snowmelt where predictions were being made of record stages at the Mississippi River which could end up to be as bad or worse than the historic 1937 floods.

All this flooding this year has brought up an interesting question, how big can these floods get? National Geographic takes on that question even bringing up Noah’s flood but only to cast doubt on it…

“The numbers are still provisional, but [the current flood's peak water discharge] looks to be about the same” as the 1927 flood, said James O’Connor, a hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Still, the 1927 and 2011 Mississippi River floods remain just drops in the bucket compared to other known freshwater “megafloods” around the world, according to O’Connor.

“The scientist co-authored a 2004 USGS report that ranked all freshwater floods known to have occurred during the past two million years. The list, which remains largely unchanged since its release, includes only floods that had peak discharges of 3.5 million cubic feet (100,000 cubic meters) a second or more.”

Here is an intelligent scientist who works for taxpayers in America as a a hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey  where Ker Than writing for National Geographic eats up like it’s gospel, trying to suggest that Noah’s flood was a fictional story…

“Even though a real flood may have inspired the story, O’Connor thinks there’s a simple reason it couldn’t have been a days-long meteorological event like the one suggested by the Bible. “There’s just not that much water in the atmosphere,” he said.”

What’s wrong with this conclusion with this so-called expert opinion? Do you know? Do you really think this intelligent scientist knows what he is talking about? So-called man-made climate change has been suggested as an explanation of current major flooding, others say it’s too early to tell as snow in parts of Canada melted later than normal in addition to the stormy trend of spring. Again I ask, what is wrong with O’Connor’s explanation of Noah’s flood? Here is the answer…

Genesis 7:11 says…

“In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.”

Do you see it yet? The major source of the water was not the atmosphere rather it was “all the fountains of the great deep.” Now there is speculation on what all entailed concerning the fountains of the great deep…The catastrophic plate tectonics model (linked here) for the flood is available for public reading, perhaps then he would have known what creationists believe as the major source of the water rather than coming up with his own idea…Here is another flood model explanation by Austin…

“In their catastrophic plate tectonics model for the flood, Austin et al. have proposed that at the onset of the flood, the ocean floor rapidly lifted up to 6,500 feet (2,000 meters) due to an increase in temperature as horizontal movement of the tectonic plates accelerated.[3] This would spill the seawater onto the land and cause massive flooding—perhaps what is aptly described as the breaking up of the “fountains of the great deep.”

There is evidence of rapid movements of huge volumns of water everywhere in the world (like here and here and more in the geology section) which confirms the global flood.

1) Increditable plutons around Lake Tana in Ethiopia, that appear to have been formed in the earth and exposed by erosion. 

2) The dramatic geology of the US Southwest and similar features in Ethiopia that are best explained by lots of fast moving water over a short period of time. 

3) Washington’s channeled scabland and Columbia River benches.

4) Similar braided waterways in Kergezstan (sp?) for miles southwest of Biskek.

5) Enormous rocks which had been moved 3,000 miles across whole continents.

6) Worldwide layers of sediment being housed in the fossil record and why we find animal fossils in strange places where they normally didn’t dwell.

Perhaps O’Connor was trying to build up a strawman which is easy to knock down than the actual viewpoint itself instead of addressing actual viewpoints. Perhaps Ker Than writer for Natural Geographic should have done his homework as well instead of allowing his bias to alter the actual event!

Stephen Hawking Expands On His Theology

In his book, The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking claimed there is no need for a creator in order to explain the existence of the universe.  Recently he expanded his anti-realism theology by attacking the existence of heaven, calling it a “fairytale.” There is a reason why Stephen is becoming more public with his views about Christianity. He has Lou Gehrig’s Disease and back in 2009, he was taken to the hospital in a “very ill” condition which most likely got him to think more about his views about the after life. It’s a pretty common thing with people who are nearing the end of their lives. He most likely also believes the design of his body is unfair if intelligence was responsible and no way would a Creator would left him in such a state.

Hawking told the Guardian

“In the interview, Hawking rejected the notion of life beyond death and emphasised the need to fulfil our potential on Earth by making good use of our lives. In answer to a question on how we should live, he said, simply: “We should seek the greatest value of our action. In answering another, he wrote of the beauty of science, such as the exquisite double helix of DNA in biology, or the fundamental equations of physics.”

“Hawking responded to questions posed by the Guardian and a reader in advance of a lecture tomorrow at the Google Zeitgeist meeting in London, in which he will address the question: “Why are we here?” “In the talk, he will argue that tiny quantum fluctuations in the very early universe became the seeds from which galaxies, stars, and ultimately human life emerged. “Science predicts that many different kinds of universe will be spontaneously created out of nothing. It is a matter of chance which we are in,” he said.”

It is interesting to note, Hawking considers the brain like a computer that stops working when its components fail. Nathan Heflick, a psychology doctoral student at the University of Florida, says that is the reason why he rejects religion. However, if you compare yourself to a machine, a computer like every other machine ever made was created by intelligence with a purpose, rather than by an accident guided by a mindless process!

The whole notion that something can be created out of nothing is “theology” because for one thing, Hawking or any secular scientist would not believe it is possible to create water out of nothing. So why then would he believe the universe was created out of nothing with 96 percent of its reality that cannot be seen nor hasn’t been directly detected and not only that but allege an untestable idea, other universes? Hawking knows there had to have been a beginning somewhere no matter how many universes you believe are out there. M-theory is just a collection of various unconfirmed ideas which like many other scientists in the world of anti-realism, bluff on the significance of their explanation.

Some may wonder why a cosmologist know any better about a theology question than those of a theologian when he doesn’t really have any hard evidence with his own reasoning? He is entitled to his opinion but it’s wrong! Cosmologists are dealing with more guess work than ever before, physics used to be cut and dry but with anti-realism being invoked, it’s become more and more complex with a blur getting darker and darker just like the rest of the theories based on a mindless process.

Anti-Creator Hysteria Restricted Blogger

An editor from Scientific American wouldn’t allow John Horgan to use this headline, “Pssst! Don’t tell the creationists, but scientists don’t have a clue how life began.”

“Exactly 20 years ago, I wrote an article for Scientific American that, in draft form, had the headline above. My editor nixed it, so we went with something less dramatic: “In the Beginning…: Scientists are having a hard time agreeing on when, where and—most important—how life first emerged on the earth.” That editor is gone now, so I get to use my old headline, which is even more apt today.”

You name it, DNA first, RNA, and metabolism-first are more frustrating and puzzling with insurmountable obstacles for various evolutionists. Crick’s rescue solution for the problem on how life supposedly arose is not valid either, “Crick’s old escape route doesn’t solve anything: “Of course, panspermia theories merely push the problem of life’s origin into outer space.”

In the New York Times“Two dozen chemists, geologists, biologists, planetary scientists and physicists gathered here recently to ponder where and what Eden might have been. Over a long weekend they plastered the screen in their conference room with intricate chemical diagrams through which electrons bounced in a series of interactions like marbles rattling up and down and over bridges through one of those child’s toys, transferring energy, taking care of the business of nascent life. The names of elements and molecules tripped off chemists’ tongues as if they were the eccentric relatives who show up at Thanksgiving every year.”

“The rapid appearance of complex life in some accounts — “like Athena springing from the head of Zeus,” in the words of Dr. McKay”

Interesting how baal worship is used in a positive light during a science discussion. Back to blogger, John Horgan. He eventually finds his comfort zone by ranting on creationists, claiming that we “blame” God for the creation.  Listen John, your rant was uncalled for, we do not “blame” God for creating the heavens and earth! It’s not a curse but rather a glorious blessing! We are amazed and excited about  by such an advanced design from the simple things to the more complex with its incredible beauty!   We look forward to learning more on how it works. We thank Him for what He has given us, so John, we don’t blame him for these things which were created by Him!  

Rev. Barry Lynn Formulated Scheme Concerning Ark Park

Ken Ham who is the founder of Answers in Genesis, which advocates biblical creationism. He wrote a piece about his debate which was aired on CNN with the Rev. Barry Lynn who advocates a particular type of wall between government and religion. His blog, it unveils a conspiracy which is also mentioned in the debate…

“Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear thinks it’s a good idea for his state to be the home of Noah’s Ark – one that will include dinosaurs! Beshear announced yesterday his plan to provide tax incentives to the developers of a creationism theme park that will feature a replica of the well-known biblical boat. The $150 million facility will be a collaboration between Ark Encounters, a private company in Springfield, Mo., and Answers in Genesis, a fundamentalist Christian organization that runs the Creation Museum that opened in Kentucky in 2007.”

Rev. Barry then applies his best strawman’s argrument, “The government should not be giving tax incentives for religious projects. Religion should be supported by voluntary donations, not the government.” He repeats this in more detail in the debate by claiming that part of the state’s budget is funding the Ark Park which otherwise would be used for social services or other government programs. Ken Ham responds…

“I tried my best to make the point that if there is no Ark Encounter in the state, there is no sales tax generated and handed over to the state. I added that the Ark Encounter will have an economic impact in the first year of around $250 million for the state’s economy, and $4 billion over 10 years.”

“This generates money for the state. And the state government collects all the sales tax outside the attraction and the payroll taxes from businesses generated by the Ark’s presence. The reason the state has an economic tax incentive for tourist-related attractions is to bring money into the state—which is exactly what the Ark Encounter will do.”

Ken Ham states that’s he is not sure if Rev. Barry Lynn is lying or didn’t do his research but repeats the same allegations in his blog. Let’s tell it like it is, he’s lying. First of all, state budgets have to become law in order for the money to be spent, he sights no government bills whatsoever (because there isn’t any) that allocates tax dollars to the theme park. Second of all, the theme park will be increasing the state’s revenue for government programs. The visitors who go there are paying for it, just like any other business.

Although this theme park based on Noah’s Ark has received much media attention, it’s not the only one. There is a Noah’s Ark water park which is the largest in the world and it’s based in the Wisconsin Dells. It has been highlighted on the travel channel quite a number of times as one of the best tourist places to go.

Not surprisingly, Rev. Barry Lynn is a bible skeptic who uses the “Rev” title only to mock those who use it, in the debate he attacks creationism which has nothing to do with the Ark Park being built. So with all his strawman’s arguments some of which are lies that he used because of his war against Christianity is unjustified. Theme parks are businesses and it doesn’t matter if it’s religious or not. Generally businesses use the name Noah’s Ark as a way to connect with families and the one  being built in Kentucky is no different.

Science Journal Focuses On “Defeating Creationism”

Many evolutionists who want to change the values of students are very concerned about not being able to kill off creationism in the classrooms despite claiming victory in the courtrooms. Two researchers from the University of Pennsylvania did a study and have come up with a few suggestions in combating what they consider to be a problem…

Michael Berkman and Eric Plutzer, professors of political science conducted a survey which included 926 high school biology teachers on their view about evolution. Only 28 percent teach evolution without any reservations, the rest are either openly creationists or in the closet.

The survey discovered 13 percent teach creation science or intelligent design in a positive way with at least one hour of classroom time and another 5 percent answer questions about creationism or intelligent design in a positive way.  While this is only a tiny fraction in a semester-long course to be that concerned about, Berkman and Plutzer’s still think it’s a credible threat to their type of education, The boldness and confidence of this minority should not be underestimated.”

Even more concern for evolutionists is that 60 percent are on the fence, these teachers are only avoiding controversy by avoiding the topic or just teach to test or present other viewpoints in order to let the students make up their own minds. There are a few of the fence-sitters who are advocates of young-earth creationism, which Berkman and Plutzer said “would prevent them from becoming strong advocates for evolutionary biology.”

This worries some evolutionists because they feel the students will not grasp the evidence for evolution or the information would be misrepresented or omitted unlike a teacher who is totally into the story of evolution.  What they believe is undermining evolution in the classroom must be broken. So the researchers suggest three things to solve this supposed problem…

1) Unless the preachers of evolution (evolutionary scientists) get more involved, they will loose the battle of students minds in the classroom. Making mention of court victories like the Dover decision in 2005 as not enough.

2) Constructing a more tightly wound education in science and evolution but mention, “further improvements in state standards may be difficult,” they asserted, “because public opinion has been remarkably immune to outreach and public science efforts over the past three decades.”

3) Indoctrinate teachers more by requiring student teachers to take a special evolution course. Not many teaching colleges provide instruction in evolution, they claimed. The survey found that teachers held to stronger views towards evolution when taking such a class.

“Effective programs directed at preservice teachers can therefore both reduce the number of evolution deniers in the nation’s classrooms, increase the number who would gladly accept help in teaching evolution, and increase the number of cautious teachers who are nevertheless willing to embrace rigorous standards.  This would reduce the supply of teachers who are especially attractive to the most conservative school districts, weakening the cycle of ignorance.”

The likes of science daily endorsed indoctrinating future teachers, The majority of public high school biology teachers in the U.S. are not strong classroom advocates of evolutionary biology, despite 40 years of court cases that have ruled teaching creationism or intelligent design violates the Constitution, according to Penn State political scientists. A mandatory undergraduate course in evolutionary biology for prospective teachers, and frequent refresher courses for current teachers, may be part of the solution, they say.”

Their whole concern sounds like something from a communist country, teachers have to basically swear their alliance with evolution. Does anyone really believe that Berkman and Plutzer wouldn’t crave the opportunity to outlaw creationism or forbid teachers to teach science who they considered to be “Darwin deniers” if they could?

You want to be a science teacher then you have to deny your religion first and then demonstrate your alliance to us, which is something communist countries do in their public schools.  That would be a violation of church/state as well as freedom of religion.  Americans feel it’s fair to teach evidence for evolution, but also fair to teach other views opposing it as well.

Certainly the different views like the age of the earth could be discussed and debated in a public classroom, or a global flood or common ancestry, even failed experiments that test evolution. Americans don’t live in a communist country where it needs to indoctrinate not only students but the teachers as well, we live in a democracy!