The first reviews of Beck Hansen’s Modern Guilt seemed to conclude that he’d finally emerged from some sort of creative rut.  This was the first I’d heard of it; I thought Sea Change, Guero and The Information were all solid.  However it is true that although these albums were good, none of them were outstanding.  It’s also true that Modern Guilt is a superior album, due largely to its consistency.  Where previous albums had fairly drastic highs and lows (I’m thinking of The Information’s fantastic ‘Think I’m In Love’ and average and unnecessarily long ‘The Horrible Fanfare/Landslide/Exoskeleton’), Modern Guilt is a tight and considered affair, with few of the failings that have marked many a Beck album. 

If Beck has been consistent with one thing though, it’s reinvention.  Each Beck album is different from the last; one only needs to looks at the vast chasm between Mutations and Midnite Vultures, two albums that were released within a year of each other.  After the pure pop moments that frequented 2006’s The Information, Modern Guilt rings with an air of sixties lo-fi psychedelia.  In this, the production of Gnarl’s Barkley’s Dangermouse is spot-on.  Famous for The Grey Album and Dangerdoom, as well as Gnarls, one might be apprehensive as to how Dangermouse would handle an artist whose talent has often been in subtleties.  But Dangermouse shows he knows when to step back, and as a result his production is the perfect compliment to Beck's eccentricities, rather than an unwelcome intrusion.

Beck often seems over concerned with apocalyptic-type environments.  On the upbeat ‘Gamma Ray’, one of the best tracks here, Hansen sings ‘If I could hold/hold out for now/with these icecaps melting down…Your brains are bored/like a refugee from a house that's burning/And the heat wave's calling your name”.  Obviously concerned with global warming, if these lyrics were by anyone else (e.g. Bono or Chris Martin) they would likely seem clichéd and patronizing.  But one of Modern Guilt’s strengths is that almost all of the lyrics are pervaded by a sense of personal cynicism and despair.  Indeed, the record might become depressing, if they weren’t so often backed with such a catchy soundtrack. 

This is his eighth full length, yet it doesn’t remotely seem like Beck is running out of ideas.   To the contrary, Modern Guilt is one of the best albums Beck has ever made.  Both understated and poppy, it’s one of those rare albums which withstands repeated listens, whilst also being instantaneously likeable.

- Nick.

Casey Luskin insists the Discovery Institute is a secular think tank. And he says it with a straight face.

What is it about the spreading of pseudo-science that makes reasonable people cringe and gag? One characteristic is surely the introduction of religious / political thinking into discussions of fact. The natural world simply is. If it upsets our human sensibilities, too freaking bad for us. When a bull shark bites a potential food item (a human leg, perhaps), it is being neither good nor evil; it's simply hungry and inquisitive. It's nothing personal. Thus, describing the natural world is best accomplished through observations of what is, not through contemplation of how things should be. Blaming Darwinism for the Holocaust, communism, capitalism, rock 'n roll music, abortion, racism, moral relativism, and the general decay of Western society is irrelevant to the scientific question of whether or not evolution by natural selection is a valid explanation for observed evolutionary change on planet Earth. What is and what ought to be are two distinct questions.

But throw a rock at the Discovery Institute and you're more likely to hit a lobbyist or a lawyer than an actual scientist. For example, Casey Luskin, an attorney with the DI, blogs to his fellow intelligent designers about the "it's just a theory" argument.

Darwinists love to bash Darwin-skeptics who call evolution "just a theory, not a fact." The truth is that I rarely, if ever, hear people who are closely involved with the ID movement using this line to oppose evolution. The "evolution is just a theory, not a fact" phrase tends to come from the vox populi—intelligent people who studied this issue in their biology class or perhaps have read books like Darwin’s Black Box, Icons of Evolution, or Darwin on Trial, but otherwise don’t follow the issue very closely.

But most creationists do use the argument, endlessly. They also use the "intelligent designer" and "irreducible complexity" arguments. The fact is that intelligent design creationists are a small minority. Polls indicate that most American creationists are of the Old Earth variety. And I think the Discovery Institute knows this full well. Isn't it really all about talking points, ones the DI can easily disseminate, and ones the general public can easily digest and regurgitate, regardless of the scientific facts?

Casey Luskins also lists his scientific qualifications:

Having taken over a dozen courses covering evolutionary biology at both the undergraduate and graduate levels, I’m a scientific skeptic of neo-Darwinism.

Fine, be a skeptic, Luskin. But are you as skeptical about intelligent design? Have you taken a dozen courses covering intelligent design at the undergraduate and graduate level? No, because intelligent design isn't a science, and it can be pretty well summed up in a single 15 minute lecture. ID is a vague conclusion, not an explanation. The only thing propping it up is a propaganda machine. And all the whining in the world about "morals", "culture", and "academic freedom" isn't going to polish the ID turd. The Discovery Institute calls itself the "Center for Science and Culture". But it really should choose one or the other, "science" or "culture", not both. Let "ought" and "is" be distinct; life works so much better when our desires don't cloud our judgment of reality.

It's at least three tomatoes fused, with leaves fringing out from the center and the sides. A hairy, mutant Black Krim that will scare the kids at Christmas. Truly a tomato worthy of that "Play with Your Food" line of books that was popular several years ago. Will we cut it open and find four hearts, or one massive seed pit? What will it spawn when I plant its seeds?

The weather has been humid and rainy for days -- weeks -- and, all of a sudden like, the zucchini plants popped out scads of flowers. At least one is a female flower with a zuke developing behind it. And the green pumpkin is the size of a ping-pong ball.

Last winter I made some noise about guerrilla planting a pumpkin or two on the property line -- land that is probably rightfully CVS's. Haven't done it yet, in part because, after numerous nighttime diaper runs, the CVS ladies know me and Freya and Neville on sight. I feel like I would be betraying some shallow but persistent cashier-customer bond of trust. Plus, my parents read this blog. However. There is also the matter of keeping my word, and some needy pumpkin plants that aren't getting enough sun. I had success transplanting a zuke. Might try a pumpkin, an illicit, city pumpkin...should act while parents out of town...how old am I again?

Talk about an all-nighter. Flies with a single genetic mutation sleep 80% less than normal flies, and some get by with no shut-eye at all.  The mutation – in a gene that controls how brain cells fire and now dubbed Sleepless – suggests that, at the most basic level, sleep is caused by a slowdown in certain neurons.

Hat tip: Josh Hill at The Daily Galaxy (here)

White and grey horses, including Lipizzans, are born with a darker coat but lose their colour between the age of six and eight due to chromosomal mutations.  These genetic changes cause the pigment-producing melanocyte cells to be produced more rapidly in these horses so that the stock is quickly used up and the horses lose their pigmentation, much like how human hair turns grey or white. 

The study also found that the same chromosome was responsible for the horses' heightened risk of melanoma, cancer of the pigment cells, mainly due to their poor colouring which does not protect them from the sun's UV rays.  Around 75 percent of grey and white horses aged 15 or older develop the skin disease.Fortunately, the horses are not in too much trouble from the cancer, as the diseased cells do not multiply and spread as quickly as in humans.

Today's CCC relates to the tendency for creationists to assert that evolutionary theory can be falsified simply by calculating the supposed probabilities surrounding the accumulation of mutations that are necessary for evolutionary change. An example of this claim in action* can be found in this article in CreationWiki, the self-proclaimed "encyclopedia of creation science":

The probability is extremely rare for the allowance of many related mutations and the ultimate conclusion of new biological body plans is an unobserved evolutionary phenomena. Simply put the odds of getting two mutations that are related to one another is the product of their separate probabilities. If every 10⁷ duplications of DNA a mutation occurs the equation would start to look like this; 10⁷ x 10⁷ or 10¹⁴. That is a one followed by 14 zeroes, or once every hundred trillion for just two related mutations. Mutations which are related or not would barely change finch beak sizes due to drought, or change the shape of a fly wing.

The crux of this claim seems to rest on the assumption that mutations, once present in the gene pool of a population, do not increase their frequency. If this were true, the argument that the probability of a beneficial set of mutations occurring is very low would hold. However, the force of natural selection tends to increase the frequency of mutations that increase the fitness of their host organisms. This therefore increases the probability of the "next necessary mutation" to come along (in terms of a sequence), because more organisms in the population will have the previous mutation.

To help clear this up, I'll use an example:

In our population of hypothetical organisms, there exists a combination of mutations that, if present, increases the fitness of the organism by a significant amount. The three mutations that make up this combination are mutation A, mutation B and mutation C. The mutations have to be acquired in that particular order also, or the organism's fitness decreases below the average (ie. the only combinations that don't decrease the fitness of the organism are A, AB and ABC), and having part of the combination in order also increases fitness. Each mutation has a one in two million chance of occurring in any organism, and this particular population of organisms has two million members. Thus, every generation there is a high chance of at least one individual getting mutation A, mutation B or mutation C. Since any organism that does not have the A, AB or ABC combination has its fitness reduced, those are purged from the gene pool by natural selection; and mutation A spreads through the population by the same mechanism. As the frequency of A increases, the likelihood of an AB combination also increases (since more organisms have mutation A), and once one occurs it spreads through the gene pool again. This increases the chance for the ABC combination. Eventually, the ABC combination is reached.

In all likelihood, this scenario is probably not going to happen, since it relies on the fact that the A and AB combinations are beneficial. A much more likely, but less rapid, way of producing combinations of mutations is gene duplication. This allows for the early combinations of mutations to be harmful.

The gene duplication starts when a particular gene is duplicated, most likely due to a recombination error in metaphase of meiosis. This means that any harmful mutations that occur in one copy of the gene don't affect the overall fitness of the organism, since one working gene is still active. Such mutations are then considered effectively silent, and are at the whim of genetic drift. Once a duplicated gene is established in the population, the chance of so-called relevant mutations coming along is greatly increased.

So, there you have two explanations for the seemed improbability of mutation combinations. These explanations can also be used against arguments for irreducible complexity: any proteins involved in the creation of cellular structures could just have their genes duplicated so that neutral compexity could build up over time; or mutations that are beneficial could increase their frequency over time and increase the chances of related mutations coming into being.

J'ai déjà vu une entrevue avec Cage où il expliquait qu'il aimait bien alterner entre gros films d'actions bourrés d'effets spéciaux (national treasure, ghost rider, con air) et films plus deep (adaptation, bringing out the dead, matchstick men). Quelqu'un m'a fait remarqué aujourdhui que Beck applique le même principe en musique. Un album folk relax, un album groovy flamboyant.

Et quand j'ai vu que le réalisateur de l'album est Danger Mouse, jai cru qu'on était rendu au film à effets spéciaux. Je m'attendait à un beck plutôt groovy et upbeat mais je me suis vite rendu compte que c'était beaucoup plus sombre comme ambiance. C'est probablement pour ça que j'ai pas accroché... Ca reste bien fait mais je me garderai cet album pour les jours plus tristes de cet automne, ca fit vraiment pas avec ma sélection musicale d'été.

[Interscope - 08/07/08]

Thing looks like a caterpillar I would run from. Judging by the number of leaves (petals?), it resulted from three tomato buds that melted into one muscular 'mato. How does that happen?! Will it ripen, be edible?

Here's another question. I feel like "Highlights for Children." Can you spot the spider in this photo?

I will never, ever feel warm and fuzzy about spiders, no matter how much good they do. Life is unfair for them that way. This one was no larger than my thumbnail, and a gorgeous lemon color with scarlet stripes but, damn, doesn't it just look like a spooky little alien on the attack? Found out it's a Goldenrod crab spider, which changes color to match its surroundings, from yellow-and-red to white. Damn, that's good.

The last wondrous mutation of the day was one I happily ate. Yeah, I dug up a Little Finger carrot. I don't know if it was mature -- I've never grown carrots before -- but it tasted pretty good. And very crisp. I hope I grow a couple more.

Messenger ribonucleic acids (mRNA), which are essential in the production of proteins in eukaryotic genes, including human genes, through translation, are made from nuclear pre-messenger RNAs though a splicing process. Sometimes errors occur in the complex splicing process, leading to the production of mutated proteins.

It had previously been believed that the splicing and translation was a one-way process, but National Science Council-sponsored researcher Cheng Soo-cheng (鄭淑珍), a professor at the university’s Institute of Microbiology and Immunology, said yesterday her research team had found that both of the catalytic steps in splicing were reversible.

While her research was published in the journal Science yesterday, the research shed new light on how some mutated-protein productions are avoided, as well as how future treatments for certain genetic disorders can be done.

Let's continue on with refuting this article from the Institute for Creation Research. You can find Part 1 here, if you haven't read it already.

Virtually all the "beneficial mutations" known are only equivocally beneficial, not unequivocally beneficial. In bacteria, several mutations in cell wall proteins may deform the proteins enough so that antibiotics cannot bind to the mutant bacteria. This creates bacterial resistance to that antibiotic. Does this support evolutionary genetic theory? No, since the mutant bacteria do not survive as well in the wild as the native (non-mutant) bacteria. That is, the resistant (mutant) bacteria will only do well in an artificial situation, where it is placed in a culture medium with the antibiotic. Only then can it overgrow at the expense of the native bacteria. In the wild, the native bacteria are always more vigorous than the mutant bacteria.

In fact, Dr. Maddox, this does support evolutionary theory. If you move bacteria from their natural environment (which they are adapted to) to a petri dish filled with antibiotics, you're changing the selection pressures on those bacteria. So, if a bacterium has a cell wall deformation that allows it to survive in the antibiotic-laden environment, that deformation makes that bacteria fitter than all the others without this deformation that die immediately. In other words, the loss of fitness that is incurred because of the cell wall deformation is more than offset by the increase in fitness due to the cell wall deformation. Because the selective pressure on having that type of cell wall is greater than not having it (which would mean near-instant death, as opposed to less-efficient survival), this mutation is considered beneficial and is conserved in the gene pool.

Of course mutations are benefical related to the organism's enviroment: that's the whole reason for evolution to be considered an adaptive change over time. If you put organisms in an environment where digging into the ground to escape predators was an advantage, you would start to see that mutations that increased the digging ability of those organisms would increase over time. But, what if those mutations decreased the ability of those organisms to jump? What if you took the newly-adapted organisms and put them in an environment where jumping ability was selected for? The mutations suddenly don't seem all that benefical. But this is what we expect from evolution. Whether or not a phenotype is beneficial is relative to the environment, and this is what drives evolutionary change.

In humans there is one equivocally beneficial mutation, out of 4,000 devastating mutations: sickle cell anemia. It is inherited in autosomal recessive fashion and occurs mainly in individuals of African descent. It has been traced to a mutation of one nucleotide in a gene coding for hemoglobin, the protein that carries oxygen in our blood. Normal red blood cells may sickle in the heterozygote (sickle trait, with one mutated and one normal gene) or the homozygote (sickle disease, with two mutated genes), but sickling is more likely to occur in the homozygote. Normal red cells are round, but sickled red cells are misshapen, like sickles. Sickle crisis occurs when red cells sickle and clog the arteries to parts of organs. Organs then undergo infarction (death from lack of blood supply). Without medical support the homozygotes are likely to die in young to middle age.

But there is one positive. Heterozygotes in Africa, where malaria is endemic, are more resistant to malaria than people with normal hemoglobin, and the heterozygote genotype may have a survival advantage, but only in those areas. Could this be a limited example of evolutionary progress? Not really. When the mutant sickle gene is latent (i.e., sickling isn't occurring), there is a survival advantage in areas with malaria. But whenever sickling occurs, in the heterozygote or the homozygote, it obstructs blood vessels and causes pain and death to organs.

According to evolution, all genes that are expressed are merely mutations. Actually, the expression, not just the latency, of all our genes is positive when expressed. Sickling is always negative when it occurs, so it remains a very poor example of evolution, and in fact refutes it. Evolution theorists have yet to demonstrate the unequivocally positive nature of a single mutation.

Of course they can't show an unequivocally beneficial mutation: they don't exist! Any mutation that is beneficial in one environment is probably harmful in another (in terms of negative and positive selection coefficients), so to demand the existence of a mutation that is always beneficial is impossible. Mutations don't have to beneficial in all environments, just in the one where the organism is currently present and there is a selection pressure for that mutation.

The mutations described above are those that, when expressed, cause phenotypic (physically observable) changes in organisms. However, the majority of mutations are "neutral mutations" that do not cause any detectable change in the phenotype or body of the animal. These mutations can only be detected by DNA sequencing and are not candidates for evolutionary processes at all. Since there is no phenotypic change, natural selection cannot even remotely select for them. And they are not totally neutral, but are rather subtly deleterious because they degrade the genetic code. A better term for these neutral mutations is "near-neutral." Research is demonstrating that the "near-neutral" mutations are accumulating far too rapidly for organisms to have avoided extinction if they indeed have existed over the millions of years claimed by evolutionary biologists.10 Harmful mutations destroy the individual organism, preventing the gene from being passed on. The "neutral mutations" will ultimately destroy entire species, because the mutated genes will be passed on and accumulate.

Dr. Maddox is talking about how neutral mutations don't have to be silent (no change the amino acid sequence), but can change the amino acid sequence to a similar amino acid. If a mutation occurs that changes one amino acid in a protein to a chemically similar one (and doesn't change the function of the protein), it will not be acted on by natural selection. This is true, but Dr. Maddox then completely disregards what he just said and looks like a fool.

If neutral (or "near-neutral") mutations did in fact destroy the genetic code over time, then natural selection would select for organisms that have a few of them as possible. You can't say, Dr. Maddox, that these changes are not acted on by natural selection, yet affect the fitness of the organisms, because by definition natural selection will act upon changes that affect the fitness of those organisms!

Evolutionary science teaches that all the wonderful organs and enzymes in humans and animals--eyes, hemoglobin, lungs, hearts, and kidneys, all coded with DNA--arose totally by random chance through mutations in DNA. Consider the construction and operation of a machine. If random changes are made to a machine or the blueprint that codes for the construction of the machine, will that help its function? Absolutely not. Random changes occur every day that destroy the manufacture and function of machines. Likewise, random changes to information destroy the function and outcome of that information.

Bad, bad analogy. There is a fundamental difference between life and machines: machines don't reproduce and carry those changes over to the next generation for natural selection forces to work on them. If you knew anything about evolution, Dr. Maddox, you would know how stupid your analogy really is.

Observational (i.e., scientific) evidence, as seen in medical research every day, leads one to be skeptical of the claims of evolutionary biology. How does science explain that mythical first bacterial cell three billion years ago? Did it transform itself--by random mutations in the DNA--into all the "wondrous profusion" of life forms (one million species), and all their wondrous functional organs, over an imaginary time period? The evidence says no.

First of all, according to the paleological and geological evidence, life arose 2.5 billion years ago, but it was nothing like current bacteria. It took 2 billion years for the single-celled lifeform to arise, but only 500 million years for modern multicellular life to arise from that. Secondly, contrary to what you think and what your friends think, the evidence does support evolutionary theory. You only think it doesn't because the evolution you know is a strawman, and quite a misshapen strawman at that.

"A mutation that alters a protein enough to affect its function is more often harmful than beneficial. Organisms are the refined products of selection, and a random change is not likely to improve the genome anymore than firing a gunshot blindly through the hood of a car is likely to improve engine performance. On rare occasions, however, a mutant allele |gene| may actually fit its bearer to the environment better and enhance the reproductive success of the individual."11

While instructing students that harmful mutations were more numerous than "beneficial" mutations, this textbook failed to disclose that even equivocally beneficial mutations (which still have a downside) are extremely rare (about one in 10,000), and that unequivocally beneficial mutations are nonexistent in nature. There may be a few times when the gun was fired through the hood and resulted in no immediate harm to the engine. However, improving the engine in this manner would be impossible.

Again, why the mechanical analogies? Do engines reproduce? Do they pass their "bullet holes" onto the next generation of engines? No, and that's why this is a pointless strawman, yet again.

In the twentieth century many genetic researchers tried to "accelerate evolution" by increasing mutation rates.12 This can be accomplished with ionizing radiation, like x-rays, or chemical mutagens. Researchers gave plants and fruit flies very high doses of radiation or other mutagens in hopes that new life forms, or at least improved organs, would result. Decades of this type of research resulted in repeated failure. Every mutation observed was deleterious to the organisms' survival. In the fruit fly research13 various mutations occurred--like legs coming out of eyes--but not one improved mutation was observed. Why? Because radiation is harmful, as the signs in hospitals warn pregnant patients. The pre-born child is more sensitive to mutagens, and thus has a higher likelihood of being harmed.

Of course radiation is harmful if you give it in high enough doses, but evolution doesn't say that "high levels of mutagenic compounds in the environment accelerated the mutation rate the various organisms on Earth and quickly produced a wide variety of species with completely new body plans that were entirely without flaw and were great", which is what Dr. Maddox seems to think it says. If the mutation rate is too high, natural selection cannot cope with the influx of harmful changes, and extinction will occur. Evolution doesn't require high levels of mutation: germ line meiosis errors suffice.

Carl Sagan, in his Cosmos program "One Voice in the Cosmic Fugue," stated that evolution was caused by "the slow accumulations of favorable mutations." While this may be the current popular theory, real science disagrees. The perpetuation of the Darwin myth clashes with reality--the God-created reality--where living things and their genomes were created "very good" and have degenerated from there. Genetic science demonstrates that the absolutely essential ingredient for the origin of life is an infinite Intelligence. Of all the origin stories, only one contains this essential ingredient--Genesis 1.

Sweet Jesus. I think I've demonstrated that Dr. Maddox has no idea what he's talking about. Damn it, I expected more from a urology specialist.

Let's just say, for a second, that Dr. Maddox just falsified evolution. Now, under what justification does he have to automatically say "Of all the origin stories, only one contains this essential ingredient--Genesis 1"? Why is the Bible suddenly true if evolution is false? Why not the other countless origin stories that say that life was created intelligently, such as the sun god Ra masturbating on a hill and creating the world? Personally, I find that one at least as, or even much more, plausible than Genesis.

Another article from the website we've all learnt to feel edgy around: the Institute for Creation Research. It's called "Mutations: The Raw Material for Evolution?", and is authored by Dr. Barney Maddox, M.D. At the bottom of the article, there is a short paragraph about Dr. Maddox's authority on evolutionary biology:

Dr. Barney Maddox is a urology specialist in Cleburne, Texas, and author of the biological sciences course material for the Creationist Worldview distance education program offered by ICR.

Oh. So, you're saying he's not an evolutionary biologist? He's a urologist? No offense to any urologists who are reading this, but if I want to know about evolutionary biology, I don't go to a urologist to teach me. But hey, I'm 16, he's a guy who studies kidney excretions: we should have the same level of knowledge, right? Well, we'll see.

Article link: Institute for Creation Research: Mutations: The Raw Material for Evolution?, by Dr. Barney Maddox, M.D.

Does Dr. Maddox know anything about evolution? Let's see by examining what he writes.

Galen, the personal physician to Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius, and his 22 thick volumes of medical treatises dominated medical practice for 1,300 years. In many ways his legacy was disastrous for medicine because no one challenged his teachings. In fact, several of Galen’s errors |in blood circulationl were not pointed out until more than 1,200 years later with the publication |of works by the founder of modern anatomy Andreas Vasalius in 1543|….|T|hus began the first renaissance of medicine.1

The first anesthetic for surgery was delivered in Boston in 1846. Prior to that time patients endured surgery awake and in agony. Imagine if after 1846 surgeons in one state outlawed anesthesia, forbid its practice during their operations, and flunked medical students who promoted anesthesia. The mention of anesthesia would be stricken from medical textbooks, except for derogatory references. The operating room would be a tragic scene of violent thrashing and screams. Surgical complication rates would rise, since surgeries would have to be performed very quickly. When challenged, these surgeons would reply, "Galen said it, I believe it, and that settles it," or "That's the way we've always done it."

Fortunately, the opposite occurred after 1846. The use of general anesthesia caught on very quickly. Today's operating room is calm and efficient, and surgical complication rates are much lower than before 1846, since advances in the science of anesthesia were rapidly applied to surgery.

Correct application of the latest knowledge and techniques in surgical science works today. So why not make similar applications in the forensic science of origins? Darwin published his Origin of Species just before the Civil War. Numerous advances in science since that time bring into question the validity of Darwin's theory, yet biology textbooks today maintain the Darwin mantra, "Darwin said it, I believe it, and that settles it."

Did you see what he did there? Did you? For those who don't know, the most famous utterer of "[insert name here] said it, I believe it, and that settles it," is Ken Ham, the president of Answers in Genesis. Of course, his version is "God said it, I believe it, that settles it," referring to the fact that young earth creationists base their arguments on the literal English interpretation of the Bible (to download a handy illustration of this phrase, click here).

Of course, modern evolutionary biologist don't rely on the prestige of Charles Darwin to support evolutionary theory, they rely on the mountains of evidence that exists. If evolution was supported only on the merits of Darwin himself, the theory would not include such things as five sixths of the fossil record, or even genetics, since Darwin was not aware of the work his contemporary Gregor Mendel was doing at the time he was writing "On the Origin of Species". But modern evolutionary theory has progressed past an argument from authority (not that it ever was one), and has descended into irrefutable science.

In 1986 I read my first creationist article, written by a biologist. By the time I finished, I knew I could no longer justify my evolutionary thinking. Was it Scripture that convinced me? Actually, no. The author did not mention God or the Bible once. She simply pointed out, armed with modern scientific facts, that practically everything I had learned in medical school--especially in genetics--directly conflicted with Darwin's theory. Consider the fact that Darwin was completely ignorant of genetics, having died before this field was established as a science in 1900. In ignorance, Darwin believed in the inheritance of acquired characteristics--that is, if an animal acquired a physical characteristic during its lifetime, it could pass that characteristic on to its progeny. Of course, it is an established fact that living things can only pass on the genetic information they inherit from their parents. Will a man who loses a leg in an accident have one-legged children? No, his children will have two legs, because although the man's body (or phenotype) changed, his genotype (or DNA) remains the same.

This is an argument against Charles Darwin, but anyone who knows anything about evolution also knows that modern evolutionary theory (called neo-Darwinism) is based upon many other things as well as Darwin's original ideas. You can't fault the man for accepting inherited characteristics though, he didn't know anything about genetics, and neither did anybody else at the time, except for perhaps creationists Gregor Mendel.

One biology textbook states that "an important point to remember is that the variety of genes carried by all living species is the result of millions of years of random mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift."2 But natural selection only explains survival of the fittest; it fails to explain arrival of the fittest. Natural selection, i.e., the forces of nature, does not change the DNA of the individual animal at all, and can only change the total gene pool of a species by eliminating unfit individuals (leading to the loss, not gain, of genetic information). Genetic drift, or gene shuffling, only involves the shuffling of existing genes within a kind. It does not explain the origination of any gene. Another textbook states: "New alleles |genes| originate only by mutation."3 The only way for organisms to acquire DNA other than what they inherited from their parents is for their DNA to change, or mutate. If their DNA doesn't change, living things could never change regardless of how much time passes. Lizards could never become chickens and monkeys, and fish could never become philosophers. Since evolution rejects purposeful design, genetic change could only be random, or accidental.

There's nothing really wrong with this paragraph: he's correct when he says that natural selection and genetic drift cannot produce new alleles, and that mutations are the only way for new genetic information to be produced in the gene pool. Things are (potentially) looking up. Does Dr. Maddox actually know what he's talking about?

The underlying genetic mechanism of evolution is random mutation, and specifically mutation that is beneficial to life. Biology textbooks in theory present positive and negative mutations to students as though these were commonplace and roughly equal in number. However, these books fail to inform students that unequivocally positive mutations are unknown to genetics, since they have never been observed (or are so rare as to be irrelevant).

Whoops, I spoke too soon. He's right when he says that negative and beneficial mutations don't occur in equal number, but he then takes this information as proof that what is taught to children must be wrong. In fact, the most common type of mutation is a neutral one: one that doesn't change the eventual amino acid sequence of the coded protein. And yes, negative mutations occur much more frequently than beneficial ones. However, you must remember the mechanism of natural selection. Bad mutations will be weeded out quickly, and good ones will be preserved. Thus, any beneficial mutations, however rare, will eventually take over the entire gene pool.

It's also a lie to say that positive mutations are unknown to genetics. Even without a real-world example it is easy to see, if you know anything about genetics or biochemistry, that beneficial mutations have to exist. After all, is there a reason why they cannot? A mutation that makes an enzyme more efficient at producing product will be conserved, and can be imagined quite easily. A slight change in the amino acid sequence that makes the structure of the enzyme such that the reactants are brought closer together (and thus lowers the reaction's activation energy) is clearly a positive mutation. Changes in the structure of transcription factors that make them more efficient will be conserved, as will duplications of genes essential to the organism.

The biology textbooks in other chapters teach that most mutations are pathologic, or disease-causing, but they don't apply that information to evolution. The worst diseases doctors treat today are caused by genetic mutations. Nearly 4,000 diseases are caused by mutations in DNA.4 "The human genome contains a complete set of instructions for the production of a human being…. Genome research has already exposed errors |mutations| in these instructions that lead to heart disease, cancer, and neurological degeneration."5 These diseases are crippling, often fatal, and many of the affected pre-born infants are aborted spontaneously, i.e., they are so badly damaged they can't even survive gestation. However, the biology textbooks, when discussing mutation in evolution, only discuss the very rare "positive" mutation, like sickle cell anemia. The fact of some 4,000 devastating genetic diseases is suppressed from publication.

Again, the existence of bad mutations does not silence the fact that beneficial mutations do exist. His example of a beneficial mutation is weird though: sickle-cell anemia? You all must think he's crazy. However, sickle-cell anemia is a beneficial mutation in areas where malaria is prevalent, as it deforms the red blood cells of the afflicted individual so that the invading parasite cannot take refuge. But Dr. Maddox is just looking to confuse, so that is why he gave this particular, unintuitive, example.

Polycystic kidney disease is a common mutation in humans. It is inherited in autosomal dominant fashion,6 meaning that one copy of the relevant gene received from the parents was mutant and the other copy was normal. The sufferers who inherit the mutated gene may die of kidney failure by late middle age if they don't receive dialysis or a kidney transplant. As the disease progresses, the kidneys are gradually replaced by functionless cysts, which can cause continuous pain and enlarge the kidneys to the point where they bleed, get infections, and may even interfere with breathing.

Another instance of genetic mutation is cystic fibrosis, which is inherited in autosomal recessive fashion, meaning that both of the relevant inherited genes are mutant. Patients with this condition are burdened with mucous-plugging defects in their lungs and pancreas. Beginning in childhood they remain susceptible to frequent, sometimes very dangerous, pneumonias. Insufficient amounts of pancreatic enzymes are available to properly digest food, requiring pancreatic enzyme replacements. Sufferers of cystic fibrosis are usually sterile, and may die in young adulthood even with expert medical care.

The recent decoding of the human genome has allowed scientists to determine that cystic fibrosis is caused by a random change of three nucleotides in a gene that codes for a 1480-amino acid-long ion transport protein.7 The human genome has three billion nucleotides, or base pairs, in the DNA.8 Since a random change of three nucleotides in a three-billion-part genome is fatal (0.0000001%), how is it remotely possibly that a chimp could be the evolutionary cousin of a human?

Well, how is it possible? It seems that the changes required to evolve chimpanzees into humans (something that did not happen, since chimpanzees and humans share a common ancestor) are basically impossible. But this argument is built on a misunderstanding of basic elements of evolutionary theory.

When an individual in a population contracts a genetic illness due to a mutation, especially one as severe as cystic fibrosis or polycystic kidney disease, he or she most likely will not pass on their genes to the next generation, or at least have a lower chance of doing so. This means that the mutation that causes such a disease will not remain in the population over time: there is a selective pressure not to have that mutation. Natural selection prunes out these bad mutations, increases beneficial ones and doesn't care about neutral ones. Evolution works by the slow addition of beneficial mutations to the overall gene pool of a population, not at the individual level.

The lowest estimate of the genetic differences between our DNA and that of chimps is at least 50 million nucleotides (some estimates of the disparity are much higher). Quantitative information in genetics today is proving evolutionary theory as simply a man-made and irrational philosophical belief.

Only if you're like Dr. Maddox and don't know a thing about the actual mechanics of it.

One top geneticist recently conducted a computer analysis to quantitate the ratio of "beneficial mutations" to harmful mutations.9 Only 186 entries for beneficial mutations were discovered (and even they have a downside), versus 453,732 entries for harmful mutations. The ratio of "beneficial mutations" to harmful mutations is 0.00041! Thus, even if a very rare mutation is "beneficial," the next 10,000 mutations in any evolutionary sequence would each be fatal or crippling, and each of the next 10,000 imaginary mutations would bring the evolution process to a halt.

I agree with those numbers, though Dr. Maddox is still hung up on a strawman of evolution.

To rid ourselves of any misinterpretation, let's look at natural selection as a sieve. The gene pool of a particular population is contained within the sieve, and each particular gene is a grain of sand. Sand grains that are bigger than the holes in the sieve (beneficial genes) stay within the sieve (remain in the gene pool). Grains that are smaller than the holes in the sieve (harmful genes), slip through (are not conserved in the population's gene pool). Sand is constantly pouring through the sieve (representing the mutation rate creating new genes). Most grains of sand are smaller than the holes, but some are larger. What would you expect over time?

Of course, the large grains build up over time and you end up with a sieve full of sand, even though they are hopelessly outnumbered by the smaller grains. This also true of evolution: beneficial mutations build up, even though they are outnumbered (as the unnamed geneticist finds) ten thousand to one.

I'm going to have to stop here. The article's massive, and I don't want to kill you by creationism overdose.

]]> http://justmytruth.wordpress.com/?p=538 Wed, 28 May 2008 16:29:42 +0000 justmytruth http://justmytruth.wordpress.com/?p=538 Everyone is talking about nuclear energy lately. Seems the European Union is only the latest to demand their right to go nuclear. However, the true cost in nuclear energy is not in what it takes to build it or in the danger the plants themselves present, but what happens to the spent fuel cells once they are no longer useful to the reactors. Sad to say, no one is about to get any sense any time soon either. The true unlimited energy source, the sun, is ignored... Why?

I'm not exactly sure why nuclear energy is preferable to something that is free and easily had by all. Perhaps it is the fact that it is freely available that makes it seem less important than it should be. However, stop and think about just how much solar energy there is, and how many things can be run on solar energy, and then tell me that nuclear energy is a better solution. A good source of information, only one of many, on things running on solar energy can be found here: Nor does this mention ALL the items run on solar electricity such as cars. You cannot run a vehicle on nuclear power, but you could charge one off a solar powered battery, charged, of course, by the sun...

After all, if a plant is blown up, (for whatever reason), the fallout from it travels around the world with the prevailing wind currents accessing all parts of the planet. It won't be contained in one area. Think Chernobyl.

A HISTORY LESSON...

On April 26, 1986 at 1:23 am, Chernobyl's #4 reactor exploded. Several other explosions and fire followed, creating the worst nuclear disaster to date. It was considered a level 7 disaster. (Level determined by the International Nuclear Event Scale) The fallout from this disaster was felt throughout Northern Europe, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, North America, the Ukraine, Belarus and Russia. 60% of the fallout landed in Belarus official records say. Most of the people located in the immediate vicinity of the fallout had to be evacuated and relocated as quickly as possible.

There was nearly 30 - 40 TIMES the amount of radiation fallout released from the explosion of Chernobyl's reactor as there was released over Hiroshima by the atomic bombs dropped there. Because of the secrecy of the Soviet Union at the time, estimates on the death toll, on the amount of victims of the disaster, will never be known. The World Health Organization, (WHO) lays a guestimate at between 56 (the workers and 9 children with cancer) and 4,000 of the most highly exposed. But the true number will never be known. Lists of names are incomplete. There may be another 6,000 in the population of 6 million living near by.

ZONE OF ALIENATION...

The zone of alienation is a 30 kl/19 mile area around the Chernobyl nuclear plant. Nothing goes in or out of it. No children play, no one fills the empty apartment buildings, no one walks the streets here, and no one will either unless you are a scientist who is there to study the effects of nuclear radiation on the area. Even then, a person is limited in how long they can stay and 30 days is the MAXIMUM time anyone can be there. But still no one LIVES in the area, but in the towns surrounding it. And it counts against their health care...

Obviously the flora and fauna have been dramatically affected by the radiation. Extreme measures have been taken to contain both wildlife and waters in the zone. During spring runoff, the resulting silt which could contaminate ground downstream, is contained by dikes. Mutations have been reported in the wildlife, but none have been scientifically documented.

The current containment over the reactor is being replaced by one that is designed to last for 100 years. And replacing the containment shield is also estimated to slow down the decomposition of the radiation. 100 years is not nearly as long as the radioactive particles inside the reactor will live. According to Wikipedia:

The sarcophagus was never designed to last for the 100 years needed to contain the radioactivity found within the remains of reactor 4. While present designs for a new shelter anticipate a lifetime of up to 100 years, that time is minuscule compared to the lifetime of the radioactive materials within the reactor. The construction and maintenance of a permanent sarcophagus that can completely contain the remains of reactor 4 will present a continuing task to engineers for many generations to come. If the Chernobyl plant were to collapse, a large release of radioactive dust would occur, but it would likely be a one-time event.

So, not in my lifetime, not in my children's lifetime, not even in my children's children's lifetime will Chernobyl be done stewing in its own radioactive juices. And yet, for all the danger this presents, it seems that no other alternative source for energy is being sought.

According to ThinkQuest.org, under the title: THE BANE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY, spent nuclear rods from reactors are the most radioactive of all the nuclear waste products. Storing these rods can be a problem, and one that has to have LONG term solutions.

The spent fuel rods from a nuclear reactor are the most radioactive of all nuclear wastes. When all the radiation given off by nuclear waste is tallied, the fuel rods give off 99% of it, in spite of having relatively small volume. There is, as of now, no permanent storage site of spent fuel rods. Temporary storage is being used while a permanent site is searched for and prepared.

You see, no one wants the waste in their back yard. Whoever takes it, wherever it goes, the land will be useless for thousands of years to come. This stuff is not going away and should anything happen to the facility, these toxic rods would be exposed to the environment. Having seen and read enough stories about companies such as Haliburton and KBR whose shoddy work brings death and destruction while they maintain their immunity, I cannot say I would trust ANYONE to build such a facility without overseeing it myself every step of the way. Even then, the possibility of being lied to is very great. Companies like these are so disreputable that it amazes me they are still in business. I guess having your ex CEO in the VP slot helps with getting contracts. Talk about influence peddling!!!

Europe Going Nuclear Despite Warnings

by Zoltán Dujisin

PRAGUE - The EU seems to be backing nuclear energy as the response to global warming and gas dependency, but civic groups warn that safety and waste processing should be preconditions for the industry’s growth.

~snip~

“There is no energy technology free of risks. We have to live with that and do our best choices among existing possibilities,” Ulla Birgitta Sirkeinen from the EU’s Economic and Social Committee, a consultative body, told participants. “This committee has the view that nuclear energy is needed.”

“We all share the (EU) objective of reducing greenhouse emissions by 20 percent by 2020,” Nicole Fontaine, a European Parliamentarian, told participants. “Although there are many solutions such as renewable energy, reality dictates we use nuclear energy, which covers 32 percent of European energy needs.

What are the risks associated with solar energy?

Answer

There are roughly two types of solar power: Thermic (Solar heating) and Electric (PV)
Risks are only the risks like handling any kind of powered equipment generating/using heat or electricity.

So Solar heating can cause fire, stream burns (As used by concentrating solar mirrors) , mechanical overload. PV can cause electrocution and fire by short circuit.

By comparison with other ways of power production the risks are lower. There is no fuel that can burn/explode and no waste that is either toxic or radioactive.

So the answer to the above article is that it is obvious that they are not considering this alternative to their energy needs. If one is to consider the need for lessening the burden on the environment through energy usage, wouldn't it make sense to start using energy we have in abundance which doesn't cost anything, can be easily collected and will mesh with existing power infrastructures, while not having to burn fuel? Admittedly I am not an electrician, I do not work at a power station, and I do not have the training needed to refit a power station. But I can read the manuals and those show an easy transformation from one to the other.

For areas that do not get much sun we have wind. Wind is one of the other great freebies on this planet. And although I would love to say there are no risks to wind power, there are. The towers have been known to throw a blade now and then. But this is a design problem and one that can be fixed if there is a demand. Also, according to an article found HERE there have been deaths associated with this type of equipment. The article is excellent and short if you would care to increase your knowledge in this area.

http://www.bwea.com/ref/tech.html

As you can see from the diagram above, one of these blades coming off could do some damage. And I have heard that the cost to birds is high. However, it seems that the threat to wildlife and birds can be lessened by shorter wind towers. I would assume that it is possible to create a warning system geared more towards a birds system which would allow them to be warned away from the sight of such an operation but has not be designed yet. It should also be noted that most of the deaths associated with this type of power are found in the United States of America and not in the rest of the world. Makes you think that Americans are less careful or else are hiring unskilled workers.

All this aside, what other countries decide to do for energy is not the business of the United States. When I hear that bush is posturing yet again over Iran's decision to improve their nuclear power plants, I just can't quite get excited about it. We are NOT the world's police department and Iran's affairs are its own. Were we not in the process of occupying Iraq, we would have no business there at all. How dare the United States of America even consider telling another country what it can and cannot do after fighting so hard for our own independence from England? bush is wrong! cheney is wrong! This whole administration is damned and WE the PEOPLE do not agree with them. Iran should have the freedom to develop what technology it will for the good of her people.

According to the International Herald Tribune, Iran's use of nuclear energy started back in the 1970s. And back then, the United States of America ENCOURAGED that use. Just because bush and company want to start a war with Iran doesn't mean that there is anything more to it than just that, bush wants a war and is bound, set, and determined to have it. Considering this man's last 8 years, I blame Congress for not doing anything to stop him. This man is a proven liar, so it is fair to assume that anything he says can be counted on to be just the opposite as far as truth goes. I wouldn't trust a single member of his administration. I would doubt him if he walked up to me and told me his mother was white. I'm afraid I'd have to demand a DNA test to verify the information.

So, while I do not agree with building nuclear plants all across this world, it is not my place to say someone is not free to choose this technology. I would prefer that we used renewable sources that were non-toxic to us, our environment, and our biosphere, but the choice is not mine. I do not understand though why, if all are so concerned with global warming, they continue to choose power that is so toxic to us and our environment. It seems utterly stupid to me. The dangers far outweigh the benefits.

Stay tuned for Nuclear Capabilities Part II

]]> http://exploringthevoid.wordpress.com/?p=33 Sun, 25 May 2008 01:21:51 +0000 abisnail http://exploringthevoid.wordpress.com/?p=33 Cabin Fever (noun)

- a state characterized by anxiety, restlessness, and boredom, arising from a prolonged stay in a remote or confined place.
- A type of hysteria brought on by spending too much time indoors.

Now that sounds familiar. I think I have found the problem. I need to get out more.
This book may provide the excuse:

I might go into town just to buy it.
It looks like quite an intimidating book, to me - a graphic novel horror about teenagers, STDs, and mutations - but on the other hand, it also looks really interesting, and the art is very unusual. I'll just have to remember not to lend it out to friends and family, ne?

I have a WHSmiths gift card, anyways, so I won't be wasting too much money on it.

Have you read it?
Do you own it?
Are you after it?
Let me know what you think of it! I only know what I have seen on the interwebs, review-wise. So any opinion on the book would be appreciated. :) Over and out!

What follows is a straightforward, 4-step refutation of the theory of evolution. They're easy to remember, and make a nice little cadence when spoken with a little rhythm: First Law, Second Law, Fossils and Genes. Armed with this truth, go forth and conquer.

Not even an encouragement to read a book or two? Just memorize these 4 things and regurgatate them at anyone who accepts evolution? Sadly, there's more:

[E]volution teaches that everything that exists is the product of the random collision of atoms, this logically includes the thoughts I am thinking about evolution.

Ah. The ubiquitous "evolution is random argument", reduced now to the atomic level. Does Fischer even know the difference between biology and physics? Now Fischer's 4 steps in brief:

First Law of Thermodynamics.This law (note: not a theory but a scientific law) teaches us that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed.... What this means, then, is that science simply has no explanation for the most basic question that could possibly be asked: why is there something rather than nothing? Intelligent Design advocates have an answer to this question; evolutionists do not.

Second Law of Thermodynamics. This law (note: not a theory but a law) teaches us that in every chemical or heat reaction, there is a loss of energy that never again is available for another heat reaction... This law teaches us, then, that the universe is headed toward increasing randomness and decay... But what does the theory of evolution teach us? The exact opposite, that the universe is headed toward increasing complexity and order. You put up a theory against my law, I'm going to settle for the law, thank you very much.

Fossils. What the fossil record teaches us, in contrast to the theory of evolution, is that increasingly complex life forms appear fully formed in the fossil record, just as if they were put there by a Creator.... Evolutionists are at a total loss to explain the Pre-Cambrian Explosion... Thus the fossil record is a powerful argument for the existence of an Intelligent Designer while at the same time being fatal for the theory of evolution.... Intelligent Design theory has an explanation for the fossil record; evolution does not.

Genes. The only mechanism — don't miss this — the only mechanism evolutionists have to explain the development of increasingly complex life forms is genetic mutation... The problem: naturally occurring genetic mutations are invariably harmful if not fatal to the organism.

Bryan Fischer repeatedly makes a distinction between a "law" and a "theory", as he sees it. He thinks a law is somehow superior. He then contradicts himself by proclaiming the power of "Intelligent Design theory". ID isn't even worthy of the title of theory. If it is, then every marijuana induced epiphany is a law.

The 1st law of thermodynamics seems to contradict a creator. If matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, then how did a creator create them? How does ID answer this question? Magic? Anyway, it has nothing at all to do with Darwinian Evolution. But in Fischer's mind there seems to be a connection.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics is an old creationist argument, easily disposed of. Basically, the earth is not a closed system. It receives energy from the sun. And no biologist ever said that the universe is becoming more complex. Fischer is just pulling arguments out of his ass, or someone else's ass.

What Fischer doesn't know about the fossil record wouldn't fit in the Grand Canyon. Creationists never actually discuss the fossil record, they only discuss what they think the fossil record is. The two are light-years apart. Their fossil record is a caricature. Enough said.

Finally, most mutations are completely neutral, not harmful. Except for the ones Fischer's mother accumulated prior to his birth.

I really do believe that creationist nutbars like Bryan Fischer are deeply afraid of science. It's the only explanation for their complete ignorance. They stay so far away from it that not even a kernel of truth rubs off on them.

www.TheDarwinReport.com

bulletin_mai2008

Graves menaces sur les mutations
PETITION NATIONALE SNEP SNES SNUEP SNASUB

Dans le cadre des discussions sur la rénovation du dialogue social dans la fonction publique, le gouvernement prévoit la révision du rôle des commissions paritaires. Leurs compétences seraient limitées aux seules décisions d’avancement, aux décisions disciplinaires et aux licenciements.

Ainsi, des questions essentielles qui concernent les personnels d’enseignement, d’éducation et d’orientation, d' administration, telles que les mutations et les titularisations, ne seraient plus soumises à l’avis des commissions paritaires, avant décision de l’administration.

Ainsi, les mutations et les affectations des personnels échapperaient à tout contrôle des élus du personnel et à tout examen contradictoire avec l’administration. Ce serait la fin d’un acquis de plus d’un demi siècle du paritarisme et la porte ouverte à des mutations et des affectations discrétionnaires, en dehors de toute transparence et sans garantie du respect de règles communes et d’égalité de traitement. Le droit à mutation pourrait être remis en cause.

Les sous signés exigent que soient confirmées les compétences actuelles des commissions paritaires et en premier lieu tout ce qui concerne le tableau des mutations et les affectations.

Signez-la ici !

I like the humor, but I disagree with including atheism in a list of shitty religions. It's not a religion. This is why atheists argue so much amongst themselves. Freethinking is just that, free. And come to think of it, Taoism and Buddhism shouldn't be in there either. Meditating and contemplating your place in the universe isn't religious, it's spiritual. Uh Oh, they forgot to add Agnosticism.

Agnosticism: Is that shit on my shoe or not? I'm just not sure.

www.TheDarwinReport.com

This is a favourite argument of creationists. In fact, I've already dealt with an Answers in Genesis article that made the case for the same claim, and you can find it here. This one is from CreationWiki though, and they have a slightly different take on things.

Mutations have been scientifically observed to give an organism a new function or something which makes it more survivable under the given environment. They have not however been observed to make the organism more complex, in that a mutation literally introduces, thus building upon the existing DNA. There must be introduction of truly new information for evolution to truly advance from a fish to man and create vastly more complex genomes.

This is a classic mistake. Creationists, most of whom are not that familiar with the aspects of biochemistry that go against what they have been told, do not seem to consider what gene duplication does to the "information level" of the genome. If a gene is duplicated, then any mutations on the copy will be "adding information" while still keeping the original copy unchanged. This is how gene families form and genome sizes change.

The fact is mutations only scramble the existing DNA of an organism to achieve a different read-out, resulting in (at times) a beneficial adaptation to the environment producing a type of ecological niche ultimately. This is all mutations have been scientifically observed to do, but with implications of naturalists coupled with evolution it becomes something much more. Observations of these results are then extrapolated to declare unobserved change, such as what evolution ultimately predicts, molecules-to-man.

Hah! See, I thought so. They completely ignore gene duplication events and focus on point mutations of existing genes. Of course changing the existing DNA of an organism by swapping base pairs isn't going to variate the amount of DNA to the extent to which is observed between the various organisms. That's obvious, but creationists focus only that part of molecular evolution and forget the rest.

I have literally asked evolutionists, "Where is a real-world scientifically observable example of a mutation producing new information, thus increasing and building upon the existing DNA resulting in a new organism emerging from what was originally there?" They, fully believing the evolution theory as scientific fact have claimed that a bacterium, called the nylon bug here on out by me, with its adaptation to consuming nylon waste, is scientific evidence of evolution.

You have to admit, the nylon-digesting bacteria is cool, no matter of your, ahem, biases. However, as these guys are putting it, the frameshift mutation that caused the ability to digest nylon (which was a subtraction mutation) didn't "increase the information" in the genome, since something was lost when it happened. However, if the gene that was altered had duplicated before it had been changed, the information level would have risen. And that is exactly what happens with most new genes: old genes duplicate and one diverges from the original function to do something new.

Having this bacteria being able to have waste products of nylon as their only source of carbon and nitrogen is quite remarkable but let us focus on just two species of this bacteria.

Flavobacterium K172 and Pseudomonas NK87.

There are three enzymes that are responsible for this ability in Flavobacterium K172, which are; F-EI, F-EII and F-EIII and there are two in Pseudomonas NK87, which are; P-EI and P-EII. The genes for these enzymes are located on three plasmids which are Plasmid pOAD2 in Flavobacterium and pNAD2 and pNAD6 in Pseudomonas.

For those who do not know what is being talked about, enzymes are proteins that serve to speed up chemical reactions by acting as catalysts, and plasmids are circular rings of DNA in bacteria that are seperate from the main genome.

I will admit that this specific mutation is advantageous for the bacteria as it is able to use the broken down nylon as a new food source but as far as added new functional genetic information to the gene pool, therefore ultimately it is proof of large scale evolution of the genome, it is not.

It is not obvious proof that large-scale evolutionary changes in bacteria have happened, but that they are possible. Again, I stress that this is not a good example of "information increase", due to the changing if one gene to another, not a duplication that has yielded a new gene while still retaining the old one.

This type of mutation was a frame-shift and the change in the bacteria was a base pair deletion so that all the bases after that are read differently. Essentially, when the bacteria started to adapt and consume this nylon waste, they passed down the mutated genes to the next generation and ultimately a generation became fully adapted to it genetically at birth.

Briefly ignoring the fact that bacteria are not "born" but are produced as a result of binary fission, this bit of the article is basically correct for all intents and purposes here.

Here is a simple example of how a frame-shift mutations works:

ONE FAT FOX ATE THE CAT

The frame-shift would delete the first T and would then cause the genes to shift over to replace it, thus it would read:

ONE FAF OXA TET HEC AT

Indeed this example doesn't make the sentence say anything, but in the case of the nylon metabolising enzyme’s it worked. Because of the environment the bacteria were in it demanded natural selection, they were either able to adapt or die out. In most other cases a frame-shift mutation is not a good thing and causes a disruption to the genes, this is a rare example.

Yes, the article is correct: without a duplication event copying the gene and making sure the original gene still exists and can be expressed, a frameshift mutation is highly disruptive to the gene it happens in, and are usually selected against through natural selection. By the way, frameshift mutations don't have to be just the subtraction of bases, they can also be additions. Just thought I should throw that in there and be as accurate as possible.

The evolutionist would claim that the bacteria has indeed increased information as it produced a new read-out. But this new read-out is still a subset of the already existing DNA in that organism. The frame-shift mutation did not add onto the existing DNA rather it only scrambled what was there and because it is in an environment to adapt to, it worked! There is no way around it, the variation or changes cannot become massive if all it does is re-arrange the existing DNA, it is severely limited to that.

Now that's just a straw man argument. No evolutionary biologist is claiming that frameshift subtractions (or additions for that matter) cause the build-up of DNA that we see in evolutionary progression over time. Do I really need to say what really happens again? You understand it? Thought so.

That the bacteria mutate so that they can break down nylon waste as their food sources can still fall under the creationist model until the bacteria literally become something else. Then and only then will evolution have a strong case in the realm of mutations being the mechanism for the massive changes needed.

I'll admit that the "creationist model" doesn't rule this sort of thing out, but people have to understand that this sort of thing is not one of the "top evidences for evolution", it's just a well-known case of a subtraction mutation having an unprecedented effect on an organism's metabolism. Better evidences for evolution are the various gene families, especially the Hox ones. Maybe CreationWiki should attack EvoDevo next time. I'm sure that'd be more interesting that them rehashing the same old mutations rubbish.

Des discussions doivent rapidement se conclure dans la fonction publique sur la « rénovation du dialogue social ». Le gouvernement prévoit la réduction du rôle des commissions paritaires dans lesquelles siègent les élus du personnel. En particulier, les mutations et les affectations des personnels ne seraient plus étudiées par commissions paritaires.
 
Cette mesure pourrait prendre effet dès la rentrée 2008  Cela interdirait, aux élus du personnel, d'améliorer les projets de mutation et d'affectation élaborés par l'administration et de s'assurer qu'ils respectent des règles équitables, connues de tous, applicables à tous. La porte serait ainsi ouverte à des mutations et à des affectations à la tête du client et à toutes les magouilles. Ce projet est la première traduction concrète d'une transformation radicale des règles de la fonction publique visant à remettre en cause le principe de règles statutaires, les concours de recrutement, introduisant le salaire au mérite etc. Tout cela est rassemblé dans le rapport Silicani qui constitue la base des négociations sur l'avenir de la fonction publique.
 
Les syndicats affiliés à la FSU : SNASUB, SNEP, SNES, SNUEP lancent une pétition à signer en ligne. Merci par avance de la signer et de la faire signer à l'adresse suivante : http://www.snes.edu/Petitions/index.php?petition=6

http://www.somaticmutations-egfr.org/

The Dallas Morning News

Citing the group’s teaching of creationism rather than evolution in its science curriculum, Dr. Paredes said it was clear the school [ICR] would not adequately prepare its graduates to teach the scientific principles now required in Texas public schools.

“Evolution is such a fundamental principle of contemporary science it is hard to imagine how you could cover the various fields of science without giving it [evolution] the proper attention it deserves as a foundation of science,” he said.

“Religious belief is not science. Science and religious belief are surely reconcilable, but they are not the same thing.”

How beautifully honest is that language? Raymund A. Paredes is the commissioner of the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. Most often government officials tap dance around evolution and creationism with soft appeasing words, so as not to offend anyone. An example is John McCain and his stupid fence sitting answer at last year's Republican Debate. So I have to applaud Raymund for getting to the crux of the matter.

Credit also has to go to the Texas Citizens for Science.

Before the vote, the board heard comment from several persons, most of whom urged rejection of the proposal. Among them was Steven Schafersman, president of Texas Citizens for Science, who said the ICR was a Christian ministry rather than a science organization that was primarily interested in promoting pseudoscience.

Pseudoscience doesn't spread when good people do something.

I haven't even seen the full movie and I'm already sick to my stomach. This clip from Expelled: The Movie is frightening. It's blatant propaganda. And the stooge "population geneticist" giving the first interview is a fraud. Hardly the impartial scientist, Maciej Giertych is actually an ultra-conservative politician from Poland, who has a PhD in dendrology, the study of trees. He's also a creationist author. The second guy, David Berlinksi, is a member of the Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement. I'm just curious why Ben Stein had to import a creationist from abroad. Maybe, most of the American ones are recognized liars. New faces, same old lies.

Now to comment on the lies.

"Natural selection does not provide any new genetic information"

Modern biologists don't claim that natural selection is the source of 'new genetic information'? Various types of mutations (along with the recombination of DNA during sexual reproduction) are what create novel genes. Natural selection acts on mutations. But there's plenty of copying errors and reshuffling of DNA for natural selection to work on.

"Mutations spoil" and "We don't know of any mutation which is positive"

Most mutations are neutral, not harmful. And there are plenty of examples of positive mutations. The fact that insects become resistant to pesticides is just one example. What creationists fail to understand is that life and the environment interact. For an animal a harmful mutation in one environment may be beneficial in another. So stating categorically that all mutations are harmful is just stupid.

"If you analogize a computer program to the DNA inside a cell..."

Some analogies shouldn't be made. This is one. Computer programs don't sexually reproduce. They are written and optimized (except Vista which sucks) by programmers. If the best programs were selected from a population of programs over thousands of generations, then that could be considered a type of evolution. But DNA isn't written by programmers (or a designer); it's fragmented and full of superfluous junk, which speaks to its evolutionary history, not its design.

Is it just me, or do these stooges come across as completely insincere on-camera? It's almost as if they know what they're doing is wrong. The smug bastards!

www.TheDarwinReport.com

Le Président Gontard exerce son droit de véto sur les recrutements des collègues à Rennes 2 !

dimanche 30 mars 2008

Nous avons été conviés à une des dernières CPE plénières ce jeudi 27 mars 2008 selon les termes suivants : « compte tenu du changement en 2008 de la procédure de mouvement des personnels de l'ASU, au niveau académique, il convient d'anticiper le 1er tour du mouvement interne afin d'auditionner les candidats à la mutation pour l'Université, au regard des postes vacants.../... »

Le SNASUB-FSU, a dénoncé le recours à ces « nouvelles modalités de recrutement » des collègues de l'ASU. Les élus du SNASUB-FSU ont demandé au Président de Rennes 2 de s'engager politiquement à ne pas exercer « son droit de veto » que lui confère la LRU et de respecter les décisions émises par les commissions paritaires de l'ASU, de prendre une position en défense des droits et des statuts.

Pour rappel, les collègues de l'ASU sont des fonctionnaires d'Etat, au service de l'administration de l'Education nationale et de l'enseignement supérieur. Ils peuvent travailler dans un service de l'administration rectorale, académique, dans un établissement scolaire (collège, lycée), dans un CIO, au CROUS ou encore à l'université, considérant que cela participe d'une même mission de service public.

Les mutations sont traitées en fonction d'un barème qui prend en compte l'ancienneté :

. générale de service,

. dans le corps,

. sur le poste

et s'y rajoutent éventuellement, des points de bonification pour rapprochement de conjoints et/ou travailleur handicapé »...

Ces barèmes acquis de haute lutte ont été mis en place dans un souci d'égalité de traitement des collègues candidats à la mutation, et de respect de l'indépendance des fonctionnaires et du service public. Nos commissaires paritaires ont donc pour charge, lors des CAPA et des CAPN, de veiller au respect de ces barèmes et de défendre des situations personnelles et professionnelles dont ils ont connaissance.

Ils ne statuent pas uniquement sur « des données mathématiques » mais sur des « situations professionnelles et humaines » (contrairement à ce que voudrait laisser croire notre secrétaire général lors de cette CPE). Les représentants du personnel siégeant à la CPE de Rennes 2, s'insurgeant contre ces nouvelles dispositions, ont donc demandé au Président Gontard de s'engager à respecter l'avis de la CAPA pour l'affectation de nouveaux collègues à Rennes 2. Il a refusé !

Notre demande de vote sur ces « nouvelles modalités » a même été refusée !

Il a simplement été demandé aux collègues de la CPE de voter sur le barême concernant le mouvement interne (qui avait déjà été voté lors de précédentes CPE)...

CLS : Rappelons ce que le Président Gontard a affirmé lors des actions «anti-LRU », à savoir : « je n'exercerai pas certaines prérogatives que la LRU me confère,notamment en ce qui concerne le recrutement des personnels » Contrairement à la parole donnée, Monsieur GONTARD laisse le secrétaire général et la DRH agir dans le sens de la LRU en auditionnant les collègues candidats à l'entrée sur Rennes 2 (et en émettant un avis sur leur affectation) avant avis de la CAPA... On le sait tous : lors des auditions, l'objectivité, l'impartialité sont difficilement de mise ! chacun est influencé par l'attitude, l'allure, l'âge, le sexe, ou tout autre critère subjectif concernant la personne qui se tient en face de soi... Les CAPA évitent ce genre de dérive.

LE SNASUB-FSU DENONCE CETTE ATTEINTE AU DROIT DE MUTATION DES AGENTS DE LA FONCTION PUBLIQUE ! NOS ELUS AUX C.A., CPE ET FUTURS CTP DOIVENT S'ENGAGER A RESPECTER LES AVIS DES COMMISSIONS PARITAIRES ET S'OPPOSER A TOUTE DISCRIMINATION POTENTIELLE DANS LES RECRUTEMENTS.