We did discover a fossil in Antarctica of an animal that lived 252 million years ago.¹ It was during the time when Pangea was whole, and the volcanoes did emit high amounts of greenhouse gasses. This gasification of the Earth did produce catastrophic global warming resulting in the death of 80-95 percent of life in the oceans and on land (Praise Science).

So, we do imagine that this fossil is of an animal that had no fur and “probably laid eggs.” We imagine it on the line between reptiles and mammals. We did find some related fossils in Africa, and therefore pieced together that these animals migrated south and lived with other animals that were probably the ancestors of mammals.

The team’s findings, published in the journal Naturwissenschaften, may offer insights into potential survival techniques for modern day animals threatened by climate change .

“Countless species are threatened by global warming today,” said Frobisch. “A prime example of a threatened species is the polar bear, whose habitat becomes increasingly smaller as a result of melting sea ice in the Arctic Circle.”

“However,” he added, “it is questionable whether the polar bear or other threatened animals can respond in the same way as Kombuisia did in the Permian, simply because human activities severely limit the animals’ possibilities.”

He concluded: “The primary lesson we should learn from the studies of extinction due to climate change in the past is that it is of utmost importance today to control and reverse human induced global warming by taking counteractive measures, such as greatly reducinggreenhouse gas emissions.”

Anyway, the animals and fossils are irrelevant, because the point is, if we don’t act soon, we’ll all be dead in a couple hundred years (Praise Science). Please don’t give up on being terrified of the environment, because Mother Earth is very angry at what you are doing to her. She will punish and probably kill you if you don’t straighten up and curtail your gaseous emissions.

1) Ancient animals escaped warming in Antarctica

From the article:

The voluminous research on the evolution of the adaptive immune system describes in enormous detail both the similarities and differences between the immune systems of a wide variety of animals, but does not provide evidence for the evolution of these irreducibility complex systems. The complex, designed processes used to produce antibody diversity and then to fine tune the adaptive immune response are not evidence of Darwinian evolution, but rather of intelligent design.

Recent work has also shown that innate immune systems formerly thought to be very primitive are far more complex than once believed, blurring ‘traditional distinctions between adaptive and innate immunity.’³⁸ Various phyla use ‘a remarkably extensive variety of solutions to meet fundamentally similar requirements for host protection.’³⁷ The large discontinuity between the various means of generating immune system diversity in the animal kingdom makes it highly unlikely that one system could have evolved into another.

Creation scientists have also been hard at work in generating theoretical frameworks and hypotheses on a number of fronts.

1). A framework has been developed for explaining bacterial pathogenicity.

2). Fungi have been examined from a creationist perspective, and natural selection is considered as a process for the development of pathogenicity.  Similar to the first paper, evolutionary processes are considered corrupting influences of the original designs.

3). Initial work has been done on developing a field of creation microbiology.  Promising areas for future research and practical applications are also considered.

While those who pontificate about the absence of any real scientific progress being made from a creationist perspective, creation scientists are laying the groundwork for biological studies, and are generating testable scientific hypotheses.  Whereas materialist scientist do not often recognize their metaphysical assumptions, creationist scientists and IDers are generally much more aware of the metaphysical assumptions of science on both sides of the issue.

]]> http://www.intelldesign.com/2009/11/08/recent-work-in-creation-science/feed/ 6 http://www.intelldesign.com/2009/10/30/a-naturalistic-fairy-tale-part-xxix/ http://www.intelldesign.com/2009/10/30/a-naturalistic-fairy-tale-part-xxix/#comments Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:29:35 +0000 The Country Shrink http://www.intelldesign.com/?p=973

The Multiverse

Then did we, the Most High Scientist, through the use of calculations and formulas, imagine that there exists a great many more universes in the multiverse than we had previously imagined.  We did previously imagine through string theory that there are 10⁵⁰⁰ universes in the multiverse.  One of our Most High, Andrei Linde, did recently imagine through calculations that there are many more than 10⁵⁰⁰ universes in the multiverse (Praise Science).¹ And let us first tell you why we do feel this is important.

“The idea that there is more than one universe, each with its own laws of physics, arises out of several different theories, including string theory and cosmic inflation. This concept of a “multiverse” could explain a puzzling mystery – why dark energy, the furtive force that is accelerating the expansion of space, appears improbably fine-tuned for life. With a large number of universes, there is bound to be one that has a dark energy value like ours.”

That pesky fine tuning might suggest to the less evolved of our species that universe may have been created or evidence hallmarks of design.  Of course we know that is ridiculous, as is attested to by our vivid imaginations.  And so, we endeavor to explain one “furtive” unmeasurable thing (dark energy) by invoking a larger quantity of unmeasurable things (even more universes).  Because if we do know anything at all, that is there is no design in the universe(s).  And we know you would have to agree, that with a great number of universes, “there is bound to be one that has a dark energy value like ours.”

So, we do now appeal to the god of chance, and evoke randomness in all its power and glory as is provided by quantum mechanics.  We do now calculate the existence of 10^{10^10,000,000} universes (Praise Science)!  We know how much you like large numbers, and have no doubt you are in awe of the large number we have invoked here.  We’ll also speculate a bit that an hypothetical observer determines how many universes can effectively exist because of quantum mechanical effects, but don’t be concerned, because that’s a really large number as well. We do hope you’ve been pleased by our Science and that you continue to be impressed by the power of randomness and imagination.  Rest assured, all of the appearance of design and fine tuning can, and will continue to be, explained away by chance and imagination.

¹ Multiplying universes: How many is the multiverse? NewScientist, October 28, 2009.

H₀: Two simultaneous mutations are the upper limit for providing any functional advantage by evolutionary processes.
H₁: Evolutionary processes may result in three or more simultaneous mutations conferring a functional advantage to an organism.

In the example above, H₀ is the null hypothesis, and H₁ is the experimental hypothesis. When an experiment is conducted, a finding of 3 or more simultaneous mutations resulting in a functional advantage would be said to falsify the null hypothesis.

The final writeup would go something like, “Our experiments demonstrated that 3 simultaneous mutations occurred resulting in a functional advantage for the organism. Therefore, we reject H₀ in favor of H₁.” The trouble in evolutionary biology is that there often is no H₀. There is no formal null hypothesis. Evolution is considered to be a fact, and the null hypothesis is not addressed or tested.

Consider a recent peer-reviewed article that provides a null hypothesis that has not been falsified by Darwinist researchers:

The theme of this paper is the active pursuit of falsification of the following null hypothesis:
“Physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration.” At first glance the falsification of this hypothesis might seem like a daunting task. But a single exception of non trivial, unaided, spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would quickly falsify this null hypothesis.⁽¹⁾

Again, the trouble with most Darwinists is that they would not even consider testing this null hypothesis, because “evolution is a fact.” It is my opinion, that the metaphysical worldview of these scientists (i.e., philosophical naturalism), prevents them from doing real science. Without testing their theories against ID hypotheses, they are failing to conduct valid research, and are engaging in little more than materialistic apologetics.

It is also possible to use a null hypothesis as an experimental hypothesis. Extra safeguards are needed with an experiment of this nature. Specifically, what is needed is more experimental power. This translates essentially to a larger subject pool or number of trials. The experimental power required varies based on the field of study and what is being studied. The level required is based on a scientific consensus. In other words, scientists may agree in a given area of study that the power must be 95%. This translates essentially to “The probability that a true experimental hypothesis will be supported by our methods.” The 5% in this case is considered to be an acceptable risk for the given field of study. In other words, 5% of the time in similarly conducted studies, we would find results that do not support the experimental hypothesis when the experimental hypothesis is in fact true.

In psychology, the level of power needed is often considered 80%. When a null hypothesis is used as an experimental hypothesis, the power needed may be set at 90 to 95%. There are other technical and statistical aspects of determining the number of trials or subjects needed, but I won’t get into that.

Suffice it to say, that properly conducted research may state as an experimental hypothesis: “Two mutations are the maximum number of simultaneous mutations that can occur in a population of X size and given Y generations which would confer a functional advantage.” This is one reason that part of the work done by Michael Behe in the Edge of Evolution is valid science. Hypotheses stated in this way are not arguments from ignorance, but valid scientific hypotheses that lend themselves to scientific investigation.

I don’t know if Dr. Abel, who published the article, The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity, is an IDist or a Darwinist. That doesn’t really matter much to me, but what does matter is that he has given a fair treatment to the issue in a way that advances science.

Dr. Abel writes:

While proof may be evasive, science has an obligation to be honest about what the entire body of evidence clearly suggests. We cannot just keep endlessly labeling abundant evidence of formal prescription in nature “apparent.” The fact of purposeful programming at multiple layers gets more “apparent” with each new issue of virtually every molecular biology journal [179-181]. Says de Silva
and Uchiyama:

Molecular substrates can be viewed as computational devices that process physical or chemical ‘inputs’ to generate ‘outputs’ based on a set of logical operators. By recognizing this conceptual crossover between chemistry and computation, it can be argued that the success of life itself is founded on a much longer-term revolution in information handling when compared with the modern semiconductor computing industry. Many of the simpler logic operations can be identified within chemical reactions and phenomena, as well as being produced in specifically designed systems. Some degree of integration can also be arranged, leading, in some instances, to arithmetic processing. These molecular logic systems can also end themselves to convenient reconfiguring. Their clearest application area is in the life sciences, where their small size is a distinct advantage over conventional semiconductor counterparts. Molecular logic designs aid chemical (especially intracellular) sensing, small object recognition and intelligent diagnostics [181].

What scientific evidence exists of physicodynamics ever having programmed a single purposeful configurable switch-setting? If we cannot present any such evidence, we should be self-honest enough to start asking ourselves, “How long are we going to try to maintain this ruse that the cybernetic programming we repeatedly observe is only ‘apparent’ rather than real?”

Indeed, if you want to start conducting real science in evolutionary biology, then it is time to start including ID notions as null or experimental hypotheses. However, the Darwinists are likely to continue their metaphysical pursuits at the sacrifice of properly conducted scientific investigation.

References:
(1). Abel, D. L. (2009). The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity, International Journal of Molecular Sciences.

Hat Tip: scordova @ Uncommon Descent

We do now assert that the mass extinction may have been the result of climate change.  We do know that you are terrified of global warming (praise Science), and we hope you will be even more scared when we are done telling you about just how catastrophic climate change has been in the past.

We do now say that great salt lakes emitted a high level of halogenated gases, which did so dramatically change the composition of the atmosphere as to irretrievably damage vegetation.

According to one of our faithful:

“Our calculations show that airborne pollutants from giant salt lakes like the Zechstein Sea must have had catastrophic effects at that time”, states co-author Dr. Ludwig Weißflog from the Helmholtz-Center for Environmental Research (UFZ). Forecasts predict an increase in the surface areas of deserts and salt lakes due to climate change. That is why the researchers expect that the effects of these halogenated gases will equally increase.

With a great salt lake the size of France, we predict that the emissions would have been catastrophic.  We then make the direct link to today’s global warming and the CO₂ cycle (praise Science).  We do hope you are paying attention, so we can save you from dying off like some of our last common ancestors did a long long time ago.  We do so, perhaps, knowing full well that we are standing in the way of our motto: “Through death comes life and progress.”

Based on both of these findings the researchers were able to form their new hypothesis: At the end of the Permian Age the emissions of halogenated gases from the Zechstein Sea and other salt seas were responsible in a complex chain of events for the world’s largest mass extinction in the history of the earth, in which about 90 percent of the animal and plant species of that time became extinct.

According to the forecast from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), increasing temperatures and aridity due to climate change will also speed up desertification, increasing with it the number and surface area of salt seas, salt lagoons and salt marshlands. Moreover, this will then lead to an increase in naturally formed halogenated gases. The phytotoxic effects of these substances become intensified in conjunction with other atmospheric pollutants and at the same time increasing dryness and exponentiate the eco-toxicological consequences of climate change.

We do hope you are pleased with our latest tale, and want you to know that we are working to incorporate this into future climate models in a desperate attempt to save your life.

References:

(1). New Theory on Largest Known Mass Extinction in Earth’s History, Science Daily, 3/31/09

(2). A Naturalistic Fairy Tale-Part XXII, 12/31/08

He and his co-author, postdoctoral researcher Minglei Wang, were interested in tracing how proteins make use of their domains, or groups of domains, to accomplish various tasks. These domains or domain clusters can be thought of as “modules” that fit together in various ways to achieve different ends.

The attribution of accomplishing various tasks to molecules is problematic.  The molecules of course have no sentience, planning abilities, and so forth.  They are molecules and do not think, feel, or reason.  Yet, purpose and achievement are attributed to molecules.  This makes sense if you are working from an ID perspective, but the language is not appropriate to a non-design perspective.

They continue in a similar vein:

“As time progressed, these domains started to combine with others and they became very specialized,” Caetano-Anollés said. This eventually led to the big bang of protein architectures.

“Exactly at the time of the big bang,” many of the combined domains began to split apart, creating numerous single-domain modules again, he said. But these new modules were much more efficient and specialized than their ancient predecessors had been.

“This makes a lot of sense,” Caetano-Anollés said. “As you become more complex, you would want to fine-tune things, to do things in a more tailored way.”

As if the big bang materialist cosmology story were not enough, we now invoke it in biology.  It seemed to work fairly well for them in cosmology, why not try it in biology too?  But that’s beside the point.  So, we continue with the attribution of sentience to matter.    “…you would want to fine-tune things, to do things in a more tailored way.”  That’s what I would be thinking if I were a bacteria for certain, but this is a nonsensical way of describing material processes.

I think this goes to a deeper issue.  That is that biology does not make sense outside of the concept of design.  The language to understand and explore the functions of proteins does not exist in blind materialist terms.  The reason is that these things are designed, and must be understood from that conceptual framework.

Access Research Network also has a good post on the language problem faced by Darwinian evolutionists.⁽²⁾

(1). Study of protein structures reveals key events in evolutionary history
(2). Darwinists on Design: Jumping to Confusions

Hat Tip: Creation-Evolution Headlines

Erving Schrödinger, the fellow who did imagine a cat being dead and not dead at the same time,⁽²⁾ did also imagine other things about life.  Some 65 years later, do we weigh in on the issue.

Now, while some silly folk (i.e., creationists) do make wildly erroneous calculations about the probability of abiogenesis, we’ll give you a calculation in order to promote our theory.  We’ll deny it if the creationists do try to use it (Praise Science). 

But we do now focus in on one molecular machine, the ribosome, that protein factory of the cell that is capable of producing even more ribosomes.⁽³⁾ 

So we did calculate that there could be 4¹⁶⁵ possible primitive ribozyme structures based on 165 DNA base pair sequences.  We do know that most of these would not be self-replicators. 

“That’s more than the number of electrons in the universe,” he says. What’s more, life came about relatively soon after the planet formed, he says. “The puzzle is not only how life emerged, but how it emerged so fast.”

We shall now engage in a bit of anthropomorphism, ⁽⁴⁾ forgive us (Praise Science).  But do realize that it is completely naturalistic, and God is not needed.  Quantum processes did sort through and discard unwanted structures.  We’re certain you’ll have no problem with our use of the terms of “sort” and “unwanted” with regards to nature.  So, we do now think, that multiple mutated configurations did exist simultaneously (just like the cat was dead and un-dead a the same time).  This simultaneous existence of configurations allowed for the testing of a range of possibilities.  We do now know that quantum effects are a bit finicky; however, we do believe that they could act at the bottom of the Ocean (Praise Science). 

Davies also finds the idea promising. “These guys may have found a niche where quantum magic really could be at work,” he says. “But it is conjecture at this stage, just as all ideas for the origin of life are.”

We do also know that you know that when we use the term “magic” we don’t mean anything by it.  We certainly don’t mean “non-material” (Praise Science).  Once the configurations were sorted out and selected, the struture would become fixed, and unavailable to quantum effects. 

(1). http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19626332.700-was-life-forged-in-a-quantum-crucible.html

(2). Schrödinger’s Cat

(3). http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/R/ribosome.html

(4). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism

Indeed, when we did look in one direction in the Universe, we did notice that it looked different than looking in another direction.  We did notice that the Cosmic Microwave Background, seemed to be strangely larger on one side of the Universe.  We did development a new model as a result, and it gave us a glimpse of that inflationary period when the Universe almost instantaneously ballooned from the size of an atom to the size of a golf ball (praise Science).  Our theory did predict an even distribution in the CMB, but that is not what we have been seeing.  So we do now admit that things may have been a tiny bit more complex than previously thought.

So, we do now introduce the notion of two fields (inflaton and curvation).  We can now explain these variations.  Inflaton did cause the rapid expansion of the Universe and its energy variations, and curvation did cause density variations.

So we do now say:

“It’s no longer completely crazy to ask what happened before the Big Bang,” Kamionkowski said. “All of that stuff is hidden by a veil, observationally. If our model holds up, we may have a chance to see beyond this veil.”

Whereas it was completely crazy that some of our Own did previously ask what came before the Big Bang, we can now ask this question from a position of utter sanity and rationality (praise Science).  We’ll end by hedging our bets:

“So far it seems to be in the data, but that doesn’t mean it’s in the universe,” Carroll told SPACE.com. “There’s a chance this asymmetry is coming from errors in the data.”

So, we may go back to believing what we did before, and continue asking what now appears to be “crazy” if we do find that we have a problem with our data.  But, you should now know, that it will not be crazy then (praise Science).

(1). Glimpse before the Big Bang may be possible, MSNBC

So, we did find, that only 2 to 3 percent of the Earth’s surface was land until 2.5 Billion Years Ago. We do know you like precision (praise Science). Now, 28% of the Earth’s surface is above sea level, but alas, we do now consider this to be something of a novelty.

“The team assumed that back then Earth’s mantle was up to 200 °C hotter than it is now, mainly because there was then a larger quantity of radioactive elements decaying and producing heat. A hotter mantle would have made the crust beneath the oceans hotter and thicker than it is today, buoying it up relative to the continents. The resulting shallower ocean basins would have held less water, leading to the flooding of what is now land. In addition, the hotter mantle would cause the continental crust of the time to spread laterally, making it lower-lying and flatter than today, and so more likely to flood.”

We do now say, that During the Water-World period, that any oxygen produced by photosynthetic bacteria would have been rapidly used up through decaying interactions with organic material in the oceans (praise Science). Then did newly emerged land erode, covering the organic sediments in the oceans, which did allow oxygen to build up in the atmosphere.

Then did the oxygen breathing organisms begin to flourish.  The erosion of the land did cause an explosion of life, because it did fertilize the oceans (praise Science).  And then did the newly formed coastal areas provide habitats that allowed photosynthetic life to flourish.

(1). Ancient Earth was a Barren Water World, New Scientist

(2). http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/catastrophic-plate-tectonics

“The weakening of Earth’s magnetic field exposed the surface to a shower of cosmic radiation, says Yukio Isozaki of the University of Tokyo. He believes the radiation broke nitrogen in the atmosphere into ions that acted as seeds for clouds enshrouding the planet.”

Yes, we, naturalistic atheists of the TRUE FAITH do believe in a firmament.  Not one that a god had to do with, but the real one that actually happened (praise Science).  We shall explain the global flood from a naturalistic perspective soon (i.e., true perspective), but we’ll use computer simulations, and it will be very, very, far in the past.  Therefore, you can do nothing other than believe, unless you are stupid and lacking faith in random processes. So, at the 250 Million Years Ago point, did a plume of super hot material begin rising through the mantle of the Earth.

This did upset the convection of the core, and did throw the Earth’s magnetic field in disarray.  This did result in massive Global Cooling, and the sea levels did drop (praise Science).  And then did, 5 million years later, the super-hot material did burst through the surface of the Earth in 3 massive super-volcanoes!  Individually, they were inadequate, but all together, they did result in massive death (praise Science).  As we have taught you before, through death comes life.  If we do teach you one thing, this is the most important.  So, did exactly 67% of life become extinct.  That was a close one, but our ancestors did live until they died (praise Science).

(1). Did magnetic blip trigger mass extinction? MSNBC.