New Covenant

Dawkins, Creationists, and books

I don't think they [creationists] read books anyway, except for one book. It's aimed at the intelligent layperson who does read books and who vaguely knows a little bit about evolution...

So says Richard Dawkins, author of The Greatest Show on Earth, in a Salon interview.

Hmmm. Let's see.

I'm a creationist (of the Old Earth variety) and, while I don't consider myself well read, I have read The Origin of Species, Finding Darwin's God, Tower of Babel, Night Comes to the Cretaceous, Rare Earth, The Elegant Universe, The Fabric of the Cosmos, and A Brief History of Time, just to name a few books from the non-creationist book bin.

It can't be this easy.

Cutting out Spurgeon's words: accidental or intentional?

Here's an interesting post from Beyond Creationism regarding how Answers in Genesis (AIG) apparently edited out some text from a Charles H. Spurgeon sermon, ostensibly to exclude Spurgeon's positive reference to an Old Earth Creation scenario.

Spurgeon's original text in question is:

“In the 2d verse of the first chapter of Genesis, we read, "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." We know not how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be—certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam. Our planet has passed through various stages of existence, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God. But before that era came, wherein man should be its principal tenant and monarch, the Creator gave up the world to confusion.”

And here is what AIG posted:

"In Ge 1:2, we read, ‘And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.' Our planet has passed through various stages in creation, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God. But before that era came, when man should be its principal tenant and monarch, the Creator initially created the world as a chaotic mass on the first day of creation."

Rather than me highlighting the excluded text, simply look for the sentence, in the original, which contains the phrase "millions of years".

Says Beyond Creation,

Spurgeon's sermon has been sanitized for the AiG audience. Apparently, the reality of Spurgeon as an old-earth creationist is too much for AiG to allow the viewing public to know about. They even rewrote a portion at the end to change Spurgeon's statement that "the Creator gave up the world to confusion" to make it appear that Spurgeon said merely that "the Creator initially created the world as a chaotic mass on the first day of creation." And presto! The editors turned Spurgeon into a young-earth creationist, even though he said no such thing.

After initially posting their cleansed version of Spurgeon's sermon, AIG did post the excluded text, in a note, with the following explanation,

Bracketed text removed from the sermon. As brilliant as Spurgeon was, even he did not understand the age issue. –Editor

Lucky for us, it would seem, at least AIG understands the age issue.

John Holzmann, provides a more in-depth analysis of the fancy editing that appears to have taken place at AIG.

Why evolution can't win (v. 3)

From the Thumb,

The title gets the principal objection of any creationist out of the way: yes, this population of Podarcis sicula is still made up of lizards, but they're a different kind of lizard now. Evolution works. (emphasis in original)

So, the thinking must go, if we see the evolution of one kind of lizard into a different kind of lizard (in only 30 years), then imagine what can occur over the course of millions of years? Unwarranted extrapolation at work, once again.

The reference, from the Thumb, is to a National Geographic article titled, Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island. From the article,

Italian wall lizards introduced to a tiny island off the coast of Croatia are evolving in ways that would normally take millions of years to play out, new research shows.

Yet, if the changes seen normally take millions of years to occur, shouldn't one be skeptical of either the evolution documented or the claim that it normally takes millions of years? And, if the changes were the same as one would expect over millions of years, aren't we now in a position to perform experiments in much the same manner as animal breeders? Indeed, the next step we should take, from these different kind of lizards, is to attempt to force speciation. Regardless, there would seem to be a lot of questions that need answering.

Or, maybe not.

Also reference Reasons to Believe's Science News Flash podcast for April 25, which covered this article. Dr. Fuz Rana notes that the evolved lizard is genetically identical to the original lizard. He argues that the changes seen are micro-evolutionary in nature (with a special footnote regarding the emergence of a new valve in the evolved lizard).

Why evolution can't win (v. 2)

Attempt to expel Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed from movie theaters because it used two lines from John Lennon's song Imagine.

Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too

Imagine.

Why evolution can't win (v. 1)

Ben Stein's movie, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, has been in theaters for about two weeks. For those still unaware, the producers of the movie essentially posit that those within the halls of academia not only prevent the inclusion of Intelligent Design proponents, but will actively seek, and have sought, to destroy the careers of those who dare question natural process evolutionary theory.

So, how do some of the most vociferous proponents of natural process evolutionary theory approach Ben Stein's efforts? Well, if you visit The Thumb, you will find a total of 61 posts (as of this writing) tagged under the category of "Expelled".* Skim through the posts and you'll find them laced with the notions that the producers of Expelled are liars, dishonest, disingenuous, etc.

Hear. Speak. See.

Okay, so let's ignore the obvious display of paranoia in which they overreact to an idea which they consider equivalent to that of believing in a flat-earth. Instead, let's ask: Why are they so intent on convincing you to NOT see the movie? What are they so afraid of?

Tell you what, why not do the typical American thing? When some group - any group - is so intent on getting you to not do something, then how about you go out AND DO IT?

Yeah, go see the movie.

* see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, blah, blah, blah.

"Mindless-Process" Design: on being students without a teacher (v. 3)

Natural Process Evolution (aka Neo-Darwinism, Naturalism, etc.) rests on the Blind Watchmaker argument in which mindless processes, via the natural realm, are responsible for the diversity of life on planet earth (indeed, responsible for the very cosmos we exist in).

We are told that we, as humans, have evolved to the point where we have minds that think, that reason, that design and, that engineer. Yet, if this is the case, how is it that we now seem to take our mind-driven cues, as shown below, from the alleged products of a completely mindless process? Common sense, from our evolved minds, should tell us that if we see a well designed and engineered product, then it is reasonable to conclude that it, in fact, came from a mind.

Therefore, I'd like to present a series of examples that we find in nature, of so-called MD (i.e., Mindless-process Design) and how, in doing so, we acknowledge the inescapable conclusion that there is design / engineering in what we behold:

Over at the Thumb, in a post titled, Eppur si muove!, we read,

The Harvard multimedia team that put together that pretty video of the Inner Life of the Cell has a whole collection of videos online (including Inner Life with a good narration.) Go watch the one titled F1-F0 ATPase; it's a beautiful example of a highly efficient molecular motor, and it's the kind of thing the creationists go ga-ga over. It's complex, and it does the same rotary motion that the bacterial flagellum does; it has a little turbine in the membrane, a stream of protons drives rotation of an axle, and the movement of that axle drives conformation changes in the surrounding protein that promote the synthesis of ATP. It's a molecular machine all right. Makes a fellow wonder if possibly it's "irreducible", doesn't it?

Well, it's not. It can be broken down further and it still retain that rotary motion. (emphasis added)

Let's ignore the fact that simply retaining its rotary motion does not equate to retaining its function. Instead, let's focus on the use of the words: "motor", "turbine", "axle", and "machine". You got that? Motor, turbine, axle, machine. Repeat after me - motor, turbine, axle, machine.

Now, let's apply the oxymoron of Mindless-process Design as the means by which we get a... motor, turbine, axle, machine.

Still... it's designed.

Evolution happens, because we know it happens (v. 2)

From ScienceDaily, Evolution Of New Species Slows Down As Number Of Competitors Increases, (and note the irony),

The rate at which new species are formed in a group of closely related animals decreases as the total number of different species in that group goes up, according to new research.

The research team believes these findings suggest that new species appear less and less as the number of species in a region approaches the maximum number that it can support.

Wow. Just like one would expect to find in a complex system, optimally designed to work at an efficient level.

Further,

In order for new species to thrive, they need to evolve to occupy their own niche in the ecosystem, relying on certain foods and habitats for survival that are sufficiently different from those of other closely related species.

Competition between closely related species for food and habitat becomes more intense the more species there are, and researchers believe this could be the reason for the drop-off in the appearance of new species over time.

So, in order for new species to thrive, they need to evolve. Yet, doesn't the survival of an ecosystem depend on the complex interactions within its members? Since when does an ecosystem have time to spare to allow new species the opportunity to occupy their niche? And if they have time to spare, how much time do they have?

"Okay, guys? You've got 1 million years to get up to speed or else - it's curtains!"

You see, when evolution is the only game in town, then the only reasonable conclusion is to state that evolution speeds up when there are less species walking around, and slows down when there are more. And, since we're dealing with natural selection, environmental constraints, genetic mutations, and such, it's gotta boil down to the competition factor, right?

Yet, consider that nowhere do we see the actual evidence that evolution is the mechanism which accomplishes speciation, much less the means with which the mechanism speeds up and slows down. It's nothing more than imposing an idea on the data. So, when we see, after major extinction events, a quick recovery of new species, it must be due to a quickened evolutionary pace brought about by a rich, open environment (i.e., as caused by the major extinction event).

However, the exquisitely timed placement of the necessary species, so as to provide a complex ecosystem the proper functioning components, also points to the actions of guidance. Unless the evolutionists can demonstrate the physical qualities which mandate that evolution speed up during times of open environments, their claims are simply wishful thinking.

...

ref:  Rare Earth - Ward & Brownlee; Creator & the Cosmos - Ross; Origins of Life - Rana & Ross; The Privileged Planet - Richards & Gonzalez

Biblically Correct Science?

Nightline recently spotlighted BC Tours, a Young Earth Creationist outfit which takes schoolchildren on tours of secular museums, presenting the exhibits under what they claim to be as the Biblically correct version of science. From BC Tours website, their mission is stated as,

Communicating Biblical Truth in every area of life through tours of museums, zoos, and historical sites.

However, some of the Biblical Truth they promulgate is nothing more than Biblical interpretation (and, in my opinion, some lousy interpretation at that). From their website,

At a large, colorful panel along a wall, Carter reads aloud from a passage describing the disappearance of dinosaurs from the Earth about 65 million years ago. He and some of the older students exchange knowing smiles at the timeline, which contradicts their interpretation of the Bible suggesting a 6,000-year-old planet.

"Did man and dinosaurs live together?" Carter asks.

A timid yes comes from the students.

"How do we know that to be true?" Carter says.

There's a long pause.

"What day did God create dinosaurs on?" he continues.

"Six," says a chorus of voices.

"What day did God create man on?"

"Six."

"Did man and dinosaurs live together?"

"Yes," the students say.

Mission accomplished for Carter, who has been leading such tours since 1988.

Oh my. Let's ignore the fact that there are multiple creation accounts and descriptions in the Bible - which must all be addressed, and harmonized, if one is really interested in Biblical Truth. Let's ignore the fact that there is no mention of dinosaurs being created on day six, much less any mention of dinosaurs in the Bible. Let's also ignore the data.

From the Nightline episode,

They said the T-Rex was vegetarian because at the time of the Creation, there was no such thing as death, so a T-Rex could not have eaten meat. There was no death until Adam and Eve ate forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge, they continued, and God's revenge was to curse the world with death.

No death before the Fall? Well, let's now ignore Romans 5 or Psalm 104, not to mention the evidence which shows T-rex having all the designed characteristics of a meat eater.

Again, from Nightline,

Out on the museum floor, Jack and Carter stopped the group in front of a window display that contains samples of sandstone that have ripples created by water and fossils of ancient life. Bill Jack asked his group, "How do they date the fossil? By the layer in which they find it. They date the layer by the fossil and the fossil by the layer," he said. "That's circular reasoning."

In the next moment he stepped past and turned his back to a display on radiometric dating, the method by which scientists determine the age of rocks through the rate of decay of their natural radioactivity.

When later asked why he skipped the display, Jack said simply, "We can't cover everything."

Nice. Let's not only ignore the cross-checking process involved in fossil / layer dating, let's also just walk by one of the most reliable methods (radiometric dating) we use to determine age. Nah... can't cover everything.

Stacia Martin, who brought her 14-year-old son Shawn, said she had learned how to defend her faith in Jesus Christ.

"I learned that when you look at exhibits, don't take them at face value just because they're exciting looking or because they're interesting," she said.

Her son Shawn said he thinks the world is 10,000 years old, "Because the Bible says that."

No. The Bible doesn't really say that.

On the one hand, I applaud BC Tours for their efforts in attempting to promote a Christian Worldview. On the other hand, wouldn't it be nice if they could give tours which present the full Christian point of view, nuanced with a full look at the evidence?

ref:  A Matter of Days - Ross; Creation as Science - Ross; Origins of Life - Rana & Ross; Who Was Adam? - Rana & Ross; The Privileged Planet - Richards & Gonzalez

"Mindless-Process" Design: on being students without a teacher (v. 2)

Natural Process Evolution (aka Neo-Darwinism, Naturalism, etc.) rests on the Blind Watchmaker argument in which mindless processes, via the natural realm, are responsible for the diversity of life on planet earth (indeed, responsible for the very cosmos we exist in).

We are told that we, as humans, have evolved to the point where we have minds that think, that reason, that design, and that engineer. Yet, if this is the case, how is it that we now seem to take our mind-driven cues, as shown below, from the alleged products of a completely mindless process? Common sense, from our evolved minds, should tell us that if we see a well designed and engineered product, then it is reasonable to conclude that it, in fact, came from a mind.

Therefore, I'd like to present a series of examples that we find in nature, of so-called MD (i.e., Mindless-process Design) and how, in doing so, we acknowledge the inescapable conclusion that there is design / engineering in what we behold:

First, we have an example of the seemingly ubiquitous bar code. From Wikipedia,

"The first patent for a bar code type product (US Patent #2,612,994) was issued to inventors Joseph Woodland and Bernard Silver on October 7, 1952. Its implementation was made possible through the work of Raymond Alexander and Frank Stietz, two engineers with Sylvania (who were also granted a patent), as a result of their work on a system to identify railroad cars. It was not until 1966 that barcodes were put to commercial use and they were not commercially successful until the 1980s."

Note that the first patent for a bar code type product was issued to inventors, and that its implementation was made possible by two engineers. Yeah. Got that? Inventors... engineers? Persons. Persons with... minds.

From Dr. Fuz Rana at Today's New Reason to Believe, DNA Barcodes Used to Inventory Plant Biodiversity,

Barcodes have revolutionized the retail business. Now cashiers simply scan the items while computer technology does the rest. It has increased the speed and accuracy of the checkout process and provides the added benefit of giving the store managers a real-time inventory.

Scientists have come to realize that DNA can be used as a barcode to perform some of the same functions as barcodes printed onto food packaging. Biologists have been able to identify, catalog, and monitor animal species using relatively short, standardized segments of DNA within the genome that are unique to the species, or subspecies in some cases. And now new work extends the utility of DNA barcoding to plants.

...

One of the challenges of DNA barcoding centers on identifying a region within the genome that can distinguish a wide range of taxa. Researchers have recently discovered that the matK gene found in plastid DNA fulfills this requirement. This gene displays the so-called barcoding gap by simultaneously varying little within a species, but varying significantly between species...

...

The use of DNA as barcodes underscores the informational content of this biomolecule. DNA barcoding makes it clear that biochemical information is truly information.

Dr. Rana also discussed this topic, recently, on the weekly Creation Update program sponsored by Reasons to Believe.

Reality Feline

A local cat, at a living history museum, in Santa Fe Springs, CA.

With fine tuned hearing, a keen sense of smell, and claws within its quiet paws, the cat is designed for stealthy predation. Such exquisitely engineered handiwork. The fingerprint of God.

- image © 2008 A. R. Lopez

The Last 2 percent (v. 7)

(Human - Chimpanzee) = 0.02

If humans share about 98 percent of our genetic makeup with chimps, then why are we so far apart in terms of behavior, agility, cognitive skills, etc.?

What is it that makes up The Last 2 percent?

Mark Steyn edition

From America Alone,

...in 2006 Spain's ruling Socialist Party introduced a bill in parliament legislating that apes be included in "the category of persons, and that they be given the moral and legal protection that currently are only enjoyed by human beings." The party's argument was that human Spaniards do, after all, share 98.4 percent of their genes with chimpanzees, 97.7 percent with gorillas, and 96.4 percent with orangutans. Unfortunately, the 2 percent Spaniards don't share apparently includes the urge to reproduce. For the new Europe instead of Gibbon's Decline and Fall, maybe someone should write Gibbons' Rise and Triumph.

Animal predators, as a good thing

From ScienceDaily, Predators Do More Than Kill Prey,

The direct effect predators have on their prey is to kill them. The evolutionary changes that can result from this direct effect include prey that are younger at maturity and that produce more offspring. But killing prey also has indirect effects -- rarely characterized or measured -- such as a decline in the number of surviving prey, resulting, in turn, in more food available to survivors. In a new study characterizing the complex ecological interactions that shape how organisms evolve, biologists present a novel way of quantifying the indirect effects of predators by showing that prey adapt to food availability as well as the presence of predators.

The notion that a predator animal killing and eating its prey is "bad" fails to take into account the complexity of interactions within an ecological system. Seen from a wider point of view, the killing of the prey is but a part of a larger, good system. A system which, by its definition, be fully functional at its inception. A system bearing the trademarks of design.

Consider the implications of another article, from ScienceDaily, titled Are Wolves The Pronghorn's Best Friend?,

As western states debate removing the gray wolf from protection under the Endangered Species Act, a new study by the Wildlife Conservation Society cautions that doing so may result in an unintended decline in another species: the pronghorn, a uniquely North American animal that resembles an African antelope.

...

The study, appearing in the latest issue of the journal Ecology, says that fewer wolves mean more coyotes, which can prey heavily on pronghorn fawns if the delicate balance between predators and their prey is altered. According to the study, healthy wolf packs keep coyote numbers in check, while rarely feeding on pronghorn fawns themselves. As a result, fawns have higher survival rates when wolves are present in an ecosystem.

...

"This study shows just how complex relationships between predators and their prey can be," said Berger. "It's an important reminder that we often don't understand ecosystems nearly as well as we think we do, and that our efforts to manipulate them can have unexpected consequences."

The implications of unintended consequences from misunderstanding complex ecosystems.

Within the Young Earth Creation mindset, it is unfortunate that animal predation is considered "bad" or "evil". Such analysis, when one looks at the evidence within nature alongside that within God's Word, seems inadequate. Consider,

The young lions roar for their prey, seeking their food from God. When the sun rises, they steal away and lie down in their dens. Man goes out to his work and to his labor until the evening.

O Lord, how manifold are your works! In wisdom have you made them all; the earth is full of your creatures. Here is the sea, great and wide, which teems with creatures innumerable, living things both small and great. There go the ships, and Leviathan, which you formed to play in it.

These all look to you, to give them their food in due season. When you give it to them, they gather it up; when you open your hand, they are filled with good things.

- Psalm 104:21-28 ESV (emphasis added)

The Last 2 percent (v. 6)

(Human - Chimpanzee) = 0.02

If humans share about 98 percent of our genetic makeup with chimps, then why are we so far apart in terms of behavior, agility, cognitive skills, etc.?

What is it that makes up The Last 2 percent?

Yet Another Genetic Difference between Humans and Chimpanzees

More and more, it appears that humans and chimps display key genetic differences where it counts. And these differences explain why humans visit the chimpanzee exhibit at the zoo, and not the other way around. For more information on these kinds of genetic comparisons between humans and chimps and how they fit into a biblical framework see an article I wrote for a recent issue of Connections or the book Who Was Adam?

From Whence Do We Come? Part 1 (of 2)  Part 2 (of 2)

Human evolutionary models, even the ones that appear to be the best-established, are highly speculative and, at best, have tenuous support from the fossil record. Time and time again a single fossil find overturns a "well-established" idea in human evolution. It's hard to know what other entrenched ideas will soon be abandoned as new hominid specimens are unearthed and studied. It's hard to accept human evolution as a "fact" given the actual level of uncertainty about the relationships among the hominids in the fossil record and the constant flux within the discipline.

So Easy a Caveman Could Do It? Part 2 (of 2)

...God created human beings to communicate personally with Him, as well as with each other, through language transmitted by sophisticated synaptic networks. Adam talked directly with God. And though his fall into sin destroyed spiritual communication and life, they were restored to human beings by God's atoning grace through Jesus Christ. A restored human spirit and the gift of language make interactive communication with the Holy Spirit so easy even we "moderns" can do it.

Good discussion at Stones Cry Out

There's a good discussion I'm having with a commenter by the name of Psi, over at Stones Cry Out, regarding a post I wrote in Mindless-process Design (as opposed to Intelligent Design).

Maybe some of you should check it out, and leave a comment of your own. Hint: LotharBot (and anyone else, for that matter).

"Mindless-Process" Design: on being students without a teacher

Cross-posted at Stones Cry Out

Intelligent Design is often ridiculed as not being science in that it is, allegedly, not falsifiable, has not produced any real predictions, and is creationism in disguise. However, what is the alternative to the notion of Intelligent Design, if not Unintelligent Design? Natural Process Evolution (aka Neo-Darwinism, Naturalism, etc.) rests on the Blind Watchmaker argument in which mindless processes, via the natural realm, are responsible for the diversity of life on planet earth.

We are told that we, as humans, have evolved to the point where we have minds that think, that reason, that design, and that engineer. Yet, if this is the case, how is it that we now seem to take our cues, as shown below, from the alleged products of a completely mindless process? Doesn't common sense, from our evolved minds, tell us that if we see a well designed and engineered product, then it is reasonable to conclude that that  product came from a mind?

Therefore, I'd like to present a series of examples that we find in nature, of MD (i.e., Mindless-process Design), and how we acknowledge the inescapable conclusion that there is design / engineering in what we behold:

Birds, Bats And Insects Hold Secrets For Aerospace Engineers

Natural flyers like birds, bats and insects outperform man-made aircraft in aerobatics and efficiency. Engineers are studying these animals as a step toward designing flapping-wing planes with wingspans smaller than a deck of playing cards.

A Biochemical Watch Found in a Cellular Heath

The discovery of biomolecular motors and machines inside the cell gives new life to the Watchmaker Argument. In many instances, this molecular-level biomachinery stands as a strict analog to man-made machinery and represents a potent response to the legitimate criticism leveled by Hume and others. The biomachines found in the cell’s interior reveal a diversity of form and function that mirrors the diversity of designs produced by human engineers. The one-to-one relationship between the parts of man-made machines and the molecular components of biomachines is startling. Paley’s case for the Creator only becomes stronger with every new example of a biomotor that biochemists discover.

As remarkable as these biomachines are, perhaps none are as provocative as the biochemical timekeeping devices discovered in cyanobacteria.

Scientists Discover Remarkable Editing System For Protein Production

Even small mistakes made by cells during protein production can have profound disease effects, but the processes cells use to correct mistakes have been challenging to decipher. Recent work by scientists at The Scripps Research Institute, however, has uncovered two surprising new methods for such editing.

The Last 2 percent (v. 5)

(Human - Chimpanzee) = 0.02

If humans share about 98 percent of our genetic makeup with chimps, then why are we so far apart in terms of behavior, agility, cognitive skills, etc.?

What is it that makes up The Last 2 percent?

Chimpanzee Behavior Supports RTB’s Model for Humanity’s Origin

The new insights into chimpanzee behavior further distance the hominids from modern humans. Chimpanzees use caves, hunt with spears, and make tools from a variety of materials, including stones. Still, these primates unquestionably and profoundly differ from humans in terms of cognitive abilities, capacity for rational and symbolic thought, language use, and musical and artistic expression. Likewise, just because the habiline and erectine hominids made and used tools and engaged in hunting and scavenging activity doesn’t necessarily mean that they were becoming “human.” Instead, their behavior appears to be increasingly animal-like, particularly when compared to chimpanzee activities.

Human Ancestors More Primitive That Once Thought

A team of researchers, including Herman Pontzer, Ph.D., assistant professor of physical anthropology in Arts & Sciences, has determined through analysis of the earliest known hominid fossils outside of Africa, recently discovered in Dmanisi, Georgia, the former Soviet republic, that the first human ancestors to inhabit Eurasia were more primitive than previously thought.

The fossils, dated to 1.8 million years old, show some modern aspects of lower limb morphology, such as long legs and an arched foot, but retain some primitive aspects of morphology in the shoulder and foot. The species had a small stature and brain size more similar to earlier species found in Africa.

Nonconscious Visual Attention System Identified In Humans

For our hunter-gatherer ancestors, wild animals generally represented either a food source or a potential danger. Detecting an animal's immediate presence and then monitoring its movements was vital to the physical safety, nutrition, and well-being of stone-age families.

...

Now a team of researchers at the University of California, Santa Barbara has identified a nonconscious attention system, which still exists in the human brain, that maintains awareness of non-human animals and tracks changes in their location, behavior, and trajectory.

On learning from nature: Raptors, and flying

From last Sunday's Nature program titled, Raptor Force,

Humans have had a unique relationship with raptors, nature's aerial killing machines, for more than four thousand years, first through the ancient sport of falconry, and, more recently, as scientists and engineers have turned to these mighty birds -- from golden eagles, red-tailed hawks, and turkey vultures, to great gray owls and the peregrine falcon -- as the inspiration for the latest in aircraft design. Using the tricks and tactics of raptors as their model, engineers have devised fighter jets with unprecedented maneuverability and stealth.

But remember - you must force yourself to remember - that the configuration of these mighty birds, the very ones from whom engineers model their designs off of, yes - their design - was not designed, but arose across time, after minute changes occurred over countless steps.

The supposed unguided products of evolutionary development, serving as guides for the actions of intelligent agents.

Science Saturday: Progressive design of the internal combustion engine

As a follow-up to my February 9th post, Science Saturday: Declaring the existence of transitional species post, I'd like to give you a lesson plan (of sorts), with the purpose of illustrating the concept of gradual, progressive engineering and design.

The Last 2 percent (v. 4)

(Human - Chimpanzee) = 0.02

If humans share about 98 percent of our genetic makeup with chimps, then why are we so far apart in terms of behavior, agility, cognitive skills, etc.?

What is it that makes up The Last 2 percent?

What Gives Us Fingertip Dexterity?

Quickly moving your fingertips to tap or press a surface is essential for everyday life to, say, pick up small objects, use a BlackBerry or an iPhone. But researchers at the University of Southern California say that this seemingly trivial action is the result of a complex neuro-motor-mechanical process orchestrated with precision timing by the brain, nervous system and muscles of the hand.

...

"Our data suggest that specialized neural circuitry may have evolved for the hand because of the time-critical neural control that is necessary for executing the abrupt transition from motion (tap) to static force (push)," he said. "In the tap-push exercise, we found that the brain must be switching from the tap command to the push command while the fingertip is still in motion. Neurophysiological limitations prevent an instantaneous or perfect switch, so we speculate that there must be specialized circuits and strategies that allow people to do so effectively.

Chimpanzees May Build Their 'Cultures' In A Similar Way To Humans

Socially-learned cultural behaviour thought to be unique to humans is also found among chimpanzees colonies, scientists at the University of Liverpool have found.

Historically, scientists believed that behavioural differences between colonies of chimpanzees were due to variations in genetics. A team at Liverpool, however, has now discovered that variations in behaviour are down to chimpanzees migrating to other colonies, proving that they build their 'cultures' in a similar way to humans.

Tool-wielding Chimps Provide A Glimpse Of Early Human Behavior

Chimpanzees inhabiting a harsh savanna environment and using bark and stick tools to exploit an underground food resource are giving scientists new insights to the behaviors of the earliest hominids who, millions of years ago, left the African forests to range the same kinds of environments and possibly utilize the same foods.

...

The new study demonstrates that "the understanding and capability to exploit these resources were very likely within the grasp of the first chimp-like hominids," argues Pickering. "It was widely believed that it is a uniquely human adaptation to use tools to dig these things up."

DNA, and blueprints from a mind

From ScienceDaily, DNA Is Blueprint, Contractor And Construction Worker For New Structures,

DNA is the blueprint of all life, giving instruction and function to organisms ranging from simple one-celled bacteria to complex human beings. Now researchers have used DNA as the blueprint, contractor and construction worker to build a 3-D structure out of gold, a lifeless material. Using just one kind of nanoparticle the researchers built two very different crystalline structures by changing one thing -- the strands of synthesized DNA attached to the tiny gold spheres. (emphasis added)

Ahhh... don't you just love metaphors?

Consider the following words, and their meanings: 

• Blueprint - a drawing, typically used in construction, which provides the layout, materials, dimensions, sizes, etc., of the building in question, thereby providing constructors with the necessary information with which to construct the building. Key point: a blueprint is the product of a mind.
• Contractor - typically a person, or company, who not only acquires the resources necessary to build the structure, but also plans the work to be performed. Key point: a contractor performs his function by using his mind (as a general rule).
• Construction worker - besides leering at women walking by a construction site, the construction worker is the one who actually performs the construction of a particular building. Key point: a construction worker, contrary to popular belief, has a mind.

Now, consider that DNA, supposedly derived from a mindless process, over eons of time, is being used as the basis for building 3D structures out of gold.