Latest and Historic Controversies

Live Controversy Center

Controversy Behind the Evolution of World

The scientific study of evolution is filled with controversies. That was one of the messages coming out of a two-day symposium on the latest in research from the field that was hosted by Rockefeller University last week. I’ll discuss the scientific details of some of the talks separately, but it’s worth analyzing these controversies in light of the “academic freedom” bills that are being considered by a number of states, which purport to protect teachers who discuss controversies regarding evolution.

Nationwide, nearly half a dozen states are considering variants of such bills, some of which throw in the origin of life and climate change for good measure. Legislators in Florida recently introduced such a bill in response to new educational standards that were the first to formalize the teaching of evolution. Althought two incompatible bills passed the state House and Senate, they died when the legislature went out of session; similar measures are still pending in other states. These bills appear to have originated at the pro-Intelligent Design thinktank the Discovery Institute, and constitute part of its latest effort towards reducing the teaching of evolution in public schools.

Manufacturing controversies

So, might Discovery actually be on to something here? It’s worth doing a comparison of the controversies they’d like to see taught with the topics that are considered controversial within the actual scientific community. It’s pretty easy to get a sense for what Discovery thinks is a controversy by looking at Explore Evolution, the textbook they have created in the hope of encouraging schools to teach it. Those ostensible controversies fall into three major groups: existence of common descent, power of natural selection, and the existence of proteinaceous machines.

Common Descent: Discovery presents common descent as controversial exclusively within the animal kingdom, as it focuses on embryology, anatomy, and the fossil record to raise questions about them. In the real world of science, common descent of animals is completely noncontroversial; any controversy resides in the microbial world. There, researchers argued over a variety of topics, starting with the very beginning, namely the relationship among the three main branches of life.

Russ Doolittle presented an analysis based on individual folds in proteins that clearly resolved the Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukaryotes, while a distant relative, Ford Doolittle, argued that the prevalence of horizontal gene transfer at the bacterial level made any such trees questionable, or at best uninformative. Meanwhile, Thomas Cavalier-Smith argued forcefully that gene-based trees miss out on significant evolutionary events, such as the transition that gave the Archaea a radically different membrane chemistry. Almost anyone who touched on the subject (and there were several speakers that did) gave a confused picture of what the genome of a Eukaryote looked like before it first took a mitochondrion on board.

These are areas of real controversy; Cavalier-Smith seemed to introduce half his slides by pointing how they showed where others had gone wrong. But it’s worthwhile noting that there is essentially no overlap with the areas that Discovery would like to pretend are controversial. Ford Doolittle, in fact, made repeated reference to the fact that there were areas that phylogenetic trees made sense for tracing common descent, and that the animal kingdom was one of them.

Natural Selection: Explore Evolution seems to think a reply can be made to the arguments in favor of natural selection. Based on the symposium, the scientific community clearly doesn’t. Selective pressure made appearances in nearly every session. Selection for self-replicating RNAs and for enclosing biochemical precursors within membranes were central to the origin of life work of Gerald Joyce and Jack Szostack, respectively. At the other end of the spectrum, the researchers exploring human evolution (Katherin Pollard, Bruce Lahn, and Svante Pääbo) spoke of the challenges of identifying signs of selection amidst the genetic drift that’s occurred within the genomes of mammals in general and primates in particular.

Here, it was clear that there simply is no controversy. In contrast to the arguments over bacterial trees and the origin of eukaryotes, none of the researchers felt compelled to explain or justify their focus on the role of mutation and selective pressure. Concerns, when they arose, were simply focused on identifying the consequences of selection. As such, Discovery’s focus on presenting a controversy here seems hallucinatory.

Molecular Machines: Michael Behe, a Discovery fellow, has advanced the argument that some aspects of cellular life are analogous to machinery, and thus must have required the same attentive design that a machine does. This proposal is flawed on a number of levels, and has not gained enough traction within the biological community to rise to the level of anything beyond a distraction. But items Behe might consider molecular machines did appear in the talks, and their role was informative.

The proteasome is one complex of dozens of proteins that was mentioned in a couple of talks. Despite the enormous complexity and large number of specialized proteins in a proteasome, evolution readily explains its origins through gene duplication and specialization. Simplified forms, with fewer proteins, exist in Archaea and Bacteria. Not only are these simple versions of the proteasome an indication of its evolution, the gradual increase in its complexity allowed researchers to use it to infer evolutionary relationships among the three branches of life.

Similar analyses were performed with actin and tubulin, essential components of the complex skeletons that support Eukaryotic cells. Structural relatives of these genes appear in Bacteria and Archaea, where they appear to act to separate cell components even in the absence of a complex skeleton. An essential component of some Eukaryotic RNA interference systems also shows up in Archaea, where it does something completely unrelated to RNA interference. In all of these cases, parts of the supposedly designed machinery exist elsewhere, where they perform more limited but often related roles. Their use in determining evolutionary relationships didn’t so much as elicit a blink from an audience of scientists.

Advertisements

December 4, 2008 Posted by | Uncategorized | , , , | Leave a comment

Controversy of the Anti gravity UFOs

Antigravity UFO over house.Ufologists quickly realized that UFO propulsion systems based on earthly technologies were not compatible with the stories and pictures being presented. A UFO shown hovering over a house could not have had a jet propulsion system. Otherwise, the house would be blown to bits and explode in flames. The propulsion system could not have been nuclear. Otherwise, the occupants of the house and car would be fried with radiation. Click on the image to see an enlargement.

Many people have described their experiences with UFOs as having been directly under the spacecraft and being “beamed” aboard for a joy ride into space and back again. Notice the disturbance in the air below the UFO in the picture. It is apparently preparing to beam someone aboard from inside the house. This can only be done if the spacecraft has a propulsion system and internal environment that does not harm humans who are very close to the machine. The antigravity concept was universally accepted by Ufologists as the propulsion system used by UFOs.

Engineers are said by Ufologists to be working on antigravity flying saucers at Area 51 by using reverse engineering techniques on captured UFOs. Reverse engineering is simply dissecting the propulsion system on the alien craft to learn what each component does. Other Ufologists claim in their books and videos that the US government has already developed antigravity military spacecraft fighters that use laser weapon technologies. The fighters are said to be stationed on the far side of the Moon where they cannot be seen from Earth. The plan is to take over the world with a one-world government system controlled by the United States. Actually, this sounds like a great idea except it is all nonsense.

Antigravity implies that the craft can hover near the ground and fly into space and beyond. A magnetic field technology as presently used on high speed trains is not considered to be antigravity. A helicopter is not an antigravity machine. A satellite in orbit is not an example of the antigravity concept.

The antigravity alien spacecraft never existed and will never exist. The photographs like the one above are fakes. The personal testimonies are all lies. An antigravity machine will never be built. Any money spent on antigravity research is totally wasted. The technology is impossible. It violates many of the basic laws of science as observed throughout the universe. Gravity is everywhere. It cannot be canceled. It cannot be nullified. Don’t be duped by this nonsense.

The History Channel television network continues the brainwashing of children with programs sponsored by paid advertisers. The programs promote the foundational claim made by ufologists that the United States government, military and NASA continue to cover-up the facts surrounding actual sightings and capture of alien spacecraft. They accuse the President Richard Nixon administration of a massive cover-up of UFOs, even though the Richard Nixon administration couldn’t even cover-up a little break in of the offices of the Democrats. President Jimmy Carter was so unstable that he claimed to have seen a UFO himself. Carter tried to disclose the concealed information, but found none. President Ronald Regan also claimed to have personally seen two UFOs, but none of the other people aboard the same airplane have come forward to support the claim. Even in the most powerful office in the world, President Regan could not produce one fact that alien UFO’s ever existed. Presidents Carter and Regan wanted desperately to prove that UFOs existed, but they could not.

October 21, 2008 Posted by | Science, UFO Controversies | , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Controversy of the Rabbit Hole on Mars

Rabbit Hole On MarsThe Jet Propulsion Laboratory division of NASA believes they have finally proven that evolution is true. An unsubstantiated comment made by one of the mission leaders about the first photos received back from the May 25, 2008 mission, “Oh, isn’t it wonderful. We landed right in front of a rabbit hole. Oh, this is the most exciting time in history. Charles Darwin was not a nut case. Evolution is true. God bless our mission. Oops, I didn’t mean to say God bless.” Click the image to see an enlargement.

The Real Story

NASA wastes billions of dollars trying to find life beyond earth. The success rate is ZERO. All of their efforts have been and will continue to be a total failure. They could have spent the money for missions that would benefit us, but no. They insist on the unrelenting search to prove the false Theory of Evolution.

Schizophrenia is defined as a mental illness in which one keeps doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result. The sufferer has hallucinations, delusions and a failure to separate false mental thoughts from reality. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory has a severe case of mass schizophrenia.

What next? Well, we can expect the lies to begin coming from the mission leaders. If they can’t find life on Mars, they will simply make up some lies that they have. This is posted May 26, 2008. Let’s see how long it takes for them to come forth with the first lie. Stay tuned.

October 7, 2008 Posted by | Historic Controversies, Science | , , , , , , | Leave a comment