|
(Note: the Editor in Chief's added comments are shown in parentheses. Hey, just like this one! How about that?! Titles are links to the original stories.)
Evolutionist Sues To Force Censorship
By MARY MacDONALD - Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Staff Writer
(and The merry Editor in MacChief - BF Staff Infected Writer)
When Jeffrey (swimming-upstream) Selman learned the Cobb County public (government) schools had put disclaimers (which say nothing about special creation or religion) on (theoretical) evolution in thousands of (so-called) science books, he skipped his usual outlet, a letter of protest.
(The stickers that will be added to those books actually say, in part, that evolution is ``a controversial theory. ... Instructional material associated with controversy should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.")
The 56-year-old computer programmer sued the district to (force censorship by making them) remove the textbook stickers.
And he is ready to broaden the suit's scope (bully them even harder) if the school board allows science teachers to discuss what he sees as faith-based alternatives to (theoretical) evolution. (As if evolution isn't faith based?!)
"I saw something wrong (something that threatens his own personal world-view), and I went after it (like a lioness after a gazelle)," Selman said. (It seems to be survival-of-the-fittest from here on out.)
Five miles away, in another east Cobb neighborhood, Larry Taylor had his own visceral reaction to the debate over science and (pseudo-science, but not) religion.
Well-read and articulate, Taylor grew tired of seeing critics of evolution dismissed as uneducated rubes (Here, here!).
The construction manager attended his first school board meeting two weeks ago to urge members to require teachers to expose (the many scientific) flaws in evolution. (Notice nothing was said about "creation science")
"If it raises tough questions in the classroom, that's why they're there," Taylor said (Here, here again!).
The men, both fathers (male genetic code donors) of students in east Cobb (government) schools, inserted themselves into a fray that neither expected would turn national. Both have found the attention unsettling.
They worry about the impact on their families and will not disclose the names of their wives (mates) or children (cubs). Both screen phone calls.
But neither regrets taking a public stance on an issue that has divided Cobb and drawn national media attention.
The board vote on instruction policy is set for Sept. 26.
Selman: I'm a patriot (missile)!
The division among parents is unprecedented, said board Chairman Curt Johnston, who is receiving 15 messages a day, divided on either side.
"This is the most difficult and polarized debate the board has had since I've been on the board (except for that lunchroom burrito incident back in '92)," he said. "Right now, we're just listening."
Selman, the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed against the district by (guess who) the American Civil Liberties Union (to force censorship), said his decision to seek court intervention took perhaps "half a second." (proving that not much thought went into his decision)
A transplanted New Yorker, Selman wants people to know he (as well as the demons) believes in God (and The Yankees). A practicing Jew, he attends temple several times a year (probably just on holidays).
He does not want to be equated with the California atheist whose challenge of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance drew national scorn (Which had absolutely nothing to do with this debate!).
Selman describes his lawsuit as a patriotic action, stopping a move toward government-sanctioned religion (Hello?! Humanism?! Hello!!!).
While the textbook advisories are vague (meaning that they mention nothing about special creation), Selman and many other parents (how many?) think the school board discussions that produced the inserts reflect a conservative Christian intent (-The "standard" evolutionist charge when they have NO basis for their opinions!).
The advisories were approved after the board heard about two dozen parents protest the teaching of evolution, many (but not all) on religious grounds (while others on scientific grounds).
They produced a petition signed by nearly 2,000 parents who demanded accurate science texts (but NOT teaching of special creation or religion).
Many petitions circulated in Cobb churches (How many? What percentage?).
A counterpetition is now circulating among pro-evolution parents, who will demand that the board maintain "traditional academic standards and integrity in the sciences ("traditional" meaning "status quo").
Selman isn't sure what sparked the anti-evolution movement in Cobb, a county he and his wife (mate) chose nearly 10 years ago based on the good reputation of its schools. (Maybe it's sparked by a school system with a good reputation who is asking smart questions.)
He thinks (but doesn't know for sure) the board is pandering (meaning what?) to a small group of parents (who also pay school taxes). His own actions have produced a few dozen phone calls to his home, more supportive than not.
"This is one battleground," said Selman (yes it is, a battle for TRUTH), who has a child (cub) in elementary school.
"I'm sure they're not going to stop at this (Who is not going to stop at what?).
The next thing, the moment of silence is going to be attacked, which is a beautiful piece of compromise." (You see folks, his motives are pushed by an anti-religion bent, not defending true science.)
Nancy Myers, a co-worker, wasn't surprised that Selman became involved in the dispute. "He's got a hot justice button," she said (meaning he's all emotion and no logic).
"When he sees wrong being done ("wrong" being what he doesn't like), he wants to do something about it (like bully those who disagree with his own personal opinions). I'd call him principled."
Although Selman thinks his lawsuit will squash (like a bug) any attempt to dilute (theoretical) evolution, he suspects the board policy will open classrooms to religious-based instruction (like how to circumcise male infant frogs).
"The side for scientific education was asleep," he said. (Actually Mr. Selman, it is dying.)
"We felt safe (in our Godless world-view). This is the 21st century, for crying out loud (at least we agree on that). We can't go back to this (Can't go back to scientific critique?!)."
Taylor: Teach all (scientific) facts|
Taylor, 41, moved to Cobb as a child and was edu(ma)cated in its public (government) schools.
But like Selman, he now questions whether the county schools live up to their generally good reputation. He has two daughters and a son, in middle and high school.
While he disagrees with (theoretical) biological evolution, Taylor will not identify himself as a creationist or an advocate of "intelligent design," which argues that the diversity of life is the result of some master plan by an unidentified "designer."
(If you tried to identify the designer, THAT would get into religion. But just pointing out that the evidence suggests a designer does NOT get into religion.)
But Taylor has read "Darwin's Black Box," a challenge of evolution by a biochemist at Lehigh University, and a stack of other books that question evolution.
He has given copies to friends and co-workers (like a good little evangelist).
Taylor believes these critiques, many written by scientists if not biologists (No, some are indeed biologists), are being ignored unfairly by public school teachers and the media.
(The rest is so well said by Mr. Taylor, we couldn't improve on it any and will let the rest speak for itself...)
"The media presents it as the educated scientists vs. the religious, fanatical extremists."
He was particularly angered when science teachers told the Cobb school board that criticism of evolution was based in religion.
"All the facts should be taught in the science class," he said. "There are many credible scientists in America who believe evolution has many flaws."
Taylor attends his church, Trinity Fellowship in west Cobb, twice weekly. The Rev. Richard Hemphill said the church had not become involved with the evolution dispute.
Taylor has spoken out before, taking a position against abortion in a letter published in a newspaper. His pastor is not surprised to see him take a stance on something that affects his family.
"When he talks about an issue, he has studied it thoroughly," Hemphill said.
Parents and teachers who dismiss views opposing evolution are practicing their own form of religion, Taylor said. He insists intelligent design is not a faith-based approach.
"The supporters of evolution have an agenda as well. Their agenda is to keep God out, even if the evidence points to God. . . . It's faith. Those people are as fervent in their beliefs as Christians are in believing God created Earth."
Scientist Claims Bigger Sperm Are Better Sperm
For tiny soil nematodes, big sperm have the edge over smaller sperm in fertilizing a mate's eggs, according to University of Arizona biologists (and voeuyers) Craig LaMunyon and Samuel Ward.
In a paper (written on paper) published in the June 7, 2002 Proceedings of the Royal Society, the pair (not romantically linked, we believe) report that the (conscious) incessant drive in the race toward a hereditary legacy (a la Bill Clinton) leads male worms to (theoretically) evolve larger sperm.
While this may not seem so newsworthy to anybody but a worm (or a pervert), the real scoop is that these researchers witnessed (ogled) this evolution directly, in a Petri dish (with the curtains open).
The Seventh Commandment (nor any of the others) notwithstanding, competition among sperm from different suitors runs rampant in the animal kingdom (which includes human animal subjects).
"It occurs in nearly every species, even birds, the paragons of monogamy," says LaMunyon, now an assistant professor of biology at Florida Atlantic University. (He also told a group of young people to "Go for it!")
LaMunyon started investigating sperm competition in nematodes as a postdoctoral fellow in Ward's lab in the UA department of molecular and cellular biology (because he couldn't afford Cinemax anymore) .
Caenorhabditis elegans, the millimeter-long transparent nematode that Ward has studied for thirty years (so sorry to hear that), is a favorite model organism for studying developmental biology.
It turns out to be ideal for learning about sperm competition also (wink-wink).
Like earthworms, their more familiar distant (kissing) cousins, most C. elegans individuals are hermaphrodites -- they have both male and female reproductive systems (as seen on Jenny Jones).
But C. elegans hermaphrodites can't mate with each other (as not seen on Jenny Jones).
Most of the time, a hermaphrodite fertilizes its eggs with its own sperm (breaking at least one commandment, we're sure).
But there are also a few males lurking among C. elegans populations (yep, we males are always "lurking", aren't we?!).
A (lurking) male's raison d'etre is mating with a hermaphrodite (and watching sports), passing along its genes for posterity (and the point spread).
Ward discovered years ago that when a (lurking) male mates with a hermaphrodite, just about all (but not exactly all) of the (lurking) male's sperm will displace the hermaphrodite's own sperm, fertilizing every egg and leaving the hermaphrodite's sperm out in the cold (brrr).
When LaMunyon joined Ward's lab he set out to find the source behind such competitive prowess (and to paint the walls a new, more exciting color than off-white).
He systematically tested -- and eliminated -- many possibilities (such as looks, wealth, etc).
Then, by simply looking at sperm from (lurking) males and hermaphrodites side by side under a microscope (Go ahead, take a minute to recover from that last statement), he found that the (lurking) males' sperm were larger than the hermaphrodites'.
"It was one of those rare and exhilarating moments when you hit upon something that appears to explain a puzzling phenomenon, (like watching Cinemax for the first time)" LaMunyon recalled of the discovery (with a goofy smile and glossy-eyed distant gaze).
Upon closer examination, he discovered that larger sperm crawl faster than smaller sperm [yes, these sperm crawl rather than swim (because it's just been sooooo long)], and do indeed have the competitive edge in the fertilization race (which has had many false starts).
Armed with this (and a crystal ball) result, LaMunyon predicted that nematode species in which (lurking) males face heated sperm competition should (theoretically) evolve larger sperm (with different dna code?) than species with less intense competition.
He tested this by comparing the size of sperm from the (lurking) males of predominantly hermaphroditic worms, like C. elegans, to species with the more conventional (normal and acceptable) male-female lifestyle.
In male-female species, (unsuspecting) females usually mate with many (lurking) males (which is only natural). Males of those species ought to have beefier sperm (lol).
LaMunyon sampled sperm [don't ask] from nineteen different species, took them back to his microscope (in his bachelor's pad), and found that, indeed, sperm from the male-female species were all significantly larger (beefier) than sperm from the hermaphroditic species (Where's the beef?).
Scientists, however, (what, these sperm watching guys aren't scientists?!) are quick to admonish -- tempting as it may be to take the leap -- that correlation does not necessarily mean cause. (<<<Spewing milk>>> Hello?! Evolution?! Hello?!)
To conclude that sperm competition causes sperm to (theoretically) evolve larger would take some carefully controlled experimentation, an almost impossible task when dealing with a process that plods along at -- literally -- (theoretical) evolutionary pace.
LaMunyon gave it a try anyway (because he still can't afford Cinemax).
He designed (evolved) the type of experiment that (theoretical) evolutionary biologists usually don't have the luxury to even dream of doing: changing the one variable in question, while keeping everything else the same (This is what scientists dream of???).
Here again, C. elegans proved to be a perfect experimental system. With a generation-to-generation span of only three days, (theoretical) evolution can work quickly in these worms (Are you asking what I'm asking? Hmmm?).
(Do they ever turn into something else instead of getting bigger? Hello? Helloooooo???)
Using some genetics tools and (stupid human) tricks developed in the Ward lab, he created (evolved) two varieties of worms that were identical in every way except one. One strain reproduced by way of self-fertilizing hermaphrodites, with only rare (lurking) males; there was practically no competition between sperm from different (lurking) males.
The other strain, however, could only reproduce through mating between (lurking) males and (unsuspecting) females, and the high proportion of (lurking) males in the population (like "ladies night" at the bar) insured that sperm competition was fierce.
LaMunyon cultivated the two worm colonies side by side, but segregated in their own Petri dishes (And he'll hear from the ACLU for that!!!).
He grew (evolved) them for six months -- sixty generations -- measuring sperm from (lurking) males every fifteen generations.
The sperm from the hermaphroditic colony, where there was no sperm competition (nor fast-food restaurants), remained the same size throughout the experiment.
But, just as predicted, the sperm from the worms (worm sperm) reproducing by male-female matings steadily became (evolved) larger.
By generation sixty they had grown (evolved) twenty percent larger than their ancestors' sperm at the start of the experiment (and they were also smarter with less hair).
So, if bigger is better, will this (theoretical) evolutionary contest inevitably lead to giant sperm (like in that Godzilla movie)?
Unlikely, according to LaMunyon. "While bigger sperm are better (I can't believe he actually said that!!!), it takes more time and energy to make them," he says. (And the same goes for asexual reproducing organisms versus sexually producing ones, doesn't it?! Hmmm?!)
But he adds that this intense (theoretical) evolutionary pressure on sperm to stand out among the crowd (by wearing a white leisure suit with bell-bottomed legs) has produced an amazing diversity of sperm shapes and sizes (How?). - By Paul Muhlrad (and the ever-evolving Editor In Chief)
Fri Aug 16
By Neil Chatterjee (and that Editor dude)
LONDON [Reuters (and Blind Fools)] - Fossil fuels (or are they???) -- used for everything from keeping us warm (by swimming in it) to powering space rockets (by burning it to the point of explosion) -- could have formed from minerals instead of plant and animal remains as generally believed (faithed), say U.S. (Yankee) and Russian (Rusky) scientists.
(Are you saying that what I learnt in school and proclaimed by scientists may be wrong? - OH THE HUMANITY!!!)
The team of geologists (scientists), including J.F. Kenney (not that former U.S. President) of the Gas Resources Corporation (not that Bean-O company) in Texas and Vladimir (insert your own joke here) Kutcherov of the Russian State University of Oil and Gas, argue that petroleum originated from minerals at extreme temperatures and pressures.
(Hey, what about the dinosaurs? The computer animated movie Toy Story showed that Dino gas station - will they have to go back and edit it?)
They have mimicked conditions more than 100 kilometers [62 miles] below the surface by heating minerals containing carbon at around 1,500 degrees celsius and 50,000 times atmospheric pressure (which also mimicks a debate at a school board meeting about whether to teach evolution and intelligent design or creation) .
"Experiments to demonstrate the high-pressure genesis (ooh - a "biblical" term) of petroleum hydrocarbons have been carried out using only 99.9 percent pure solid iron oxide, and marble...with triple distilled water," their report said.
This produced various hydrocarbons including methane (as do cows), the main constituent of natural gas (as well as grass and cud), and octane, the hydrocarbon molecule that is the basis for gasoline.
Other geologists say that the research, reported in the journal Nature this week, reignites a debate that is almost fossilised (like the theory of evolution) itself.
"It periodically comes up as an issue -- it's a possibility that some hydrocarbons formed inorganically," said Lidia Lonergan, a petroleum geologist (and Imperialist) at the Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine in London.
"But it's perceived (not known) that the majority (not all) of oil (Texas Tea) reserves discovered are of organic origin," she told Reuters.
(Some) Geologists say (claim) that there is overwhelming chemical and biological evidence that fossil fuels are composed of (or mixed in with?) animal and plants, or organic matter. These chemical signs are also used to find oil (Jed Clampet just used a shotgun).
A (one) mathematical model of the researchers' process suggests (not proves) that none of the ingredients of a mineral-based fossil fuel other than methane could form at depths of less than 100 kilometers, whereas petroleum is found at much shallower levels.
The conventional view (not fact) is that oil forms just a few kilometers below the surface at temperatures of 50-150 degrees celsius, a process that can be recreated in the laboratory (it's also a conventional view that evolution is true, which CAN'T be recreated in the laboratory).
Petroleum that forms inorganically at high temperatures close to the Earth's mantle layer could be forced higher up by water, which is denser than oil, before being trapped closer to the surface by sedimentary rocks.
But geologists think (not know) this could (might) not create the huge volume of proven world oil reserves (why not?) -- 143 billion tonnes according to energy major BP -- that are expected to last around 40 years (unless unproven reserves are found) at current rates of use (save the earth - kill a whale!).