It’s evolution in an instant—or natural selection in six years, to be more precise.
Researchers report in the journal Science the discovery of “evolution” in the whitefly Bemisia tabaci that has occurred in less than a decade. The change is in response to bacteria of the genus Rickettsia that have rapidly infested most whiteflies in Arizona, the state where the research was conducted.
In 2000, scientists studying this species of whitefly in Arizona found that only around one percent were infested with Rickettsia. But three years later, half the population was infested, and now, nearly all whiteflies in the state harbor the microbes. Apparently, the presence of Rickettsia in a female whitefly increases its egg-laying and causes the fly’s offspring to develop more quickly and better survive to adulthood. Additionally, the bacteria cause the flies to lay more female eggs than male—and since the bacteria are only transmitted from mother to offspring, this has accelerated Rickettsia’s takeover of the flies. The exact biological mechanism by which the bacteria affect the flies is still not understood, however.
University of Arizona entomologist Molly Hunter explained, “Our lab studies suggest that these bacteria can transform an insect population over a very short time. It is not uncommon to find a microbe providing some benefits to their hosts, but the magnitude of fitness benefits we found is unusual.”
As with virtually every observation of “evolution” reported, this study does nothing to support or advance the Darwinian view of common ancestry—that from a single, simple life-form, all the complex and diversified life-forms arose. That perspective requires a mechanism to produce novel genetic information in organisms that can lead to new biological capabilities. But in this study, there is no indication that whiteflies themselves have undergone any genotypic change, but rather that they benefit on an environmental level from symbiosis with the Rickettsia bacteria. In other words, processes like this could continue for hundreds of millions of years without transforming a whitefly into anything other than a whitefly. Once again, the concept of natural selection—which creationist researchers endorse—and the biology of symbiotic relationships explains the observational data without any need for Darwinian evolution.
In portraying cavemen as dimwits, popular stereotypes often show them as unkempt—and recklessly heterosexual—brutes: claiming brides by clubbing cavewomen over the head and dragging them away. But less frequently portrayed are “homosexual cavemen,” like the one supposedly unearthed in a Prague suburb.
Archaeologists discovered the body, which is thought to be several thousand years old, in a position usually reserved for women. Specifically, the head was pointed eastward and surrounded by jugs, symbolism found only in the graves of females of the “Corded Ware” culture.
By contrast, men were buried with their heads pointing west, surrounded by weapons, hammers, knives, and even meals. (In addition to jugs, women of the period have been found buried with necklaces, jewelry, and a single pot.) That led archaeologist Katerina Semradova to conclude, “We believe this is one of the earliest cases of what could be described as a ‘transsexual’ or ‘third gender grave’ in the Czech Republic. . . . [We] believe the man was probably homosexual or transsexual.” (She noted that archaeologists have also found one case of a woman buried as a man.)
Team member Kamila Remisova Vesinova of the Czech Archaeological Society explained, “From history and ethnology, we know that people from this period took funeral rites very seriously so it is highly unlikely that this positioning was a mistake. Far more likely is that he was a man with a different sexual orientation, homosexual or transsexual.”
Other archaeologists have criticized the team’s conclusions, however, on such grounds as whether transsexual implies homosexual and—in our opinion, more relevant—whether the scientists have done enough to show the skeleton was definitely a typical male’s (not transgender genetically or developmentally). And even if the skeleton was male, it is not hard to imagine other scenarios that might explain the feminine burial that do not require homosexuality, and it is not clear how the team inferred that none of these could be correct. (The same goes for the “woman” reportedly buried as a man.)
Of course, the Bible indicates that homosexual behavior was practiced in Abraham’s time (Genesis 19:4–5), so if it could somehow be confirmed that this was indeed a “homosexual caveman,” Bible believers would not be surprised. Nevertheless, we wonder whether such archaeological evidence of historical homosexuality, shaky as this finding may be, are tacitly intended to support the claim that homosexuality should be embraced—against the Bible’s clear teaching in such passages as 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10, Jude 1:7, and others.
Evolutionists have spent decades trying to figure out how the first life could have arisen from the right chemicals. But lack of progress has led some scientists to speculate that perhaps poisonous formaldehyde was our inanimate ancestor.
Formaldehyde, known for its widespread indirect use in preserving biological specimens, may one day be better known as evolutionists’ best hope in explaining how life could have originated on earth through chance processes. The compound, though poisonous, is based on carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, all of which are crucial to life. That basic fact is what has led Carnegie Institution geoscientist George Cody to suggest, “We may owe our existence on this planet to interstellar formaldehyde.”
Cody is certainly aware of formaldehyde’s reputation, noting that his claim is “ ironic [since] formaldehyde is poisonous to life on [e]arth.” But Cody’s team has identified a specific chemical reaction involving formaldehyde that would result in simple organic compounds. Moreover, such compounds are similar to those that have been discovered on meteorites and comets, giving the team confidence that formaldehyde may be responsible for many of the organic compounds that exist naturally in space.
“Establishing the likely origin of the principal source of organic carbon in primitive solar system bodies is extremely satisfying,” Cody said. The team appears to have made a good contribution to observational science in discovering the specific chemical reaction transforming poisonous formaldehyde into organic compounds. That said, the speculative, “origins science” claim that the output of such reactions could self-arrange into primitive life remains ridiculous.
This year’s Templeton Prize—awarded annually to someone “who has made exceptional contributions to affirming life’s spiritual dimension”—has gone to British astrophysicist Martin Rees.
Rees has contributed to the controversy over design in the universe by arguing that physical laws appearing to be fine-tuned for life are a consequence of “an infinity of other universes” in a broader multiverse.
He “professes no religious belief,” the AP reports, and thereby Rees joins a series of prizewinners whose “contributions to affirming life’s spiritual dimension” came in the face of eschewing organized religion. But Rees adds, “I grew up in the traditions of the Anglican Church and those are ‘the customs of my tribe.’ I’m privileged to be embedded in its wonderful aesthetic and musical traditions and I want to do all I can to preserve and strengthen them.”
Of course, that sterile treatment of religion—while certainly superior to the views of atheists who attack Christianity as one of society’s greatest ills—fails to engage the uncompromising message of the Gospel that forces an answer to Christ’s question in Mark 8:29, “Who do you say I am?”
And on the subject of humankind’s place in not only the enormous cosmos, but potentially in a (totally unproven!) multiverse, Rees laments, "These thoughts do make it hard to believe in the centrality of human beings.” Yet the emptiness of space and the apparent uniqueness of earth can just as easily be interpreted as representing the extent of God’s creative act on earth as well as our limited perspective and understanding compared to God’s.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2011/04/09/news-to-note-04092011