Haeckel Vindicated?  Parathyroid Glands from Gills?

first_img“Human gland evolved from gills” trumpeted a BBC News science article without apology.*  It gives uncontested press to a team from King’s College that is claiming the human parathyroid glands evolved from gills.  This is claimed on the basis that they have similar functions (calcium regulation) and are located in the neck region.  Fish have no parathyroids; their gills help them extract calcium from seawater.  The parathyroids in mammals are attached to the thyroids in the neck and are vital for regulating the amount of calcium in the blood.    Calcium is the most tightly regulated of all elements in the body; it performs essential functions in cell signaling, nerves, muscle and bone.  The parathyroids (unrelated to the thyroid glands) regulate calcium by manufacturing and secreting a specialized hormone, 84 amino acids in length, into the blood.  When calcium levels fall below normal, parathyroid hormone stimulates at least three processes to conserve it: resorb it from bone, absorb more from food, and prevent loss in urine.  (For anatomy and physiology of the parathyroids, see these sites: Colorado State, Dr. Howard Glickman, and Parathyroid.com).    Professor Anthony Graham, part of the team making the connection between fish and humans, told the BBC Ernst Haeckel has been vindicated:The researchers also found a gene for parathyroid hormone in fish, and they discovered that this gene is expressed in the gills.    Professor Graham said: “The parathyroid gland and the gills of fish are related structures and likely share a common evolutionary history.    “Our work will have great resonance to all those people who have seen Haeckel’s pictures, which show that we all go through a fish stage in our development.    “This new research suggests that in fact, our gills are still sitting in our throats – disguised as our parathyroid glands.”The researchers also based their claim on the fact that the gills in fish and the parathyroids in mammals stem from the same location in the developing embryo (but then, so do many other organs and structures, including the tongue, epiglottis, pharynx, Eustachian tube, and more; see Temple University site for details).Does anyone really need help to see how dumb this is?  Three strikes and they are out:Ernst Haeckel, Dr. Sickman Fraud, the toady disciple of Charlie Frown (see 04/22/2004 headline) deserves nothing but scorn (see 07/10/2001 headline), but look at what these absent-minded professors do: they point to his classic fraudulent drawings for support of their theory!  That makes them accessories to a crime.  Strike one.Do they have any idea how complicated the parathyroid system is?  It may be located in the neck, but its influence is felt throughout the body, in every cell.  It is so essential, it is 4-times redundant, and the manufacture of its special hormone, its packaging in the Golgi apparatus in a dormant state, and its delivery to the blood stream, and then what it accomplishes in terms of regulation – all these interconnected systems are staggeringly complex (for a good overview, see the explanation by Dr. Howard Glickman).  Darwinists have no explanation for how any hormone, any cell, any complex regulatory system, just “emerged” by an unregulated process of natural selection (see 07/16/2003 headline); that is the issue, not just homology, whatever that is (see 04/22/2004 headline).  Strike two.It’s not just location that matters; it is function.  The parathyroids are located right where they need to be to work.  An evolutionist cannot tell simply by location of an organ that animals are related by common ancestry.  Evolutionary theory is so flexible, in terms of location and rate, that any observation, even contradictory observations, can be made to fit it (see 10/29/2004, 10/13/2004, 09/17/2004 and 09/13/2004 headlines out of many examples).  If the parathyroids were located somewhere else, the evolutionists would have an alternative explanation to keep Charlie’s idol from collapsing.  Strike three.The laziness of evolutionists is parasitic on society.  Did this tall tale by Darwin Party mythmakers bless your heart?  Did it do anybody any good?  Did it advance civilization or help those in need?  Mutations could not have built the parathyroid nor any of the systems with which it interacts; on the contrary, mutations have broken the system, causing diseases of the parathyroid and calcium irregularities.  Challenge your professor when he wastes your time with unproveable assertions and glittering generalities that assume evolution before the evidence even has had a chance to speak.  Tell the prof you’d rather the time be spent understanding the function of the parathyroids so that science could help those with parathyroid disease and osteoporosis.*Update 12/08/2004: One of our readers wrote to the BBC and said he didn’t appreciate the way they had titled the piece about gill evolution as fact.  To their credit, the BBC wrote back and made a change:Many thanks for your message.  I would stress that the piece reports the King’s College research as a theory, and not a fact.  The piece says that the researchers believe that the gland evolved from gills, not that they have proved it.  I have modified the headline to read, “Gill theory of human glands”.Never underestimate the power of a letter to the editor.  Most editors like to hear from readers, and unless readers respond to bad information, editors can get away with unwarranted claims, whether intentionally or not.  Now, at least readers of this article will not get a wrong impression that the evolutionary link was proven.  At Creation-Evolution Headlines, we also make corrections when typos or errors of fact are pointed out to us; feel free to write to us here.  (Editors also appreciate knowing if the articles were helpful.)(Visited 16 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0last_img read more

More Reasons to Doubt Scientific Omniscience

first_img(Visited 446 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0 We hear it all the time; 99% of scientists agree. All it takes, though, is one overlooked fact to tumble a consensus.Occasionally we take a look at matters other than creation and evolution, when they are instructive about the scientific process. The scientific consensus on climate change (previously known as “global warming”) is a case in point. Scientists have been so dogmatic about it they have convinced most major world governments to enact draconian measures to counteract it. Climate has changed drastically in the past before humans evolved, they will admit, but they insist that the current climate excursion was caused by people trying to increase their happiness and reduce their suffering. News about global warming often includes denunciations of President Donald Trump for pulling America out of the Paris Climate Accords.We don’t quote climate “denialists” to get into the mud on this issue. We just look at the secular news itself, which is almost uniformly on the side of the climate consensus, and ask questions (see this list for previous entries). We pass over the ridiculous stories about what’s coming with global warming, like this headline on Phys.org, “Competition between males improves resilience against climate change.” Claims like that nobody could ever know for sure. Instead, we focus on the epistemology of the consensus: how do they know what they claim to know about human culpability for a warming climate? Did the consensus take the following factors into account?These ‘Dirty’ Thunderstorms Fill Sky with As Much Smoke As Volcanic Eruption (Live Science). Big volcanic eruptions, it is well known, can alter the climate. A well-known case was the Mt. Pinatubo eruption that reduced global temperatures for a time by 0.9° F in 1991. This article says that pyrocumulonimbus storms (pyroCb’s), or “dirty thunderstorms” fed by ash from wildfires, can put as much carbon smoke into the atmosphere as a volcano. “While such major volcanic events are sporadic, Peterson said, pyroCb events occur every year,” the article ends. “But scientists have not studied these storms enough to understand their potential impact on the climate.” Since wildfires are common, and have occurred long before man started burning coal or oil, would climate models produce different conclusions if pyroCbs were taken into account?Smoke from a relatively small wildfire.Tiny particles high up in the sky give insight into climate change (Phys.org). Black carbon (BC) can reflect incoming solar heat back into space, this article says. So can the clouds that form around the particles. Atmospheric particles, or aerosols, are thought to be the second or third most important factor after carbon dioxide. But do scientists understand its contribution? Note the uncertainty in this quote regarding a substantial contributor to climate change (which would seem to lower temperatures rather than raise them).Aerosols, tiny particles that are suspended in the atmosphere, contribute significantly towards climate change. However, despite their consequential role, aerosol interactions aren’t very well understood.The authors say that particles can last for years and influence regions far from cities with their pollution. The concentration of these particles over the Amazon Basin was higher than expected. Does this give anyone confidence in climate models, with their dire predictions of temperature changes a century away, specified in tenths of a degree? Yet those are the models used to scare politicians into taking drastic action.Microbes eat rocks and leave carbon dioxide (Science Magazine). This news item reveals that geologists and climatologists were wrong about silicate rocks acting as a carbon sink to counterbalance the outgassing of volcanoes. Microbes in the silicates can actually “eat” the rocks and release much of that carbon back into the atmosphere as CO2. A study of these rocks in Taiwan showed that “microbes oxidize roughly two-thirds of the petrogenic organic carbon there and that the rate of oxidation increases with the rate of erosion.”How does the Pacific Walker circulation respond to strong tropical volcanism? (Phys.org). Read this news item to get an idea of how complicated it is to tease out the significance of individual factors that might alter the climate. Severe volcanic eruptions (SVE’s), like the recent one in Bali, Indonesia, “can affect Earth’s climate.” But by how much? Trying to figure that out is complex, because a large eruption, which is unpredictable, can affect air currents in unexpected ways that are not well understood. Obviously humans are not responsible for what volcanoes do. Note, too, that SVEs tend to have a cooling effect. “The cooling effect from the SVEs is able to cool the entire tropics,” the article says, and yet the temperature anomalies that result are not uniform.Anthropogenic combustion iron as a complex climate forcer (Nature Communications). Even though this paper mentions a factor that might exacerbate warming, the key fact is that it was not taken into account before. “Our results demonstrate that anthropogenic combustion iron is a larger and more complex climate forcer than previously thought, and therefore plays a key role in the Earth system,” the authors say. This should lead thoughtful observers to ask what other factors have not been considered, that could be larger or smaller than previously thought?The Politics of Climate ChangeRepublicans more persuasive than scientists on climate change (Science Daily). This article, pretending to be an unbiased analysis of political attitudes about climate change, ends up as a partisan advocacy piece. The authors of a psychological survey at the University of Connecticut seem disturbed that Republicans who argue against anthropogenic climate change are more persuasive than the scientific consensus. But rather than see if Republican counter-arguments have merit, the authors delve into ways to package consensus arguments in more persuasive ways. They assume that Republicans are engaging in misinformation. “Citing Republican elites who endorse the scientific consensus on climate change may be the most effective way to persuade citizens that climate change is a real and important problem,” says Lyle Scruggs, a professor of political science at University of Connecticut. “That may be a step forward in reducing the partisan gap in public opinion on the subject.” Anyone smell partisanship in that comment?In closing, maybe it’s worth asking what the ruckus is about. Mike Wall wrote on Space.com, “Life on Venus? Why It’s Not an Absurd Thought.” Venus, we note, is a very warm planet. Astrobiologist David Grinspoon says that the atmosphere a few dozen miles up is pretty benign – if the Venusians can tolerate the sulfuric acid. So why worry? If climate change wipes out human society, some scientists, like the misanthrope Eric Pianka who wants to solve overpopulation of stupid people by releasing atmospheric ebola to kill billions of people indiscriminately, might be happy. Darwin will ensure that the next generation of organisms on earth will be heat-tolerant, acid-tolerant, and will vote Democrat. That’s not an absurd thought at all, now is it? Not for the scientific consensus.Dr Eric Pianka, ardent evolutionist and genocide advocate, by J B Greene. Used by permission.last_img read more

AgTube: One of the Largest Farms in the World

first_imgShare Facebook Twitter Google + LinkedIn Pinterest Li Sheng Li and Joep Driessen on one of the biggest farms in the world, very well managed by the Chinese. Highlights: They have one feeding space and one resting space per cow. Also, there”s have a stress-free calving line. They are doing a good job within the system they have. Some more details: 20.000 milking cows, 8 rotaries of 80 cows. 1 barn is almost 4 hectares. Within half an hour they have the milk packed and shipped. Top quality milk, low cell count: 150.000. What do you think of this farm? Please share your thoughts! Professor Li Shengli of Sino-Dutch Dairy Development Centre (SDDDC), in which Friesland Campina also has a part.last_img read more

Mechanicsburg FFA wins county tractor troubleshooting contest

first_imgShare Facebook Twitter Google + LinkedIn Pinterest The tractor troubleshooting teams of Gus Hoewischer and Kylie Owen will move on from the county contest on February 17th to the district contest on February 27th.The team of Heath Starkey and Wyatt Snyder placed second at the county contest. The two teams traveled to Koenig’s Equipment in Urbana, Ohio for the county contest.  Tractor troubleshooting, or ag power and diagnostics, consists of having to debug a problem in the tractor, asses the problem, use Service Adviser and fix the problem all within 20 minutes.last_img read more

The Battle for the Mid-Tier Cinema Camera Market: C500 Mark II Vs. FX9

first_imgFor documentary, non-scripted, corporate, and reality work, the FS7 and C300 MII remain the top choices for filmmakers, owner-operators, and producers.Canon and Sony have long been battling for the title of Best Mid-Tier Cinema Camera System. However, both manufacturers have introduced new full-frame cameras, making this competition even more intense. The new Canon C500 Mark II and Sony FX9 are bound to find their way onto sets and productions everywhere. Will one of these camera systems reign supreme? Let’s take a look at some of the most promising and exciting features of each system.Sensor and ResolutionCanon C500 Mark IIThe new Canon C500 Mark II is a 5.9K full-frame cinema camera. Canon’s new-ish full-frame sensor (also offered on the C700 FF) gives filmmakers a more detailed image, with an even shallower depth of field. The 38.1 x 20.1 mm sensor offers an impressive fifteen stops of dynamic range. With the ability to record 5.9K RAW internally, the camera can record plenty of data for most productions.Sony FX9Sony hit the market at nearly the same time with their full-frame mid-tier option. The Sony FX9 is also a full-frame sensor camera with a 6K oversample for a final 4K output. Their 35.7 x 18.8 mm sensor is also equipped with fifteen stops of dynamic range. This camera is ready for any lighting situation you toss it into.When we start jumping outside of sensors and resolution, we begin to see the biggest differences between these two cameras.Frame RatesOne of the biggest differences between the C300 Mark II and FS7 were the frame rates in correspondence to resolution. Canon’s previous option — the C300 Mark II — wasn’t capable of 60 fps at 4K. This was a major reason why so many productions adopted an FS7 workflow. They wanted the capability of a true 4K deliverable, while still being able to have a 60 fps over-crank. Let’s take a look at what each camera’s now offering in terms of frame rates.C300 Mark IIOne of the biggest pain points of the C300 Mark II was the inability to record 60 fps at 4K. However, this issue has been resolved with the C500 Mark II, which is now capable of 60 fps at a full 4K, utilizing the entire full-frame sensor. Higher frame rates are available but in lower resolutions.FX9Along with being capable of 60 fps at 4K (but currently only in a Super 35 crop), the FX9 is slated to feature a future firmware update, taking the capabilities of the camera up to 120 fps at 4K, internally. This 120 fps competitive advantage over the C500 MII may just give the FX9 that much more of an advantage over the C500 MII, to sway productions.Image StabilizationOne unique offering — new to this tier of cameras — is the image stabilization capabilities. Both the FX9 and C500 Mark II offer advanced image stabilization capabilities. However, there are major differences between the two.The C500 Mark II offers a 5-axis electronic stabilization that’s fully in-camera.The Sony FX9 offers gimbal-like stabilization, as well. However, the stabilization has to happen in post-production, with the FX9 utilizing their Sony Catalyst Browse/Catalyst Prepare software.This new feature — across both cameras — allows hand-held shot productions to get more gimbal-like shots, without all the cumbersome extra equipment. This feature will, without a doubt, elevate many productions, allowing filmmakers everywhere much more creativity.Overall, both Sony and Canon are introducing new and exciting camera systems into the mid-tier cinema camera market. Both of these cameras will easily find their place onto a lot of productions, in the very near future. Only time and experience on set will tell if one of these cameras will claim the title of best mid-tier cinema camera.Cover image via Canon.Looking for more on cameras and video gear? Check out these articles.The Massive Update To the BMPCC4k Is HereMeet the Pocket-Sized and Versatile Aputure MC Film LightHow to Choose and Use a Capture Card for Your Gaming NeedsHands-on Review: the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 6KGold Mount vs. V-Mount: Which Is Your Best Choice?last_img read more