Injuries galore in Seahawks’ Thursday night victory

first_imgRedemption is sweet for Ginebra, Scottie Thompson Players don’t like Thursday night football, and the injuries that hit the Seahawks and Cardinals are examples of why.It’s just too difficult, they say, to play that soon after Sunday.FEATURED STORIESSPORTSRedemption is sweet for Ginebra, Scottie ThompsonSPORTSMayweather beats Pacquiao, Canelo for ‘Fighter of the Decade’SPORTSFederer blasts lack of communication on Australian Open smog“It’s kind of hard to get back out there and recover,” Seattle defensive end Michael Bennett said. “That’s why you see so many injuries on Thursday night. You want to give the fans what they want, but also be able to protect the players as much as you can.“Sometimes I feel like Thursday night football doesn’t give them the opportunity to protect them.” Don’t miss out on the latest news and information. Jake says relationship with Shaina ‘goes beyond physical attraction’ Jake says relationship with Shaina ‘goes beyond physical attraction’ View comments MOST READ Defending champion Warriors get on roll with strong defense At least seven players left the game with injuries, including knee injuries to Arizona’s starting left tackle D.J. Humphries and the team’s leading tackler, safety Tyvon Branch. Both could be headed for injured reserve, Arizona coach Bruce Arians said.Asked if Thursday night football is unsafe, Seattle coach Pete Carroll said “It’s a challenge.”“It’s a real challenge for our players,” he said. “Our guys did it and their guys did it. It’s a great event for everyone, but it’s very difficult and very challenging.”But should it be changed?“I don’t want to pay anything so I’m not going to comment on anything,” Carroll said.ADVERTISEMENT Coco’s house rules on ‘Probinsyano’ set The game featured loads of penalties and sluggish play with one of amazing escape by Russell Wilson in a 54-yard pass to Doug Baldwin.“He made a play that will probably go down in history,” Arizona inside linebacker Karlos Dansby said.The Cardinals sacked Wilson a season-high five times but couldn’t get him down this time.Retreating, spinning, slipping out of serious trouble, Wilson was on his heels when he threw to Baldwin.Defender Antoine Bethea went up to try to intercept, then slipped. Baldwin caught it and raced downfield to the Cardinals 2-yard line, setting up Wilson’s second touchdown pass to Jimmy Graham.The Seahawks (6-3) bounced back from Sunday’s home loss to Washington to climb within a half-game of the first place Los Angeles Rams in the NFC West. Arizona (4-5) has yet to beat a team that does not have a losing record.Here are some things to consider from Seattle’s Thursday night victory.WINNING IN ARIZONA: As usual, there were plenty of Seahawks fans in the sellout crowd at University of Phoenix Stadium and they watched their team, decked out in electric all-green uniforms, win again in the desert.The Seahawks are 4-0-1 in Arizona since Bruce Arians became the Cardinals’ coach.The only time Seattle didn’t win there was in last season’s 6-6 tie.Oddly enough, Arizona is 3-1 in its last four trips to Seattle. The teams meet again there on Dec. 24.PETERSON’S PROBLEMS: Adrian Peterson, playing four days after carrying a career-high 37 times for 159 yards in San Francisco, had a tough day.center_img LATEST STORIES Cornerback Richard Sherman of the Seattle Seahawks is helped off the field following the NFL game against the Arizona Cardinals at the University of Phoenix Stadium on November 9, 2017 in Glendale, Arizona. The Seahawks defeated the Cardinals 22-16. Christian Petersen/Getty Images/AFPGLENDALE, Ariz. — Richard Sherman limped off the field with a ruptured Achilles tendon, just one of a host of players knocked out of the Seattle Seahawks’ 22-16 victory over the Arizona Cardinals.“It’s a good division win, a good team win,” Seattle linebacker Bobby Wagner said afterward, “but it’s hard to truly appreciate it when you see a lot of guys go down with minor injuries, serious injuries.”ADVERTISEMENT Jo Koy: My brain always wants to think funny Margot Robbie talks about filming ‘Bombshell’s’ disturbing sexual harassment scene It’s too early to present Duterte’s ‘legacy’ – Lacson Carpio hits red carpet treatment for China Coast Guard PLAY LIST 02:14Carpio hits red carpet treatment for China Coast Guard02:56NCRPO pledges to donate P3.5 million to victims of Taal eruption00:56Heavy rain brings some relief in Australia02:37Calm moments allow Taal folks some respite03:23Negosyo sa Tagaytay City, bagsak sa pag-aalboroto ng Bulkang Taal01:13Christian Standhardinger wins PBA Best Player award He fumbled the ball away the first time he touched it and wound up with just 29 yards in 21 carries.“It was some missed opportunities on my part,” Peterson said. “They did a great job defensively of containing us. We just really couldn’t get into a rhythm.”KAM’S BIG PLAYS: Kam Chancellor was Peterson’s biggest nemesis. The Seattle safety stripped the ball out of Peterson’s hands and, later in the first half, tackled the running back in the end zone for a safety.Chancellor finished with nine tackles and one assist.FITZGERALD’S GAME: Ageless Larry Fitzgerald had another prolific outing with 10 catches for 113 yards. In the process, he topped 15,000 yards receiving for his career. At 34 years, 70 days, he is the second-youngest player to reach that milestone. The only younger one was Jerry Rice.PENALTIES, PENALTIES: Seattle did nothing to change its status as the most penalized team in the NFL. The Seahawks were penalized 12 times for 108 yards and have 28 penalties in their last two games. On Arizona’s 75-yard TD drive in the first half, Seattle had four penalties for 41 yards, all of them resulting in a first down.Sports Related Videospowered by AdSparcRead Next OSG plea to revoke ABS-CBN franchise ‘a duplicitous move’ – Lacson Kiss-and-tell matinee idol’s conquests: True stories or tall tales?last_img read more

Jury convicts man for raping teen

first_imgA 12-member jury at the Sexual Offences Court in Georgetown on Wednesday found Trevon Giles guilty on one count of raping a 15-year-old girl on January 14, 2016 in the county of Demerara. For a similarly matter that was allegedly committed some three days later on the same female, the jury foreman announced a not guilty verdict.Both jury verdicts were unanimous and returned after almost two hours of deliberation. The decisions were made after the 12-member jury heard evidence presented by a few witnesses that last several days. Prosecutors Abigail Gibbs and Tiffini Lyken appeared for the State.Sentencing for Giles on the first count was delayed after his attorney, Clyde Forde requested a probation report to be prepared for his client. Forde said after this is prepared, he will offer a plea in mitigation. Giles, meanwhile, had little reaction after being found guilty. In fact, he walked out of court calmly accompanied by several Policemen who escorted him to the prisoner’s holding area.Giles will know his fate on April 26 when a prison term is expected to be handed down by High Court Judge, Justice Jo Ann Barlow. Giles was indicted on two counts of rape of a child under 16. The Sexual Offences Court is a specialist court set aside in the Demerara district to hear cases that are listed in the Sexual Offences Act.last_img read more

Man facing charges after gas station robbed in Prince George

first_imgOne man is facing several charges after a Mohawk Gas Station was robbed in Prince George.The robbery happened Thursday morning just after 5 a.m. local time.- Advertisement -A man entered the gas station wearing dark clothing and with a large, edged weapon. He fled the scene with a small amount of money but Prince George RCMP say they were able to use surveillance video and other leads to follow the suspect.Police say a 23 year-old man was arrested one hour later and police are recommending charges of robbery, mischief, weapons offences and failing to comply with a probation order.The man is expected to have a bail hearing Thursday.last_img

Arsenal, Chelsea and Man United refuse to meet £86m valuation for star striker

first_img Torino’s Andrea Belotti 1 Arsenal, Chelsea and Manchester United are interested in Torino star Andrea Belotti – but will not meet his £86m release-clause.The striker is on the Premier League trio’s radars ahead of the summer transfer window after bagging 26 goals in Italy this season.Belotti is able to leave for a foreign club for £86m after having the clause inserted in his new contract, which he penned in December.However, according to Tuttosport, Arsenal, Chelsea and Manchester United are refusing to cough up that amount for the Italian.The Gunners are reportedly prepared to pay £52m for Belotti, while Chelsea and Manchester United have told Torino they can stretch to £60m.All those offers, however, are still below Torino’s asking price and they are expected to rebuff them.last_img read more


first_imgBREAKING NEWS: The Government has withdrawn funding for a major road upgrade in the North, designed to link Donegal with DublinIt was to have provided €500m towards the cost of the A5 Derry to Aughnacloy road upgrade.It would create a key cross-border business route linking Dublin to the north west. In September, the Department of Transport told the BBC it has already spent €21m on the project.BBC Northern Ireland has just reported that the Stormont executive has confirmed that the Dublin administration has ‘postponed’ further payments.This is a direct contravention of election pledges.Taoiseach Enda Kenny told northern ministers that he was putting a halt on the cash because of cutbacks. However the BBC said the decision was a ‘postponement’ rather than an axed on funding.Deputy Charlie McConalogue fumed: “Once again Donegal has been shafted despite all the promises that were made.”He went on: “If these reports are true, this is a major blow for Donegal and the North West and would amount to a complete abandonment of firm election commitments from both Fine Gael and the Labour Party.“The previous Government was fully committed to this project and had set aside funding in the four-year National Recovery Plan to have it completed by 2015.  Fine Gael and Labour promised voters in the North West that they would deliver the A5 project if elected to Government.  The Taoiseach Enda Kenny repeated this commitment as recently May during a speech at the Institute of British-Irish studies in UCD.   He quite clearly stated: “The previous government had committed to put money in there and we will honour that commitment.” (Taoiseach Enda Kenny, Institute for British-Irish Studies in UCD, 26th May 2011)“Now it seems the A5 Derry to Aughnacloy road is joining a long list of broken promises from Fine Gael and Labour within their first few months of Government.  People in the North West took their promises in good faith, and they will rightly feel let down and angry at this news today.  This is the single most important infrastructure project for the North West region.  To bring it to a screeching halt would be an extremely ill-advised and short-sighted move. “The previous Government understood the enormous economic and social benefits of this project to the Donegal and the North West region. It should be built and operational  as promised by 2015, ensuring that our region has the same quality of roads network that other parts of the county have achieved in recent years.  I am urging the Government to think twice about making such a damaging decision that will hamper economic recovery in the North West.”AXED: FUNDING FOR DUBLIN/DONEGAL A5 ROAD ‘POSTPONED’ was last modified: November 9th, 2011 by BrendaShare this:Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)Tags:A5 road axeddonegal dublinlast_img read more


first_imgPromoted PostThis Sunday, 1st March, from 2-5pm, The House of Fun Montessori Preschool is holding its annual enrolment day for the free ECCE scheme. All children born between the 2nd February 2011 and 30th Jun e 2012 are entitled to apply for a free preschool place.Proprietor Bernie Moran takes this opportunity to invite parents and children to come along and view the facilities, and meet the staff who will be delighted to answer any questions you might have.There’s plenty of time for problem-solving at the House of Fun.Ideally located on the main Letterkenny to Ramelton Road, this purpose built facility is the only one of its kind in the entire North West.Bernie and her team of staff have made it their mission to provide a quality early childhood education in a safe, calm and happy environment. Bernie stated that “every child has individual needs and we do our utmost to ensure that each child has a positive preschool experience and that they are well prepared for the transition to national school”.The House of Fun has adapted its curriculum with increased emphasis on spoken Irish. The children learn 1-2 new Irish words per week, in addition to learning Irish songs and poems. By the end of the year they have built up quite a considerable vocabulary and can confidently count in English, Irish and French.The House of Fun offers a mixed curriculum of Montessori and learning through play. All children get scheduled play in the playschool room and in the extensive indoor and outdoor play areas.So irrespective of the weather, they can ensure that your child gets adequate exercise and stimulation in their 1100sq ft indoor soft play area. So come along to the open day on Sunday 1st March from 2-5pm or alternatively they are open Monday to Friday between 09.00 – 13.00.For further information contact Bernie on 086 3204094 / / 074 9152754There’s also plenty of time for fun! GET ALONG TO THE HOUSE OF FUN’S MONTESSORI PRESCHOOL ENROLMENT DAY was last modified: March 1st, 2015 by StephenShare this:Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window) Tags:Bernie Morandonegalenrolment dayHouse Of Funletterkennylast_img read more

KCCA drawn away to Tooro as Uganda Cup Round of 32 fixtures are revealed

first_imgKCCA FC defeated Amuka Bright Stars 8-2 in the last round (file photo)MENGO – KCCA FC will continue their defence of the Uganda Cup away to Tooro United in the round of 32.This was confirmed on Thursday morning as the draws were conducted at FUFA House in Mengo.KCCA who defeated Vipers 1-0 in last year’s final, schooled Amuka Bright Stars 8-2 in the last round while Tooro United overcame Entebbe United 2-0.For Vipers who reached the final last season, they have been handed a relatively easy fixture at home to Kansai Plascon.The Venoms who recently parted ways with Mexican tactician, Javier Martinez Espinoza will have to be careful coming up against the Big League side who eliminated top-flight outfit-Ndejje University in the round of 64.In the other match-ups, SC Villa who defeated Lugazi 4-1 in the round of 64 will be away to Nkambi Coffee.For Express who are yet to kick a ball in the Cup this season after they were given a walk-over in the last round following Paidah’s refusal to honour the fixture, they will take on Water FC away from home.The all StarTimes Uganda Premier League match-ups in the round of 32 include Bul hosting Mbarara City and Onduparaka FC away to Kirinya JSS.All the games will be played on dates between 11th and 17th of January.The Uganda Cup Round of 32 draw:-Calvary FC vs Police FC-Tooro United vs KCCA FC-U-touch FC vs Kitara FC-BUL FC vs Mbarara City-Water FC vs Express FC-Free Stars FC vs Bukedea Town Council-Nyamityobora FC vs Proline FC-Bumate United vs Bright Stars-Nebbi Central vs Admin FC-Vipers SC vs Kansai Plascon-Kireka United vs Wakiso Giants-Kirinya Jinja SSS vs Onduparaka-URA FC vs Synergy FC-Kyetume FC vs St Stephen FC-Nkambi Coffee FC vs SC Villa-Kiboga Young vs St Mary’s NabweruComments Tags: KCCA FCstanbic uganda cuptopvipers sclast_img read more

What would it cost to go to the NHL All-Star Game on Saturday?

first_imgSAN JOSE — Some tickets can still be had on the secondary market for the NHL All-Star Game and Skills Competition this weekend at SAP Center — although fans will certainly have to dig deep into their pocketbooks if they want to be close to the action.Both events are sold out, but a few full strip tickets to both Friday’s skills competition and Saturday’s game were available on StubHub and other ticket resale websites as of early Thursday. They ranged in price from $335 (before fees) for a seat …last_img

How Well Do We Know What Stuff Is Made Of?

first_imgWhen we think of the “hard sciences,” physics usually tops the list.  A closer look at what physicists think the universe is made of, though, hardly makes the science look hard.  Look at this headline on PhysOrg, for instance: “Study finds there may be multiple ‘God particles’”.  The title refers, of course, to the famed Higgs Boson, not to some supernatural entity.  The Large Hadron Collider was hoping to find evidence of this particle that Nobel laureate Leon Lederman called the “God particle” because, he said, its discovery could help unify our understanding of the universe and “know the mind of God.”  But now, according to Fermilab scientists, there might be five versions of the Higgs boson (which hasn’t been discovered yet).    Frank Close wrote a book review in Nature this week on this subject.1  The book is Massive: The Hunt for the God Particle by Ian Sample.  He points out that particle physicists hate the label “god particle” that the media continue to give it, and notes that “many argue that it should not be called the Higgs boson because the concept has a longer history.”  It turns out there is as much sociology, theory and nomenclature at work as physics in the conception of what lies at the foundations of matter.  A sample:Whereas the W and Z bosons that carry the weak force make use of this mechanism, the photon that carries the electromagnetic force does not; it remains massless.  Why this happens remains unanswered….    Behind all this theory lies the work of another British physicist, Jeffrey Goldstone.  In his investigation of spontaneous symmetry breaking in 1961, Goldstone identified two bosons that played a part: one was massive, the other massless.  Both differed from the photon or W boson in that they lacked the intrinsic quantum property of spin.  Empirical evidence indicated that the massless Goldstone boson does not exist, flagging up a theoretical quandary that received much attention at the time from those who hoped to use the theory as a basis for uniting the weak and electromagnetic interactions.  The mechanism discovered by the three groups of physicists in 1964 explained how Goldstone’s massless boson could disappear, in the process giving a mass to the W boson that transmits the weak force.  It thus solved two problems for the price of one, and paved the way for the modern theory of the ‘electroweak’ force.    Sample recognizes this work but overlooks its massive counterpart, which is where the excitement lies today.  The irony is that it also went largely ignored in 1964.  Brout and Englert made no mention of it in their paper, although they were aware of its manifestation in condensed-matter physics.  Guralnik, Hagen and Kibble suppressed it in their analysis, which was simplified to focus on the removal of its massless companion.  Higgs alone pursued it.  What is being called Higgs’s boson is, in effect, Goldstone’s massive boson.  Although at least six physicists can lay claim to this particular mechanism for generating mass, only Higgs realized the importance of the massive boson in testing the theory.An understanding of the terms is not as important as a perception that various competing teams appeared to be playing with shadows in the dark, and making up concepts as they went along.  Can a particle really be a carrier of a force?  Can mechanisms generate mass just because a theory needs it?  Where is the mass coming from?  As useful as the terms and nomenclature become to theory, does nature owe any obligation to conform to human conceptions?  Did nature suddenly change properties this year when one Higgs boson became five?    The intuitive answer to such questions is that of course nature didn’t change: we did.  Our scientific understanding of nature changed.  But then can we assume it is improving?  Is it evolving?  Is our understanding continuously changing, and if so, is there any point at which we can say we understand something with a sufficient degree of certainty?  At what point do we jettison things textbooks have been teaching for decades?  Can we assume we have the story right now?  What unforeseen discoveries in the next few years will have us regretting that what we are learning in 2010 is all wrong?    These are serious questions, underscored by another example in New Scientist this week, “Anti-neutrino’s odd behaviour points to new physics,” as if all we need right now is a new physics (the hard science).  Reporter Anil Ananthaswamy wrote, “The astounding ability of these subatomic particles to morph from one type to another may have created another crack in our understanding of nature.”  This crack, he said, “cannot be explained by standard model physics.”  Granted, neutrino physics experiments are difficult, but a Fermilab test of theory produced unexpected results.  Jenny Thomas of University College London put a happy face on it: “If the effect is real, then there is some physics that is not expected.  Then there is something new that we don’t understand, and that’s fantastic.”1.  Frank Close, “How the boson got Higgs’s name,” Nature 465, pp. 873�874, 17 June 2010, doi:10.1038/465873a.Rejoicing in one’s ignorance may be an exuberant form of humility, but it is not the kind of progress one expects from multi-million-dollar investments in science.  Remember this next time you watch some TV program boasting about how scientists are on the verge of coming up with a “theory of everything.”  For an excellent background on the Standard Model and what it does and does not explain, read David Berlinski’s penetrating essay, “The State of the Matter” (The Deniable Darwin and Other Essays, Discovery Institute, 2009.)  Also recommended are the lectures on scientific reduction (23-24) in Jeffrey Kasser’s Teaching Company series on Philosophy of Science, which ask what value is being added to explanation when things get reduced to fundamental physics.  In another Teaching Company series, Steven L. Goldman (Lehigh U) in Science in the 20th Century –: A Social-Intellectual Survey provides a colorful look at the personalities and milestones involved in quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics and quantum chromodynamics and how our views of “reality” changed dramatically over the last 100 years.  In another Teaching Company series, Science Wars, he asked what we mean by ‘reality,” whether science can approach it, and what confidence we can have that our concepts of reality will remain intact a century from now given that they have changed drastically and repeatedly over the past few centuries.    The reader should note that whether theories work is a separate question from whether they are true.  The Egyptians built the pyramids with remarkable precision while believing astrology.  We build cell phones and use GPS and lasers and a host of wondrous devices using quantum theory without a clue why nature behaves in the bizarre ways described by quantum mechanics.  How can something be a wave and a particle?  How can a photon pass through two slits at once?  How can two particles seem to interact instantaneously at a distance?  How can an observer play a role in the outcome of a quantum event?  We have no idea.  One mark of a good scientist is humility.(Visited 12 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0last_img read more

Assessing Evolutionary Explanations

first_imgNo matter the biological discovery, evolutionists are ready with their explanations.  The explanations, however, are often riddled with puzzles, surprises, and seemingly arbitrary appeals to chance.  Do such explanations really provide more understanding than those of creationists, who explain that living things were designed for a purpose?Shrimp deal:  “Many deep-sea species have close relatives living in shallow, relatively warm water, but how shallow-water species were initially able to cope with the huge hydrostatic pressures of the deep ocean is poorly understood,” said a researcher at the University of Southampton.  According to PhysOrg, the team studied closely-related shrimp that live in shallow waters and near deep-sea vents – environments with astonishing differences in pressure and temperature.    The observations merely demonstrated that these shrimp can live in either environment.  Their evolutionary explanation had to invoke an unobserved ancestor: “These physiological capabilities were probably inherited from an ancestral species shared by both shallow-water and related vent species.”    The explanation, however, begs the question of how the putative ancestor gained the ability to survive both environments in the first place.  And if the living species have that ability, what has been explained?  Evolutionary theory appears to be a superfluous appendage to an observation that the shrimp are designed to survive in a wide variety of conditions.Hunt for and gather a story:  We have a mystery.  “One of the most complex human mysteries involves how and why we became an outlier species in terms of biological success” – particularly, why are human hunter-gatherer cultures so different from those of other primates?  PhysOrg again came to the rescue to explain the mystery and deliver understanding, this time from scientists at the University of Arizona “who study hunter-gatherer societies”.  The article promised their work is “informing the issue by suggesting that human ancestral social structure may be the root of cumulative culture and cooperation and, ultimately, human uniqueness.”    Clearly humans had ancestors, and some of them hunted and gathered – as some cultures do today.  At first glance this explanation (actually just a suggestion) seems like a tautology; early humans had a unique ancestral social structure that gave birth to a modern unique social structure.  The ASU team, intent on deriving human uniqueness from other primates, studied 32 modern foraging tribes, and found the obvious: they identified “human hunter-gatherer group structure as unique among primates.”    But how did they get that way?  That’s the evolutionary question.  “The increase in human network size over other primates may explain why humans evolved an emphasis on social learning that results in cultural transmission,” Professor Kim Hill offered.  “Likewise, the unique composition of human ancestral groups promotes cooperation among large groups of non-kin, something extremely rare in nature.”  Humans are unique because they evolved to be unique.  Is that what he just said?The hand is quicker than the stone:  “Stone Tools Influenced Hand Evolution in Human Ancestors, Anthropologists Say.”  That’s a headline on Science Daily that claims research at University of Kent “confirmed Charles Darwin’s speculation that the evolution of unique features in the human hand was influenced by increased tool use in our ancestors.”  But did the tools shape the hand, or did the hand shape the tools?    Here’s the data: “Research over the last century has certainly confirmed the existence of a suite of features in the bones and musculature of the human hand and wrist associated with specific gripping and manipulatory capabilities that are different from those of other extant great apes.”  Then, the explanation: “These features have fuelled suggestions that, at some point since humans split from the last common ancestor of living apes, the human hand evolved away from features adapted for locomotion toward alternative functions.”    A creationist reading this is going to reject the assumption that humans split from a common ancestor.  What can evolutionists argue as evidence for their view?  One of the them at U of Kent put forward the possibility that the human hand “may have been subject to natural selection as a result of using simple cutting tools.”  But why would a primate use tools without the equipment to do it?  And what about a stone causes a hand to evolve?  New Caledonian crows have probably been using tools longer than evolutionists think humans have, but their beaks do not appear to be changing much from those of other birds (see 05/26/2009 and links).    Somehow, their “may have” suggestion evolved into a triumph for Darwin:Dr [Stephen] Lycett, Senior Lecturer in Human Evolution at the University’s School of Anthropology and Conservation, explained: ‘140 years ago, writing from his home at Down House in Kent, Darwin proposed that the use of stone tools may have influenced the evolution of human hands.    ‘Our research suggests that he was correct.  From a very early stage in our evolution, the cultural behaviour of our ancestors was influencing biological evolution in specific ways.’Did the cultural behavior influence the evolution of the hand, or did the hand influence the cultural behavior?  Or did both evolve together?  In any of these cases, it is not clear that the observations about the uniqueness of the human hand have been explained at all.Progress in size:  Researchers at the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center have convinced themselves that “Evolution Drives Many Plants and Animals to Be Bigger, Faster,” reported Science Daily.  The challenge, though, is whether they could convince a nonbeliever in evolution with their explanation.    “Organisms with bigger bodies or faster growth rates tend to live longer, mate more and produce more offspring, whether they are deer or damselflies, the authors report.”  So far, a correlation between size and fecundity is all they’ve served up.  Whether lizards, snakes, insects and plants, the organisms in their sample of 100 species (as found in the literature on natural selection) displayed a “very widespread pattern” appearing to support the claim that “larger body size and earlier seasonal timing – such as earlier breeding, blooming or hatching – confer significant survival advantages.”    Questions arise immediately from this explanation, though: why doesn’t every animal and plant evolve to get bigger and faster over time?  And why were so many extinct species much larger than their modern counterparts?  If a prey animal gets bigger, but its predator simultaneously grows bigger and faster, has the prey animal won any survival advantage? (see “Slippage on the treadmill,” 03/17/2003).  Another question: why don’t animals converge on a Goldilocks model – a medium size?  The authors themselves were puzzled by that.  “If organisms are supposedly well-adapted to their particular circumstances, then why is it so seldom the case that the individuals that survive and reproduce the best are the ones that are not too small, nor too big, but just right?”    Their initial explanation, therefore, required several auxiliary explanations.  “The authors explored three possible explanations,” they said: (1) size is costly, (2) environments fluctuate (think Darwin’s finches), and (3) “A third possibility is that natural selection drives one trait in one direction, while simultaneously driving another, genetically correlated trait in the opposite direction.”  Perhaps this could be dubbed the “House divided against itself cannot evolve” theory.    The problem with composite explanations, though, is figuring which one is the right one.  If your doctor tells you your weight gain is caused by (1) lack of self-control, (2) genes, or (3) cancer, you would demand to know which one matters most.  Composite explanations, further, violate Ockham’s Razor (see Ockham, Jan 2010 Scientist of the Month).  Unless evolutionists come forward with a primary cause for the effect that can also explain the exceptions, it seems doubtful they’ve explained anything.Your inner tumor:  Surely one of the most bizarre explanations offered by evolutionists recently is in the title of a story on New Scientist: “Tumours could be the ancestors of animals.”  According to writer Colin Barras, this is “the idea that cancer is our most distant animal ancestor, a ‘living fossil’ from over 600 million years ago.”  According Barras, Charles Lineweaver and Paul Davies have put forward the notion that “cancer is not simply linked to the evolution of animals – it was the earliest animals.”    As justification, the evolutionists showcased a tumor’s ability to evade the immune system and to generate blood vessels (angiogenesis).  Understandably, though, “Reactions to Lineweaver and Davies’s idea vary from cautious enthusiasm to outright scepticism,” one calling it an “imaginative metaphor,” another, “a step too far.”  “There is no evidence to believe that the ability to develop blood vessels is an ancient feature of animals,” a critic said.    In response, Lineweaver used evolution to justify evolution: “Fully developed angiogenesis had to have evolved from proto-angiogenesis,” he said.  “I think it’s clear that some form of proto-angiogenesis was very important for the earliest animals.”    How or why “proto-angiogenesis” (whatever that is) would have evolved in some unobserved ancestor incapable of understanding why it would be “very important” some day is left as an exercise in imaginative metaphor.In the heady days of logical positivism (around the 1930s), Carl Hempel attempted to eliminate anecdotal explanations in science and replace them with deductive logic.  To him, it was essential for an explanation to refer to natural laws and initial conditions such that the result had to happen.  Subsequent philosophers have undermined that vision.  Hempel’s “covering law model” leaves out too many favored explanations, and simultaneously legitimizes some quack explanations.  His model left biologists with “physics envy,” because clear laws of nature are hard to come by in biology.  There are too many variables and complexities to be able to predict or retrodict events in natural history with deductive logic appealing to laws of nature.    Nevertheless, it would appear desirable that scientific explanations aspire to more than ad hoc stories, complex explanations requiring multiple auxiliary hypotheses, composite explanations, mere suggestions, or tautologies (such as “things are as they are because they were as they were” – an explanation that works in reverse just as well).  If the evolutionary explanation reduces to “stuff happens,” or things evolve because they evolve, then alternatives like intelligent design would seem to have grounds for competing in the marketplace of explanation.The Darwin Storytelling Empire is a corrupt racket.  It’s long overdue to expose their pretensions to providing superior scientific explanations.  That’s why you read Creation-Evolution Headlines.  All the other clueless news media just parrot the myths emanating from the clueless Darwinists, with no critical analysis whatsoever, thinking they have done their job.  Their product is as empty as a balloon held aloft by hot fogma.  (For definition of fogma, see the 05/14/2007 commentary).    What about science in general?  In the late 20th century after logical positivism collapsed, philosophers of science were left wondering if scientific explanation was even possible.  Some, like van Fraassen, concluded that explanation was not even the business of science.  Describing useful patterns in experience in more and more detail was sufficient, he said; leave explanation to others, because it gets into metaphysics.  But where does that leave the presumed epistemic superiority of science over the humanities, philosophy, or even theology?  Why should science get an elevated status in the academy and popular culture if it cannot explain why the world is the way it is?    The key insight that undermines the Darwin explanatory program is that explanation requires presuppositions in the conceptual realm: the need for knowledge, truth, ethics, honesty, logic, universality and consistency.  None of those things can be derived from evolutionary naturalism.  When you hear an evolutionist assuming any of these things, you know he or she is cheating.  Theology provides the only grounds for reasoning toward true truth about a real reality.  When enough people employ the two-pronged attack on Darwinism (exposing their vacuous explanations and their pilfering of theological presuppositions), there may be hope of toppling the corrupt Darwin Storytelling regime (12/22/2003 commentary).(Visited 12 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0last_img read more