An international team of scientists has published an article in Nature magazine, suggesting that oxygen began accumulating in the atmosphere at least three billion years ago. The team’s findings raise a troubling question for Darwinian evolutionists: how did the exquisitely complex metabolism of oxygenic photosynthesis arise so soon after the dawn of life? The team arrived at its conclusions by studying the ratios of two isotopes of chromium – chromium-52 and chromium-53 – in the world’s oldest soils: former soils preserved by burial under rocks in Kwazulu-Natal Province, South Africa, dating back to 2.95 billion years before the present. Because chromium-53 is slightly more soluble when oxidized than chromium-52, the team was able to infer the composition of oxygen in Read More ›

It seems we can now put together at least a draft outline composite response to the UD pro-darwinism essay challenge of a year ago, based on Jerad’s remarks at 70 in the one-year anniversary thread, and a key concession by EL at 149 in the same. In the interests of moving the discussion on the merits forward [I am open to improved drafts or a full form submission . . . ], first here is the Smithsonian chart of the Tree of Life, the context: Now, PART I: ____________ EL, 149: >> “As yet we have no empirically supported naturalistic theory of abiogenesis.” >> ____________ For PART II, we will need to highlight that Jerad is responding to some earlier remarks Read More ›

Popular Science’s online arm has just shut down its comments section. Guess why?

A politically motivated, decades-long war on expertise has eroded the popular consensus on a wide variety of scientifically validated topics. Everything, from evolution to the origins of climate change, is mistakenly up for grabs again. Scientific certainty is just another thing for two people to “debate” on television. And because comments sections tend to be a grotesque reflection of the media culture surrounding them, the cynical work of undermining bedrock scientific doctrine is now being done beneath our own stories, within a website devoted to championing science.

Do you question the scientific consensus on a subject? Do you think the consensus is fundamentally flawed? Too far-reaching in its scope? More confident than it should be? Then Popular Science has a message for you: shame. SHAME!

Read More ›