blind Science?... Evolution?

Does not there argument contradict evolution, or am I mistaken on this one. I eoulf noy lkr to propose that this is an argument against evolution, that would be rather strong, but I would like to say yet again that the arguments for evolution are not lock solid there actually very tenuous. These crabs have had many, many years and generations to evolve to the effect system, yet they have not. This is especially amazing as its not an isolated location, but prevalent.

Sinister secret of snail's escape or how Nature contradicts Evolution
By Richard Black Environment Correspondent, BBC News website


Right-handed flame box crabs find left-handedness hard to swallow
Snails with left-handed shells can have a big advantage in life - predators may find it impossible to eat them.
That is the conclusion of research just published in the Royal Society's journal Biology Letters.
Scientists from the US examined whelks and cone shells preyed on by the crab Calappa flammea.
They found the crab is unable to open left-handed shells because it only has a tool for peeling them on its right claw; so it discards them. "The crabs have a special tool on their claw, a tooth that's used like a can-opener," said Gregory Dietl from Yale University. "So, if you imagine trying to use a right-handed can-opener with your left hand - it's very hard to do," he told the BBC News website.

Old food
The fossil shells which Dr Dietl and colleagues used in their study date from between 1.5 and 2.5 million years ago. The scientists identified 11 whelks and cone shells which exist, or existed, in both right- and left-handed forms. "The best way to visualise it is to imagine you have the shell in your hand with the pointed end upwards and the opening towards you," said Dr Dietl. "If the opening is on the right-hand side, it's a right-handed shell or a dextral shell; if it's on the left, it's left-handed or sinistral." Many bear the scars of attempted evisceration by crab. Ten out of the 11 pairs showed higher rates of scars on dextral shells, suggesting that crabs are attacking them in preference to their left-handed counterparts.
If you assume that left-handed and right-handed whelks and cone shells would be equally tasty, something else must be causing the crabs to prefer those of one orientation. In the behaviour of C. flammea, more commonly known in North American waters as the flame box crab, researchers found a clue.

Sinister difficulties
Typically a crab grasps a shell with the pointed end away from its body. With a dextral shell, this means the opening is on the right, and the special "tooth" on its claw can break in. But with a sinistral shell, either the opening is on the left, or it has to grasp the pointed end towards its body. Both solutions are apparently too much trouble; the crab acts like a vegetarian in a butcher's shop, and moves on. "They picked them up, and they just dropped them," said Dr Dietl. "If we left them for a long period of time they would probably figure it out; but in nature these left-handed shells are really rare." The evolutionary question is why these left-handed forms have remained so rare - some have even gone extinct - if they escape death by crab more easily.

Being left-handed may benefit cricketers like Andrew Strauss
In humans, left-handers make up about 10-13% of the population; but in some competitive situations including such sports as tennis, cricket and boxing, they are much more prevalent and dominant than that figure would suggest. At the last cricket World Cup, left-handed batsmen scored more runs, batted for longer and were more likely to bat in the top of the order than right-handers. It is the relative rarity of left-handed batsmen which seems to confer advantage. One theory holds that right-handed bowlers struggle against them because they do not face them that often; if they did, they would learn how to get them out quicker.
Presumably if left-handed marine snails became more common, crabs would eventually evolve apparatus or techniques for eating them, and their advantage would disappear. But that cannot explain why in some populations they persist only in extremely low proportions, about 1%, or why in others they have gone extinct; other factors must be at play.
Sinistral snails apparently find it much harder to find a mate, and so may be doomed to remain rare or die out completely, whether or not they evade can-opening crabs.

Medical Ethics

Dr Vivienne Nathanson, head of ethics at the British Medical Association, said: "For doctors, the decisions are extraordinarily difficult because they have to have at the centre of their sights the child and the welfare of the child, and not putting the child through a burdensome treatment where there is no hope of any future improvement."

The premise is that there is an acceptable normal life that is standardized around the world and anything less than this is not worth living. Because this child seems to be at the bottom of the scale than it is proper to dispose of it. Is that the right way to be thinking though? This child is not my dog?
They talk as though it is in the childs best interest, throughout History people have used the same language.

"every child a wanted child"
"Abortion will stop child abuse"

These are commonly bantered about and yet I have never heard of more child abuse in our country than what we have now. We treat children worse now than most slaves of the past centuries. Slavery was dispicable, and so is the way we treat our children.
The ironic thing about this, this child is wanted and the institution that should be protecting him is trying to off him. I think that ethically these physicians need to be let go, as they are trying to be ethicist as well.

When did a doctor become an Ethicist?

Baby MB, who cannot be named, has spinal muscular atrophy - a genetic condition which leads to almost total paralysis - and cannot breathe unaided.
His family are fighting a hospital's bid for permission to withdraw ventilation from the 17-month-old.
Doctors say it would be better to let him die as his life is "intolerable".
But the child's father told the court he did not think it was right for anyone to decide if the baby should live or die.
He said: "As a Muslim I believe that no one knows exactly when people will die.
"It was God who gave us life and God will take it whatever the situation, good condition, sad, or whatever your condition.
"You've got a certain time to die - that's what I believe."
Counsel for the hospital Huw Lloyd cross-examining said if it was not for modern technology and ventilator support his son would be dead.
….. She argued if he was given an operation which might allow him to breathe alone - a tracheotomy - his life would improve.
…And while he is not believed to be mentally impaired, he can only move his eyebrows. ……
Medics from the hospital caring for him have told the court they believe the invasive ventilation method they use to keep him alive caused him discomfort.
One unnamed doctor said he believed Baby MB had an "intolerable life", and that he was troubled by the life-sustaining treatment he had been obliged to give to the child for some time.

I find it amazing that a doctor who is trained to save lives is suggesting the killing of one. They might rationalize this on many accounts yet in the end it is a rational that is driving it, suggesting that the doctors can determine what is intolerable. Less than a hundred years ago this child would have died long ago, but it is possible that in less than 20 years from now it could be broken free from its body that is paralyzed, but if they kill the child they might never know. Ultimately in all circumstances like this it is the responsibility of the parents to care for the child, not the courts. There is clearly no child endangerment from the parent's side.
As always in cases like this one has to ask them one question, "is this driven by the trust to cut costs?" I wonder?

Free Will

Free will I have often heard of, but I have never seen it. I have met with will... But has either been led captive by sin or held in blessed bonds of grace." C.H. Spurgeon TABLETALK January 2000

No doctrine in the whole word of God has excited the hatred of mankind more than that truth of the absolute sovereignty of God. ? C.H. Spurgeon TABLETALK January 2000

Where a god who is totally purposive and totally foreseeingacts upon a nature which is totally interlocked, there can be no accidents or loose ends, nothing whatever of which we can safely use the word "merely." Nothing is "merely a byof anything else. C.S. Lewis; TableTalk January 2000

CH Spurgeon; Election, Evangelical Press
"The Bible must be first and God=s minister must lie underneah it. We must not stand on the Bible to preach, but we must preach with the Bible above our heads. After all we have preached, we are well aware that the mountain of truth is higher than our eyes can discern; clouds and darkness are round about it summit, and we can not discern its topmost pinnacle; yet we will try to preach it as well as we can. But since we are mortal and liable to err, exercise your jugement, Atry the spirites whether they are of God;" and if on mature reflection on your bended knees, you are led to disregard election a thing which I consider to be utterly impossible B then forsake it, do not hear it preached, but believe and confess whatever you see to be God's word. I can say no more than that by way of exodium."


"AAh, but say some, 'I thought it meant that God elected some to heaven and some to hell.' that is a very different matter from the gospel doctrine. he has elected men to holiness and to righteousness, and through that to heaven. You must not say that he has elected them simply to heaven, and others only to hell. He has elected you to be saved. If any of you desire to have salvation, you are elected to have it, if you desire it sincerely and earnestly. But, if yu don=t desire it, why on earth should you be so preposterously foolish as to grumble because God gives that which you do not like to other people?"

How about just a little Honisty

In dealing with a broker-recommending mortgage on whether to disclose the best offer for the customer or the agent. Is it best to tell the buyer the best one available for them or is it best to tell the one from which the agent makes the most. The name has now in some instances become introducer rather than advisor so that people assuage there guilt about telling something that they may know or at least suspect is less than the best product for the client.

"...if the best product available is recommended, then that client, via his or own research, will endorse the introducer=s recommendation and not only come back and do the deal but also have the confidence to bring his or her friends along as well. I am, therefore, convinced that a policy of putting the customer first, even if that means a low (or even nonexistent) procreation fee is the right strategy..."

Stephen Knight- Executive chairmen Private Label Mortgage Services; Money Marketing

Violence Intersects Lives of Promise (washingtonpost.com)

Any time that it becomes common in society to destroy that which is beautiful, and it to be overlooked the society will self destruct. There can be nothing more beautiful than a woman who is bearing a child or has recently. This is Gods work in action to kill and injure the mother is a direct attack on the God of Heaven.