Michael J. Behe's Blog, page 136

In time for American Thanksgiving: Stephen Meyer on “the frailty of scientific atheism”

Steve Meyer, author of The Return of the God Hypothesis, observes in a pdocast with Wesley Smith, “you rarely hear people refer to a ‘consensus’ in science when there actually is one.”

What’s needed, he says, and what is increasingly under siege in our culture, is the idea of “science as an open form of inquiry,” where “science advances as scientists argue about how to interpret the evidence.” Meyer would like to see more scientific debate, across the board, from climate change to Darwinian evolution to “many issues that have arisen in response to the Covid epidemic.” I couldn’t agree more. I want to offer a thought about something that underlies the impulse to clamp down on debate, and it relates to Thanksgiving.

At the end of the podcast they touch on the fragility, the brittleness of the materialist picture of reality. Materialism is as oppressive as it is because it can’t afford one slip-up, not one exception to the iron rule that nothing exists beyond nature. Wesley cites a fascinating interview with two well known “proud atheists,” Harvard cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker and his wife, the philosopher Rebecca Goldstein. She wrote a particularly good book that I read when it came out, Betraying Spinoza: The Renegade Jew Who Gave Us Modernity. Both are committed to Spinoza-style rationalism. In the interview with Salon, Pinker and Goldstein make clear how fragile their atheism is…

David Klinghoffer, “Thanksgiving and the Frailty of Scientific Atheism” at Evolution News and Science Today

Wesley Smith’s got a point. As a totalistic philosophy, “scientific atheism” (materialism) can be confuted by a single contrary example. Other philosophies are more robust. For example, one shyster evangelist doesn’t prove that all religion is wrong.

Anyway, materialist atheism is — you read it here first — slowly being destroyed by panpsychism. Panpsychism (everything is conscious) makes more sense. Here’s why:

Recall Egnor’s Principle: If your hypothesis is that even electrons are conscious, your hypothesis is likely wrong. But if your hypothesis is that the human mind is an illusion, then… you don’t have a hypothesis. That’s slowly killing “scientific” atheism.

You may also wish to read: A Darwinian biologist resists learning to live with panpsychism. Jerry Coyne makes two things quite clear: He scorns panpsychism and he doesn’t understand why some scientists accept it. The differences between panpsychism and naturalism are subtle but critical. As panpsychism’s popularity grows, insight will be better than rage and ridicule.

Copyright © 2021 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

Paleontologist Gunter Bechly on what the fossil record actually says

In this bonus interview released as part of the Science Uprising series, paleontologist Gunter Bechly unveils the truth behind the fossil record. There are multiple trade secrets among paleontologists. Chief among them is that Darwin’s insistence on gradualism was motivated by his understanding that the dramatic jumps found in the fossil record imply intervention. Darwin hoped that time would reveal his desperately needed transitional fossils. It has not, and what science has learned since Darwin’s day would’ve shattered his hopes as Bechly explains.

Actually, we’ve known at least since the Burgess Shale was discovered that the fossil record doesn’t say what the Darwin lobby has needed it to say. The trouble is that, in any conflict between a historical record and the needs of a cultural elite … well, let’s just say that the conflict usually doesn’t last long. But the discrepancies don’t go away either.

Bechly’s own history is interesting. After he expressed doubts about Darwinism, he got scrubbed from Wikipedia

You may also wish to see: Science Uprising # 9: Unvarnished fossil record is bad news for Darwin. Fossils, we are told, demonstrate the Truth of Darwinism as the history of life. But that’s only if you don’t look too closely. Science Uprising #9 looks too closely.

Copyright © 2021 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

At Mind Matters News: If reality is fundamentally mathematical, why the war on math?

Just as physicists are recognizing the mathematical nature of reality more clearly, the basic idea of getting math right is under fire in our schools:

Curiously, in a world that depends on mathematics — and offers intriguing math problems to ponder and maybe solve — in recent years, some educators have turned against math. They proclaim it to be an instance of white male supremacy because, in recent centuries, most mathematicians have been men of European ancestry (though historically, that is a phase, not a rule).

In September, Mind Matters News offered an update on the war on math. Here are some other recent developments as well:

➤ The California Math Framework claims “We reject ideas of natural gifts and talents … and the ‘cult of the genius.’” (Howard Blume, Los Angeles Times, May 21, 2021) which leads the to advocate eliminating accelerated math classes for exceptionally proficient students before Grade 11. The research basis for the decision has come in for considerable skepticism. (Richard Bernstein, MercatorNet, October 27, 2021)

News, “If reality is fundamentally mathematical, why the war on math?” at Mind Matters News (November 24, 2021)

…

➤ California both exemplifies and spells out the trend most clearly:

The framework recommends eight times that teachers use a troubling document, “A Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction: Dismantling Racism in Mathematics Instruction.” This manual claims that teachers addressing students’ mistakes forthrightly is a form of white supremacy. It sets forth indicators of “white supremacy culture in the mathematics classroom,” including a focus on “getting the right answer,” teaching math in a “linear fashion,” requiring students to “show their work” and grading them on demonstrated knowledge of the subject matter. “The concept of mathematics being purely objective is unequivocally false,” the manual explains. “Upholding the idea that there are always right and wrong answers perpetuates ‘objectivity.’ ” Apparently, that’s also racist.

Williamson M. Evers, “California Woke Zealots Try to Cancel Math Class” at Independent Institute (May 19, 2020), also published at the Wall Street Journal

Takehome: Perhaps we all need to recall something: The Iron Ring of the Canadian engineers is forged from the steel of a bridge that collapsed and cost 75 lives. That ring is intended as a warning, not a training manual. It turns out that in the real world, right or wrong answers in math do matter.

You may also wish to read: Yes, there really is a war on math in our schools. Pundits differ as to the causes but here are some facts parents should know.

and

Further dispatches from the war on math (September 14, 2021) Discussions of social policy where math is relevant can be useful. But a student who does not understand how an equation works will fail at both math and social policy.

Copyright © 2021 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

Surprise! Cue Shock! Study finds “bias” in biomedical journals

Whodathunkit?:

The analysis, which included nearly 5 million articles published in nearly 5,500 publications between 2015 and 2019, found that most journals publish work by a large number of authors.

But a small number of journals featured “hyper-prolific” individuals that were published disproportionately more often — and that their papers were more likely to be accepted for publication within three weeks of submission.

“Our results underscore possible problematic relationships between authors who sit on editorial boards and decision-making editors,” the researchers wrote, though they cautioned that publishers typically promote independence between researchers and journals.

Sommer Brokaw, “Study shows possible bias, ‘nepotistic behavior’ in some science journals” at UPI [United Press International] (November 23, 2021)

Lost somewhere in the snow: “Some of these authors, the researchers said, are also on the editorial boards of the journals.”

The rest of the news release goes on to minimize the problem and soften the blow — not the usual approach in media (for good reason).

Oh, never mind. With that kind of help, the problems will just go on.

The paper is open access.

Copyright © 2021 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

What the Miller-Urey experiment got wrong

Miller and Urey produced simple amino acids but then nothing happened. Apparently, the containers you use to try to make life in a test tube matter:

In the years following the original work, several limitations curbed excitement over its result. The simple amino acids did not combine to form more complex proteins or anything resembling primitive life. Further, the exact composition of the young Earth did not match Miller’s conditions. And small details of the setup appear to have affected the results. A new study published last month in Scientific Reports investigates one of those nagging details. It finds that the precise composition of the apparatus housing the experiment is crucial to amino acid formation.

The highly alkaline chemical broth dissolves a small amount of the borosilicate glass reactor vessel used in the original and subsequent experiments. Dissolved bits of silica permeate the liquid, likely creating and catalyzing reactions. The eroded walls of the glass may also boost catalysis of various reactions. This increases total amino acid production and allows the formation of some chemicals which are not created when the experiment is repeated in an apparatus made of Teflon. But, running the experiment in a Teflon apparatus deliberately contaminated with borosilicate recovered some of the lost amino acid production.

Tom Hartsfield, “What the famous Miller-Urey experiment got wrong” at BigThink (November 21, 2021)

When life got started, they always used Teflon.

You may wish to read: The Science Fictions series at your fingertips – origin of life What we do and don’t know about the origin of life.

Copyright © 2021 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

Horizontal gene transfer: Bacteria apparently despise the selfish gene

What else are we to suppose about these research findings?:

Cooperation is ubiquitous in bacterial populations. Bacteria produce and share public goods, providing indiscriminate benefits to their neighbors at cost to themselves.

Bacteria often engage in horizontal gene transfer (HGT) to rapidly disseminate traits in a population. HGT provides an important mechanism for cooperation to spread, effectively acting as an enforcement mechanism.

Public goods can also promote HGT, potentially resulting in positive feedback loops between the two.

HGT could itself be considered a public good due to the costly benefits it provides a population. Cooperation exists across all scales of biological organization, from genetic elements to complex human societies. Bacteria cooperate by secreting molecules that benefit all individuals in the population (i.e., public goods). Genes associated with cooperation can spread among strains through horizontal gene transfer (HGT). We discuss recent findings on how HGT mediated by mobile genetic elements promotes bacterial cooperation, how cooperation in turn can facilitate more frequent HGT, and how the act of HGT itself may be considered as a form of cooperation. We propose that HGT is an important enforcement mechanism in bacterial populations, thus creating a positive feedback loop that further maintains cooperation. To enforce cooperation, HGT serves as a homogenizing force by transferring the cooperative trait, effectively eliminating cheaters.

Isaiah Paolo A. Lee, Omar Tonsi Eldakar, J. Peter Gogarten, Cheryl P. Andam , “Evolution of cooperation” at Trends in Ecology & Evolution

It makes sense but it isn’t yer old biology teacher’s evolution.

The paper is open access.

By the way, is this a good time to bring up:

University of Chicago biochemist: All living cells are cognitive? James Shapiro’s recent paper points out, with examples, that bacteria meet the Oxford English Dictionary’s definition of “cognitive” Future debates over origins of intelligence, consciousness, etc., may mainly feature panpsychists vs. theists rather than materialists vs. theists.

You may also wish to read: Horizontal gene transfer: Sorry, Darwin, it’s not your evolution any more

Copyright © 2021 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

At Mind Matters News: British government moves to protect octopuses from cruelty

The move to protect cephalopods and crabs/lobsters follows from research showing their intelligence and awareness of pain:

Following a report from the London School of Economics and Political Science, the British government has decided to extend animal protection laws to include “cephalopods (including octopuses, squid and cuttlefish) and decapods (including crabs, lobsters and crayfish).”

No, this is not just another nut moment along the lines of “Salad is plant murder!” There’s a background: Researchers have discovered in recent decades that some invertebrates, especially those with complex central nervous systems, are much more intelligent and capable of experiencing pain (sentient) than we used to think.

As George Dvorsky explains at Gizmodo, the British government introduced the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill in May but the bill defined sentient animals as animals with backbones (vertebrates) However, scientists have known for some time that some sentient animals are invertebrates like octopuses and lobsters. The report was commissioned to gather these findings so as to make a reasonable decision.

News, “British government moves to protect octopuses from cruelty” at Mind Matters News

While all these types of invertebrates have not been studied to the same degree, there is general agreement that, as a group, they stand out for intelligence among invertebrates, in roughly the same way that crows stand out for intelligence among birds. And that’s a curious thing in itself. Just as crows can be as smart as apes while having very different brains, octopuses break all the rules for smartness but are still smart: “The organism does not contain only a single larger brain, but a unique network of smaller brains is also considered to be present in each of its prehensile eight arms.” (Chegg)

It seems that there is no straightforward evolutionary path to smartness. Some have called the octopus a “second genesis” of intelligence.

Takehome: Researchers are probing why some invertebrates are as smart as vertebrates. It seems that there is no straightforward evolutionary path to smartness.

You may also wish to read: Did minimal consciousness drive the Cambrian Explosion? Eva Jablonka’s team makes the daring case, repurposing Hungarian chemist Tibor Gánti’s origin of life studies. The researchers point out that life forms that show minimal consciousness have very different brains. Behavior, not brain anatomy, is the signal to look for.

Copyright © 2021 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

Here’s a new short on epigenetics

From the Medical Faculty, University of Oslo, Norway:

A short movie which describes why the identical twins Lucky Lyle and Troubled Tim end up with totally different personalities. Is it environment or genetics? Or perhaps both?

You may also wish to read: Epigenetic change: Lamarck, wake up, you’re wanted in the conference room!

Copyright © 2021 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

A Tour of Directed Mutations

Many people think that directed mutations don’t exist. This video explores both the theory behind directed mutations (what is meant by “directed”, how is selection involved, etc.) as well as the mechanics and specifics of many different types of directed mutations. It’s a lot to take in but well worth your time.

Copyright © 2021 Uncommon Descent. This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

Eric Cassell on the mystery of Monarch butterfly migration

Cassell, author of the just-published book Animal Algorithms: Evolution and the Mysterious Origin of Ingenious Instincts (2021), tackles one of the most remarkable mysteries of life forms:

It typically takes up to three generations of butterflies to make the complete journey.3 This means that the navigation information is genetically programmed. One of the unique aspects of the migration of the monarchs in eastern North America is that during their summer stay in Canada they occupy close to 400,000 square miles, while during their overwintering hibernation in Mexico they occupy less than half a square mile. As noted previously, they often migrate back to the same tree that their ancestor butterflies departed from in a mountainous region in Mexico. That means they must have an extremely accurate method of navigation to locate such a small target.

Navigating by Sun Compass

Monarchs navigate using a sun compass, and as previously described, this includes time compensation to account for the movement of the sun.4 The circadian clock used in the process is embedded within the butterfly’s antennae.5 The sun’s azimuth position is detected through the butterfly’s compound eyes.6 Researchers are only just beginning to decode the biological information required for these amazing feats. The genome of monarch butterflies has been decoded, including the genes related to the neurobiology and physical systems used for migration.7 Comparisons of migratory monarch genomes with the genomes of non-migratory monarchs has revealed that more than five hundred genes are involved in migratory behavior.8

Eric Cassell, “For Evolution, Monarch Butterfly Migration Is a Mystery” at Evolution News and Science Today (November 22, 2021)

Now, about the evolution part, Cassell writes,

There exists no evolutionary model that satisfactorily explains its origin. That by itself does not prove that gradual evolution didn’t produce such programming, but the lack of such a model should at least give the open-minded pause for reflection.

Eric Cassell, “For Evolution, Monarch Butterfly Migration Is a Mystery” at Evolution News and Science Today (November 22, 2021)

You may also wish to read: Book excerpt: Navigational genius of insects Eric Cassell: The Goulds call this curious dance “the second most information-rich exchange in the animal world,” second only to human language. That is quite a statement considering the communication is by insects with only 950,000 neurons, compared to humans with about eighty-five billion.

Copyright © 2021 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana