Michael J. Behe's Blog, page 151

October 20, 2021

Only at Salon: The human neck is an evolution mistake

We are informed that sleep apnea is a consequence of “too many adaptations stuffed into our neck.”

Critics of evolution often argue that life, rather than gradually changing over the years through natural selection, was actually created by a so-called “intelligent designer.” Their position is that the biological machinery which makes up living bodies is so complex, and so perfectly calibrated to support our numerous needs, that it had to have been planned out by a deliberate and thoughtful force of some kind.

Yet if God actually did design human bodies according to a plan, they forgot to make sure that we can breathe while we sleep — a remarkably crucial detail to overlook. While not everyone suffers from the aforementioned anatomical glitch, known to doctors as obstructive sleep apnea, it affects 22 million Americans — and has become an even more hazardous condition amid the spread of a deadly virus that attacks the lungs.

Matthew Rozsa, “The human neck is a mistake of evolution” at Salon (October 12, 2021)

It is, on the whole, a mistake to get human evolution news from a glitzmag. Engineer Walter Myers III offers some alternative thoughts:

The headline itself admits that sleep apnea afflicts 1 out of 15 Americans, so that means 14 out of 15 Americans (93 percent) breathe freely at night with no issues. Thus, the problem doesn’t appear to be with the design itself, but with potential problems that can occur after the fact, such as an obstruction in the throat muscles or improper signals sent to the throat muscles that control breathing.

Rosza does examine the possible causes of sleep apnea, which weaken his argument, as in each case the cause is because something has gone wrong, not that the original design is somehow flawed. He discusses sleep apnea caused by obesity, which is likely due to the actions of that person or to a metabolic abnormality, neither of which indicates a fault in the design itself. Any design can be adversely impacted if not properly maintained, or if it becomes defective through injury or disease. He cites aging as a cause, but we all know aging is a natural process that will eventually lead to the death of any organism. No organisms are designed to live forever. Even the best designed human artifacts eventually fail (and again, intelligent design makes no judgments about why a designer might intend mortality in organisms). Finally, he discusses genetic or anatomical issues that, again, cause the structures to not operate as they should according to the original design.

Walter Myers III, “Is the Human Neck a “Mistake of Evolution”?” at Evolution News and Science Today (October 20, 2021)

Now that Dr. Myers mentions it, humans were not designed to live forever in a world where everything else is transient. Something always gives.

But someone should tell Nathan Lents, author Human Errors: A Panorama of Our Glitches, from Pointless Bones to Broken Genes, about this one.

You may also wish to read: Nathan Lents is still wrong about human sinuses but still writing about them.

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

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on October 20, 2021 20:06

Crab trapped in amber at 99 million years ago is remarkably similar to modern crabs

But by now we know enough to expect that, don’t we?:

A tiny crab is the first to be found trapped in amber from the dinosaur era. It lived in a forest area of South-East Asia 99 million years ago.

Remarkably similar to modern crabs, the 5-millimetre-long crustacean is fully preserved, making it “the most complete crab [fossil] ever discovered”, says Javier Luque at Harvard University.

Christa Lesté-Lasserre, “99-million-year-old crab discovered trapped inside amber” at New Scientist (October 2021)

Was 99 mya a good time for preservation in amber? We can’t find vid of the crab fossil but there is a snake from the same era (and see bird skull noted below):

You may also wish to read: Stasis: Life goes on but evolution does not happen

and

Tiny 99 Mya Bird (?) Skull Trapped In Amber Raises Many Questions

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on October 20, 2021 19:33

At YouTube: Jonathan Wells on Human Evolution, Darwinism, and Media Coverage of Fossils

In under six minutes:

In this brief bonus interview released as part of the Science Uprising series, biologist Jonathan Wells discusses science, Darwinism, the fossil record, Lucy, and how the media cover fossil finds. Wells has two PhDs, one from University of California at Berkeley in Molecular and Cellular Biology, and another in Religious Studies from Yale. A Senior Fellow with Discovery Institute, Wells is the author of numerous books, including Icons of Evolution, Zombie Science, The Myth of Junk DNA, and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design.

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on October 20, 2021 19:12

September 29, 2021

At Evolution News: Nearly All of Evolution Is Best Explained by Engineering

It’s becoming clearer all the time:

In recent articles, I have summarized lectures at CELS (Conference on Engineering in Living Systems) that described an engineering model for adaptation and explained how adaptation derives from organisms’ internal capacities (here, link). Now I will summarize another CELS lecture that expanded upon these themes by outlining a second complementary engineering model for adaptation.

Comparing Models

Standard evolutionary theory assumes that genetic variation expands through DNA mutating or otherwise altering randomly. Concurrently, natural selection and other processes transform species over time gradually through numerous, successive, slight modifications. The results are unpredictable, and in different subpopulations they can vary greatly.

In stark contrast, the presented engineering-based model assumes that organisms adapt to the environment using the same engineering principles seen in human tracking systems (here, here). More specifically, they continuously monitor the environment and track pre-specified environmental conditions. When the right conditions occur, internal mechanisms induce pre-determined responses such as targeted genetic changes, physiological adjustments, and/or anatomical alterations. These adaptive processes are directed by irreducibly complex systems that consistently include three components…

Brian Miller, “Nearly All of Evolution Is Best Explained by Engineering” at Evolution News and Science Today (September 24, 2021)

Question: If someone proposed Darwinism for the first time today, now that we know all that we know about the hard-to-fathom complexity of life, would people as readily accept it?

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on September 29, 2021 19:08

Speculations about human evolutionary ancestry before Darwin: Mermaids

Well before Darwin, some were thinking about human origins, and the search for mermaids to demonstrate our aquatic roots was part of the story:

On May 6, 1736, the polymath Benjamin Franklin informed readers of his Pennsylvania Gazette of a “Sea Monster” recently spotted in Bermuda, “the upper part of whose Body was in the Shape and about the Bigness of a Boy of 12 Years old, with long black Hair; the lower Part resembled a Fish”. Apparently, the creature’s “human Likeness” inspired his captors to let it live. A 1769 issue of the Providence Gazette similarly reported that crew members of an English ship off the coast of Brest, France, watched as “a sea monster, like a man” circled their ship, at one point viewing “for some time the figure that was in our prow, which represented a beautiful woman”. The captain, the pilot and “the whole crew, consisting of two and thirty men” verified this tale.1

The above examples are quite representative of what an early modern Briton would have found in the newspapers. That these interactions were even reported tells us much. Intelligent men like Benjamin Franklin considered such encounters legitimate enough to spend the time and money to print in their widely read newspapers. By doing so, printers and authors helped sustain a narrative of curiosity surrounding these wondrous creatures. As a Londoner sat down with his paper (perhaps in the aptly named Mermaid Tavern) and read of yet another instance of a mermaid or triton sighting, his doubt might have transformed into curiosity.2

Philosophers’ debates over mermaids and tritons in this period reveal their willingness to embrace wonder in their larger quest to understand the origins of humankind. Naturalists used a wide range of methodologies to critically study these odd hybrids and, in turn, assert the reality of merpeople as evidence of humanity’s aquatic roots. As with other creatures they encountered in their global travels, European philosophers utilized various theories — including those of racial, biological, taxonomical, and geographic difference — to understand merpeople’s and, by proxy, humans’ place in the natural world.3

Vaughn Scribner, “Mermaids and Tritons in the Age of Reason” at Public Domain Review (September 29, 2021)

So when Darwin came along and said, no, apes, he was playing to a sympathetic audience.

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on September 29, 2021 18:48

Will bionic hands ever be as good as natural hands? Researchers are certainly trying…

A recent internet-savvy bionic hand, developed by an American neuroscientist and computer engineer, is the most flexible yet, with sensory feedback:

According to the Polsky Center for Entrepreneurship and Innovation at the University of Chicago, roughly 100,000 Americans — and 10 million people worldwide — are missing a hand.

The award-winning Ability hand shown in the video, made by Psyonic, a Champaign, Illinois-based startup, is a useful illustration of how far prosthetics has come via electronic and internet technology.

Representative of a new generation of prostheses, it is both electronics and internet-friendly: It charges in roughly an hour and the charge lasts through the day. It is Bluetooth-compatible for the purpose of downloading new software for fine-tuning the fingers’ grip and functionality. It can even charge a cell phone.

News, “The Bionic Man was science fiction; the bionic hand is not” at Mind Matters News

But will we ever outdo nature? Why or why not?

Takehome: The Bionic Man was science fiction; the bionic hand is not. The trouble is, if the new bionic hands are going to help most of the world’s amputees , they can’t cost six million dollars, as in the old TV show. The story of how neuroscientist and computer engineer Adeel Akhtar got involved demonstrates that.

You may also wish to read:

Prosthetic hand controlled by thoughts alone? It’s here. Decades ago, no one could control a prosthesis only by thought. There is lots of room for the field to grow still. (2020)

New mind-controlled robot arm needs no brain implant. The thought-controlled device could help people with movement disorders control devices without the costs and risks of surgery. (2019)

High tech can help the blind see and amputees feel. It’s not a miracle; the human nervous system can work with electronic information. (2019)

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on September 29, 2021 10:37

September 28, 2021

At Quanta: New find re strong force in physics involves “impossible” particle

The double-charm tetraquark:

The unexpected discovery of the double-charm tetraquark highlights an uncomfortable truth. While physicists know the exact equation that defines the strong force — the fundamental force that binds quarks together to make the protons and neutrons in the hearts of atoms, as well as other composite particles like tetraquarks — they can rarely solve this strange, endlessly iterative equation, so they struggle to predict the strong force’s effects.

The tetraquark now presents theorists with a solid target against which to test their mathematical machinery for approximating the strong force. Honing their approximations represents physicists’ main hope for understanding how quarks behave inside and outside atoms — and for teasing apart the effects of quarks from subtle signs of new fundamental particles that physicists are pursuing.

Charlie Wood, “‘Impossible’ Particle Discovery Adds Key Piece to the Strong Force Puzzle” at Quanta

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on September 28, 2021 19:06

At Mind Matters News: 5. Egnor, Dillahunty dispute the basic causes behind the universe

In a peppery exchange, Egnor argues that proofs of God’s existence follow the same logical structure as proofs in science:

At this point in the “Does God exist?” debate between theist neurosurgeon Michael Egnor and atheist broadcaster Matt Dillahunty (September 17, 2021), readers may recall that the debate opened with Egnor explaining why, as former atheist, he became a theist. Then Dillahunty explained why, as a former theist, he became an atheist. Michael Egnor then made his opening argument, offering ten proofs for the existence of God. Matt Dillahunty responded in his own opening argument that theaw propositions were all unfalsifiable. When, in Section 4, it was Egnor’s turn to rebut Dillahunty, Dillahunty was not easily able to recall Aquinas’s First Way (the first logical argument for the existence of God).

No matter, they agreed to keep talking. The conversation continues to be somewhat rambunctious, thus has been condensed for print:

News, “5. Egnor, Dillahunty dispute the basic causes behind the universe” at Mind Matters News

Michael Egnor: Well, again, singularities are supernatural. They are not natural.

Matt Dillahunty: I would argue that the singularity as described is natural. It is the entirety of the natural universe. [00:57:00]

Michael Egnor: All right, then what is a singularity? If you’re saying it’s natural, what is it?

Matt Dillahunty: So first of all, you’re not talking to a cosmologist, but the-

Michael Egnor: Then why do you say it’s natural? …

[Things became quite heated at this point.]

Matt Dillahunty: [00:58:00] I’ve tried to answer it, every time I open my … Say one more [bleep]…

Next: Is Matt Dillahunty using science as a crutch for his atheism? That’s Egnor’s accusation. Stay tuned.

The debate to date:

Debate: Former atheist neurosurgeon vs. former Christian activist. At Theology Unleashed, each gets a chance to state his case and interrogate the other. In a lively debate at Theology Unleashed, neurosurgeon Michael Egnor and broadcaster Matt Dillahunty clash over the existence of God.A neurosurgeon’s ten proofs for the existence of God. First, how did a medic, formerly an atheist, who cuts open people’s brains for a living, come to be sure there is irrefutable proof for God? In a lively debate at Theology Unleashed, Michael Egnor and Matt Dillahunty clash over “Does God exist?” Egnor starts off.Atheist Dillahunty spots fallacies in Christian Egnor’s views. “My position is that it’s unacceptable to believe something if the available evidence does not support it.” Dillahunty: We can’t conclusively disprove an unfalsifiable proposition. And that is what most “God” definitions, at least as far as I can tell, are.

4. Egnor now tries to find out what Dillahunty actually knows… About philosophical arguments for the existence of God, as he begins a rebuttal. Atheist Dillahunty appears unable to recall the philosophical arguments for God’s existence, which poses a challenge for Egnor in rebutting him.

You may also wish to read:

Atheist spokesman Matt Dillahunty refuses to debate me again Although he has said that he finds debates “incredibly valuable,” he is — despite much urging — making an exception in this case. Why? For millennia, theists have thought meticulously about God’s existence. New Atheists merely deny any need to make a case. That’s partly why I dumped atheism. (Michael Egnor)

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on September 28, 2021 18:46

Major Neanderthal cave discovery at Gibraltar

It’s a 13-metre roof chamber that has been sealed off for at least 40,000 years. Neanderthals are believed to have lived there for 100,000 years:

Located in steep limestone cliffs on the eastern side of the Rock of Gibraltar, the four caves in the Gorham’s Cave Complex have been found to contain extensive archaeological and palaeontological deposits that provide evidence of Neanderthal occupation.

The roof chamber was found at the very back of Vanguard Cave, where a project has been under way since 2012 to find out if the cave had passages and chambers that were plugged by later sediment, Gibraltar National Museum said…

So far, no burial site has been found in the caves, and Finlayson speculated that digging down from the chamber at the apex of the cave could lead to side chambers and perhaps even a site where the Neanderthals placed their dead.

Michael Daly, “Sealed off for 40,000 years: Neanderthal cave discovery in Gibraltar” at Stuff (September 29, 2021 [New Zealand time])

No vid yet. Here’s an earlier discovery in the same area:

You may also wish to read: Neanderthal Man: The long-lost relative turns up again, this time with documents

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on September 28, 2021 17:59

At Mind Matters News: 4: Egnor now tries to find out what Dillahunty actually knows…

About philosophical arguments for the existence of God, as he begins a rebuttal:

Readers and viewers who have been following this debate, “Does God exist?” (September 17, 2021), between theist neurosurgeon Michael Egnor and atheist broadcaster Matt Dillahunty may recall that it opened with Egnor explaining why, as former atheist, he became a theist. Then Dillahunty explained why, as a former theist, he became an atheist.

Michael Egnor then stated his case, offering ten proofs for the existence of God. Matt Dillahunty responded that they were all unfalsifiable propositions. Now it is Egnor’s turn to rebut Dillahunty. The conversation was somewhat rambunctious and has been condensed for print:

News, “4: Egnor now tries to find out what Dillahunty actually knows…” at Mind Matters News (September 27, 2021)

A partial transcript (beginning at 36:30) and notes follow:

Michael Egnor: Which one of the 10 arguments that I gave you do you understand? [00:38:30]

Matt Dillahunty: If you ask me a question and I start to … Am I going to get to answer your question? Let’s assume that I don’t understand any of them.

Michael Egnor: All right. So then why do you think they’re wrong?

Matt Dillahunty: Well, I’ve evaluated each of them at different times, and found them wanting. [00:39:00]

Michael Egnor: So you used to understand them, but you forgot them.

Matt Dillahunty: See, the whole point of tonight’s debate is to demonstrate that a God exists, and all I did was point out about where a burden of proof is, and you immediately start to suggest that I don’t understand what I’m talking about, which may be fine, and it may be fair, but it doesn’t do anything to prove your God. If you think that you proved your God by rattling off short intro to philosophy versions of arguments that have long been debated, you don’t understand the robustness of this. [00:39:30]

Michael Egnor: Matt, I’ll be happy to give you these arguments in detail. What I want to establish before that is that your arguments are not based on any actual knowledge. You don’t know the arguments for God’s existence. So your claim that they’re not true…

Matt Dillahunty: Which of my arguments do you reject? The argument from divine hiddenness is the only one I presented. The argument from divine hiddenness isn’t based on an understanding of any of your arguments, so please, tell me where my argument’s wrong. [00:40:00]

Michael Egnor: No, your argument is that God’s existence has not been proven.

Matt Dillahunty: Correct.

Michael Egnor: You don’t understand the arguments for God’s existence. So

Michael Egnor: Tell me Aquinas’s Second Way. What’s the second way?

Matt Dillahunty: The argument from causation and it has to do with causal change. But there’s a problem with causal change, because you cannot demonstrate that causal change extend beyond… We can’t explore the universe prior to the Planck time. So the fact that there are causal chains within the universe don’t mean that there are causal chains out of the universe that operate in the same way. As a matter of fact, if you start talking about something that exists outside of time, you’ve already made an error, because existence is necessarily temporal. It doesn’t mean anything to say that something exists for no period of time. [00:40:30]

Michael Egnor: That has nothing to do with Aquinas’s Second Way, or his First Way, or anything. [00:41:00]

Matt Dillahunty: Well, I didn’t show up to debate Aquinas, and he’s not here to defend it. So either you can tell me…

Michael Egnor: No, but you showed up to debate …

Matt Dillahunty: … you can either debate it and tell me I’m wrong, or you can just assert that I’m wrong, which is what you’ve done from the beginning. You’ve made nothing but assertions. “Here’s a whole bunch of arguments, I’m going to assert that these arguments make the case, and I’m going to do no work.” That’s what you did from the start.

Michael Egnor: Matt, the argument that I’m making is actually fairly simple, and you’re blowing smoke. [00:41:30]

More.

Takehome: Atheist Dillahunty appears unable to recall the philosophical arguments for God’s existence, which poses a challenge for Egnor in rebutting him.

The debate to date:

You may also wish to read:

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on September 28, 2021 06:29

← Previous 1 2 … 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 … 592 593 Next →

Michael J. Behe's Blog

Michael J. Behe's profile
219 followers

Michael J. Behe isn't a Goodreads Author (yet), but they do have a blog, so here are some recent posts imported from their feed.