Michael J. Behe's Blog, page 172

Kirk Durston on science’s God of the Gaps

Opinion: The God of the Gaps was invented by people who wanted to evade serious issues about the lack of fit between secularist and theistic evolutionist beliefs and the fundamental nature of the universe. – O’Leary for News

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

Jordan Peterson interviews Larry Krauss on scientism

Readers will probably recognize both Jordan Peterson and Larry Krauss Here’s part of Elizabeth Whateley’s take on a Peterson podcast with Krauss:

Recently, Canadian psychologist-turned-public-intellectual Jordan Peterson hosted popular physicist Lawrence Krauss on his podcast. Peterson, on the other side of a health crisis, has been engaging an eclectic array of intellectuals to keep himself sharp while he promotes his new book, Beyond Order. As a scientist who’s become known for politically incorrect opinions, Krauss was a natural conversation partner for the controversial professor, and the two got along well. Maybe too well, as Peterson allowed Krauss to repeat various talking points unchallenged …

“Take me back to the beginning,” Peterson asks, meaning 14 billion years back, to the beginning of time. Naturally, Krauss is only too happy to oblige by playing his greatest hit for the professor. He presents himself as the cautious, reasonable scientist who rewinds the tape only as far as he can extrapolate his own understanding of the laws of physics, unlike those excitable religious types who think they can tell you what happened at t = 0. But from t = 0.000000….1 onwards, the laws of physics can explain everything beautifully. This is “the difference between science and religion.”

Here Peterson asks a question: Those laws, did they come into being along with the universe?

Krauss hedges his bets in reply. “Maybe they pre-existed, maybe they don’t. Those are metaphysical questions.” Metaphysical questions are above his pay grade, he wishes to stress. Right before saying it’s not just possible but “quite likely” that our universe arose from nothing, “no space, no time, and maybe no laws.” At the least, we can say confidently that it has all the properties we would expect to observe in a 14-billion-year-old universe that came into being “spontaneously, without any supernatural shenanigans.” This isn’t a proof, but it at least makes Krauss’s claim sound more plausible.

Elizabeth Whateley, “Jordan Peterson Springs the Trap of Scientism” at Evolution News and Science Today (July 30, 2021)

Here’s the podcast:

Krauss’s claims — it’s not just possible but “quite likely” that our universe arose from nothing, “no space, no time, and maybe no laws.” At the least, we can say confidently that it has all the properties we would expect to observe in a 14-billion-year-old universe that came into being “spontaneously, without any supernatural shenanigans.” — are clearly ridiculous. “Nothing” is not an account of anything and there is no way we could know what a universe from nothing “should” look like. Peterson is being too kind here.

See also: Jordan Peterson — Do the Stitches Hold?

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: Why animals can count but can’t do math

A numerical cognition researcher outlines the differences between recognizing numbers and doing math:

It was the development of symbol systems such as the decimal system that enabled the development of complex mathematical theories but they were thousands of years in the making. And they have led us into some remarkable abstract worlds.

There is a current conflict among researchers as to whether our number sense is biological or cultural (nature or nurture). But the conflict appears to miss the point: Elaborate number sense depends on the ability to abstract. If that ability is biological, where exactly is it? If it is cultural, it is an iteration of the ability to abstract.

When comparing the way animals and small children handle numbers, we should keep in mind that animals do not have the ability to abstract. Children do have the ability to abstract but it is latent. Language skills (and the attendant math skills) take years to acquire from nothing. The remarkable thing is that almost all children do it and no animals do.

News, “Why animals can count but can’t do math” at Mind Matters News (August 4, 2021)

Note: Psychologist Silke Goebel says that the cardinality principle — the highest number in a series sums the numbers, takes children some time to learn.

You may also wish to read: Is our “number sense” biology, culture — or something else? It’s a surprisingly controversial question with a — perhaps unsettling — answer. Mathematics supports a dualist view of the universe. Both concrete and abstract, depending. Both the Chimp Chocolate Stakes and Chaitin’s Unknowable Number. (Denyse O’Leary)

and

The mystery of numeracy: How DID we learn to count? Some animals can do rough figuring but only humans count. It goes beyond counting. Numbers lead to a world of wonders, only apprehended by abstraction.

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

L & FP, 49: The Reichstag Fire-panic lesson on agit prop and lawfare

Vivid recently reminded us of the painful, bloody lesson of history taught by Hitler’s seizure of power in 1933. I responded, noting:

[I]sn’t it interesting that the Reichstag Fire crisis isn’t a standard part of our general education package. It almost makes one wonder why it is that the story of how the most universally acknowledged unmitigatedly evil dictator seized absolute power through agit prop and lawfare is somehow pushed to the margins of our common fund of knowledge. Not quite a conspiracy of silencing but at least a common evasion of plain duty by those who inform and educate us. Ironically, on a topic where learning this is vital to defending our civilisation, the common thought association fed by dominant narratives will be that appeal to Hitler is fallacious and demonising. Not when it is manifestly relevant and counter-balances a narrative that actually does just such a demonisation . . .

I think it is important enough to actually put up a summary, and I further noted:

This is one time when Wikipedia’s admissions are at minimum relevant and mostly on target food for thought. (I think it is most likely that Hitler and co opportunistically exploited an ill-advised violent protest action by a likely half-mad youth IIRC one week before an election was due, to set an agit prop and lawfare juggernaut loose; that is, I don’t accept the perception that the Nazis set the fire themselves as a false flag operation . . . they were however primed to pounce on and use any convenient incident they could frame through narrative and institutional domination. The consequences were horrific.)

Accordingly, let us learn from that oh so humble source, Wikipedia, as it is forced by a forest of facts to admit:

The Reichstag fire (German: Reichstagsbrand, listen (help·info)) was an arson attack on the Reichstag building, home of the German parliament in Berlin, on Monday 27 February 1933, precisely four weeks after Adolf Hitler was sworn in as Chancellor of Germany. Hitler’s government stated that Marinus van der Lubbe, a Dutch council communist, was the culprit, and it attributed the fire to communist agitators. A German court decided later that year that Van der Lubbe had acted alone, as he had claimed. The day after the fire, the Reichstag Fire Decree was passed. The Nazi Party used the fire as a pretext to claim that communists were plotting against the German government, which made the fire pivotal in the establishment of Nazi Germany.

The first report of the fire came shortly after 9:00 p.m., when a Berlin fire station received an alarm call.[1] By the time police and firefighters arrived, the lower house ‘Chamber of Deputies’ was engulfed in flames. The police conducted a thorough search inside the building and accused Van der Lubbe. He was arrested, as were four communist leaders soon after. Hitler urged President Paul von Hindenburg to issue an emergency decree to suspend civil liberties and pursue a “ruthless confrontation” with the Communist Party of Germany.[2] After the decree was issued, the government instituted mass arrests of communists, including all of the Communist Party’s parliamentary delegates. With their bitter rival communists gone and their seats empty, the Nazi Party went from having a plurality to a majority, thus enabling Hitler to consolidate his power . . . .

After the November 1932 German federal election, the Nazi Party had a plurality, not a majority; the Communists posted gains.[7] Adolf Hitler was sworn in as Chancellor and head of the coalition government on 30 January 1933.[8] As chancellor, Hitler asked President Paul von Hindenburg to dissolve the Reichstag and call for a new parliamentary election. The date set for the elections was 5 March 1933.[9]

Hitler hoped to abolish democracy in a more or less legal fashion, by passing the Enabling Act. The Enabling Act was a special law that gave the Chancellor the power to pass laws by decree, without the involvement of the Reichstag. These special powers would remain in effect for four years, after which time they were eligible to be renewed. Under the Weimar Constitution, the President could rule by decree in times of emergency using Article 48.[10] During the election campaign, the Nazis alleged that Germany was on the verge of a Communist revolution and that the only way to stop the Communists was to put the Nazis securely in power . . . .

The day after the fire, at Hitler’s request, President Hindenburg signed the Reichstag Fire Decree into law by using Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution. The Reichstag Fire Decree suspended most civil liberties in Germany, including habeas corpus, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, the right of free association and public assembly, and the secrecy of the post and telephone.[18] These rights were not reinstated during Nazi reign. The decree was used by the Nazis to ban publications not considered “friendly” to the Nazi cause. Despite the fact that Marinus van der Lubbe claimed to have acted alone in the Reichstag fire, Hitler, after having obtained his emergency powers, announced that it was the start of a Communist plot to take over Germany. Nazi Party newspapers then published this fabricated “news”.[18] This sent the German population into a panic and isolated the Communists further among the civilians; additionally, thousands of Communists were imprisoned in the days following the fire (including leaders of the Communist Party of Germany) on the charge that the Party was preparing to stage a putsch. Speaking to Rudolph Diels about Communists during the Reichstag fire, Hitler said “These sub-humans do not understand how the people stand at our side. In their mouse-holes, out of which they now want to come, of course they hear nothing of the cheering of the masses.”[19] With Communist electoral participation also suppressed (the Communists previously polled 17% of the vote), the Nazis were able to increase their share of the vote in the 5 March 1933 Reichstag elections from 33% to 44%.[20] This gave the Nazis and their allies, the German National People’s Party (who won 8% of the vote), a majority of 52% in the Reichstag.[20]

While the Nazis emerged with a majority, they fell short of their goal, which was to win 50–55% of the vote that year.[20] The Nazis thought that this would make it difficult to achieve their next goal, passage of the Enabling Act giving Hitler the right to rule by decree, which required a two-thirds majority.[20] However, several important factors weighed in the Nazis’ favour, mainly the continued suppression of the Communist Party and the Nazis’ ability to capitalize on national security concerns. Moreover, some deputies of the Social Democratic Party (the only party that would vote against the Enabling Act) were prevented from taking their seats in the Reichstag, due to arrests and intimidation by the Nazi SA. As a result, the Social Democratic Party would be under-represented in the final vote tally. The Enabling Act passed easily on 23 March 1933, with the support of the right-wing German National People’s Party, the Centre Party, and several fragmented middle-class parties. The measure went into force on 24 March, effectively making Hitler dictator of Germany.[21]

The Kroll Opera House, sitting across the Königsplatz from the burned-out Reichstag building, functioned as the Reichstag’s venue for the remaining 12 years of the Third Reich’s existence.[22]

We could say to the latter, an appropriate venue.

Many sobering lessons lurk here, starting with, beware of being trapped between the devil and the deep blue sea. One may be trapped into a false dilemma, especially if one is not thinking straight due to how one is being manipulated by dirty big money and its bought and paid for spokesmen (who will of course have impeccable credentials). Frankly, the historical microcosm for such is Acts 27, taking the text there simply as a slice of literature, here, history, from the classical world.

In that context, I beg us to understand that the Left-Centre-Right [LCR] political spectrum model that dominates popular and even academic thought is deeply flawed, lending itself to manipulation of the perceived centre of safety:

So, instead, let us learn the lesson of the dirty Overton Window game:

The key thing to recall, is that given the sad history of Athenian democracy and the Peloponnesian war, as well as Ac 27 and much more recent history, democracies are inherently unstable though they also provide for otherwise unprecedented freedom with a good measure of protective order.

For such to happen, there must be stabilising cultural buttresses that lie beyond the rough and tumble of dirty, manipulative politics [thus, the inherent danger of totalising materialistic and/or radically secularist ideologies that are amoral and/or invite nihilism], and which provide a framework of moral guidance tied to core, built-in human characteristics of being morally governed. That, in turn, is why modern constitutional democracy emerged in the matrix of what was then self-consciously Christendom, as we can see reflected in Locke’s key remarks in his second essay on civil government:

[2nd Treatise on Civil Gov’t, Ch 2 sec. 5:] . . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man’s hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [This directly echoes St. Paul in Rom 2: “14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them . . . “ and 13: “9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law . . . “ Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [Eccl. Polity ,preface, Bk I, “ch.” 8, p.80, cf. here. Emphasis added.] [Augmented citation, Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government, Ch 2 Sect. 5. ]

Hence, too, the power of Plato’s warning in The Laws, Book X:

Ath[enian Stranger, in The Laws, Bk X 2,360 ya]. . . . [The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical “material” elements of the cosmos — the natural order], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ –> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . . [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-

[ –> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics, law and government: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by “winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . ” cf a video on Plato’s parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]

These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,

[ –> Evolutionary materialism — having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT — leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for “OUGHT” is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in “spin”), opening the door to cynicism, hyperskepticism and nihilism . . . ]

and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ –> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality “naturally” leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ –> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, “naturally” tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush — as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [–> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].

Hitler and co, also, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and co, have underscored the force of this over the past century. If we are instead to find a road of sound reformation, we would be well advised to look elsewhere. Wiberforce, for example, or Knibb, or Booth.

But then, that is always a challenge, one compounded enormously in a highly ideologised, deeply polarised increasingly radically secularist age. Such does not bode well, but we need to at least be aware before the needless storm. END

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: How did Descartes come to make such a mess of dualism?

Neurosurgeon Michael Egnor thinks that mathematician René Descartes strictly separated mind and matter in a way that left the mind very vulnerable:

Michael Egnor: Descartes said that things that exist in the world can be broken down into two categories. One is res extensa, which is matter, just stuff as extended in space. And the other is res cogitans, which is “thinking” stuff. And thinking stuff was spiritual, it was the mind. He believed that human beings were composites of res cogitans and res extensa.

Thus we were immaterial spirits grafted onto material bodies. And Gilbert Ryle, a contemporary philosopher, referred to that concept as the “ghost in the machine.” While that might be a somewhat dismissive approach to what Descartes really meant, Descartes did believe that we were, in a sense, ghosts living in bodies.

Which is not at all Aristotle’s way of understanding human beings. It takes first person experience entirely out of our bodies. It says that our subjective experience is entirely in the res cogitans; it’s not in the res extensa. So in the body, there’s no first person experience. Only the mind has first person experience. (00:45:52)

Most materialists don’t realize this but modern materialism is just degenerate Cartesianism. Modern materialists swallowed Descartes’ metaphysics. And then they just got rid of res cogitans. They just said the whole world, everything, is matter extended in space. And that’s the whole story. There’s no minds out there.

So of course, if you take matter extended in space, which is defined as that which lacks first person experience, you’re going to have an awfully difficult time accounting for first person experience. Because you’ve put first person experience in the garbage.

So materialists have defined matter as that which cannot have first person experience. And then they write libraries full of books trying to explain how matter [which is all we are in their view] can have first person experience when they’re the ones that caused the problem. (00:46:46)

News, “How did Descartes come to make such a mess of dualism?” at Mind Matters News

Takehome: After Descartes started the idea that only minds have experiences, materialist philosophers dispensed with mind, then puzzled over how matter has experiences.

Here’s a transcript and notes for the first forty minutes:

What’s the best option for understanding the mind and the brain? Theories that attempt to show that the mind does not really exist clearly don’t work and never did. Neurosurgeon Michael Egnor reviews the mind-brain theories for East Meets West: Theology Unleashed. He think dualism makes the best sense of the evidence.

How we can know mental states are real? Mental states are always “about” something; physical states are not “about” anything. Michael Egnor argues that doing science as a physicalist (a materialist) is like driving a car with the parking brake on; it’s a major impediment to science.

Why neurosurgeon Mike Egnor stopped being a materialist atheist. He found that materialism is just not working out in science. Most propositions in basic science are based on mathematics and mathematics is not a material thing.

and

How science points to meaning in life. The earliest philosopher of science, Aristotle, pioneered a way of understanding it. Neurosurgeon Michael Egnor talks about the four causes of the events in our world, from the material to the mind.

You may also wish to read: Why the universe itself can’t be the most fundamental thing. Atheist biology professor Jerry Coyne is mistaken in dismissing my observation that proofs of God’s existence follow the same logical structure as any other scientific theory. (Michael Egnor)

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

Researchers: Neanderthals were painting in a cave 65,000 years ago

The red ochre stains were assumed to be natural but one reporting team disagrees:

The team members analysed samples of red residues collected from the flowstone surface and compared them with iron oxide-rich deposits in the cave. They concluded that the ochre-based pigment was intentionally applied, i.e. painted — by Neanderthals, as modern humans had yet to make their appearance on the European continent — and that, importantly, it had probably been brought to the cave from an external source.

Furthermore, variations in pigment composition between samples were detected, corresponding to different dates of application, sometimes many thousands of years apart. Thus, it seems that many generations of Neanderthals visited this cave and coloured the draperies of the great flowstone formation with red ochre. This behaviour indicates a motivation to return to the cave and symbolically mark the site, and it bears witness to the transmission of a tradition down through the generations.

CNRS, “Neanderthals indeed painted Andalusia’s Cueva de Ardales” at ScienceDaily

The paper is closed access. It’s title is intriguing: The symbolic role of the underground world among Middle Paleolithic Neanderthals.

If this is correct, the Neanderthals didn’t live in Andalusia’s Cueva de Arales; they seem to have been using it as a ceremonial site.

See also: Neanderthal Man: The long-lost relative turns up again, this time with documents

and

A deep and abiding need for Neanderthals to be stupid. Why?

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

Researchers: Giraffes turn out to be a complex social species

They were formerly thought to “have little or no social structure, and only fleeting, weak relationships”:

In a paper published in today in the journal Mammal Review, Zoe Muller, of Bristol’s School of Biological Sciences, has demonstrated that giraffes spend up to 30% of their lives in a post-reproductive state. This is comparable to other species with highly complex social structures and cooperative care, such as elephants and killer-whales which spend 23% and 35% of their lives in a post-reproductive state respectively. In these species, it has been demonstrated that the presence of post-menopausal females offers survival benefits for related offspring. In mammals—and –ncluding humans—this is known as the ‘Grandmother hypothesis’ which suggests that females live long past menopause so that they can help raise successive generations of offspring, thereby ensuring the preservation of their genes. Researchers propose that the presence of post-reproductive adult female giraffes could also function in the same way, and supports the author’s assertion that giraffes are likely to engage in cooperative parenting, along matrilines, and contribute to the shared parental care of related kin.

Zoe said: “It is baffling to me that such a large, iconic and charismatic African species has been understudied for so long. This paper collates all the evidence to suggest that giraffes are actually a highly complex social species, with intricate and high-functioning social systems, potentially comparable to elephants, cetaceans and chimpanzees.

“I hope that this study draws a line in the sand, from which point forwards, giraffes will be regarded as intelligent, group-living mammals which have evolved highly successful and complex societies, which have facilitated their survival in tough, predator-filled ecosystems.”

University of Bristol, “Giraffes are as socially complex as elephants: study” at Phys.org

The paper is open access.

Zoe Muller is right to wonder why researchers simply assumed that the giraffe lacked the wit for social skills without having studied the species much. It would be interesting to know if “evolutionary” assumptions underlay that view. Generally, such assumptions should be treated with caution. For example, “evolutionary” assumptions would not prompt researchers to believe that octopuses are as intelligent as they are.

Note also, however, the sentence “In these species, it has been demonstrated that the presence of post-menopausal females offers survival benefits for related offspring. In mammals—and –ncluding humans—this is known as the ‘Grandmother hypothesis’ which suggests that females live long past menopause so that they can help raise successive generations of offspring, thereby ensuring the preservation of their genes.” What is the “so what” [emphasized] doing in that sentence? Things don’t happen just because they might be useful — unless, of course, she is making a case for directed evolution. Of course, if she is, she might be right.

See also: Octopuses get emotional about pain, research suggests. The smartest of invertebrates, the octopus, once again prompts us to rethink what we believe to be the origin of intelligence. The brainy cephalopods behaved about the same as lab rats under similar conditions, raising both neuroscience and ethical issues.

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

The natural barometer for healthy blood pressure found

After 60 years:

University of Virginia School of Medicine researchers have determined the location of natural blood-pressure barometers inside our bodies that have eluded scientists for more than 60 years.

These cellular sensors detect subtle changes in blood pressure and adjust hormone levels to keep it in check. Scientists have long suspected that these barometers, or “baroreceptors,” existed in specialized kidney cells called renin cells, but no one has been able to locate the baroreceptors until now …

“It was exhilarating to find that the elusive pressure-sensing mechanism, the baroreceptor, was intrinsic to the renin cell, which has the ability to sense and react, both within the same cell,” said Sequeira-Lopez, of UVA’s Department of Pediatrics and UVA’s Child Health Research Center. “So the renin cells are sensors and responders.” …

“I feel really excited about this discovery, a real tour de force several years in the making. We had a great collaboration with Dr. [Douglas] DeSimone from the Department of Cell Biology,” Sequeira-Lopez said. “I am also excited with the work to come, to unravel the signaling and controlling mechanisms of this mechanotransducer and how we can use the information to develop therapies for hypertension.”

University of Virginia Health System, “After 60 years, scientists find the missing link in our body’s blood pressure control” at ScienceDaily

The paper is open access.

Where is Darwinian Nathan Lents, author of Human Errors: A Panorama of Our Glitches, from Pointless Bones to Broken Genes, when we need him?

See also: Nathan Lents is still wrong about the 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

The non-coding human genome is being filled in

They quit calling it junk:

Scientists have now drafted a complete version of the human genome sequence — but the job of deciphering our DNA has only just begun.

Why it matters: The bulk of the human genome is noncoding regions, some of which play an important role in how genes are expressed. New tools are allowing scientists to test exactly how these elements — once called “junk DNA” — work, which could lead to new drug targets.

Driving the news: A team of 99 scientists completed the human genome sequence last week, filling in gaps in the draft sequence published 20 years ago using some new technologies.

They reported the human genome is 3.05 billion base pairs long and consists of 19,969 protein-coding genes, including more than 100 newly deciphered genes that can likely produce proteins.

Alison Snyder, Eileen Drage O’Reilly, “Diving into the genome’s uncharted territories” at Axios

And it all just sort of fell together, right?

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

Why a mechanic infers design. Karsten Pultz explains

Karsten Pultz’s is the author of Exit Evolution.

Some flagellum motors (FM) rotate up to 100.000 RPM (revolutions per minute). For a motor to reach such a speed it needs precision engineered parts like the axle, rotor and bushings. Although being a bio-machine,
the FM has to live up to the same high standards as manmade motors because both operate under the same laws of nature.

To give an example: For a motor to reach 100.000 RPM it must be in perfect balance. Individual parts must be manufactured within precise tolerances keeping dimensional accuracy at its highest. Any imbalance will cause vibrations which will put a limit to the rotation speed, lower efficiency, and potentially be outright destructive. Research has revealed the FM to be an absolute marvel when it comes to energy efficiency.

This confirms a high standard of engineering where tolerances are kept strict.

You know it from when you get new tyres on the car. The tyre guy mounts small pieces of metal on the rim in order to bring balance to a not perfectly manufactured tyre. Unbalanced tyres will cause nauseating vibrations and could in extreme cases even cause danger at high speed. Although being about 45 nanometers the flagellum motor still operates under the same laws of nature as the tyre, and at 100.000 RPM, it would vibrate itself to pieces if it weren’t 100 % balanced.

Comparing the FM to the electric motor:

You would think it reasonable, not the least within science, to expect similar effects to have similar causes. The electric motor and the FM are so similar in construction and function, that it is unreasonable and unscientific to rule out the obvious possibility that they share the same causality.

We always try to avoid the occurrence of random changes in machinery because they produce havoc. In the imaginary world of evolution though, this rule is suspended, and not only suspended but reversed as it is claimed that random changes in fact constitutes the innovative force causing evolution to progress.

In the real world causes and effects regarding complex functional systems like for instance electric motors look like this:

CauseEffect
Intelligent design
Complex functional systems
Random changes
Havoc

In the evolutionary narrative cause and effect look like this:

CauseEffect
Randomchanges
Complex functional systems

Empirical evidence (from the world of engineering) supports the assumption that complex functional systems like motors do not arise via random changes to already existing systems. Empirical evidence, even from biology itself, also supports the common knowledge that random changes to functional systems disturb, disrupt, or destroy function.

We find no empirical evidence to support those evolutionary claims that happens to completely contradict these two lines of evidence. We do not even find phenomena that could justify questioning this common sense knowledge.

Insisting on finding an evolutionary explanation for the flagellum motor is the same as trying to find an unnecessary, less probable, and more complicated causality hence violating the principle of Ockham’s razor. If your car keys are gone you don’t start an investigation by first assuming the most unlikely hypothesis like leprechauns or fairies might have taken your keys. No, you start an investigation by assuming the most likely and logical, like maybe your wife took the keys. If this principle were applied to the investigation into the origin of the flagellum motor, you would start with presuming design.

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