Michael J. Behe's Blog, page 179

Oldest fossils push back life to 3.42 billion years ago

All the less time for Darwinism to work its supposed magic:

A team of international researchers, led by the University of Bologna, has discovered the fossilised remains of methane-cycling microbes that lived in a hydrothermal system beneath the seafloor 3.42 billion years ago.

The microfossils are the oldest evidence for this type of life and expand the frontiers of potentially habitable environments on the early Earth, as well as other planets such as Mars.

The study, published in the journal Science Advances, analysed microfossil specimens in two thin layers within a rock collected from the Barberton Greenstone Belt in South Africa. This region, near the border with Eswatini and Mozambique, contains some of the oldest and best-preserved sedimentary rocks found on our planet.

The microfossils have a carbon-rich outer sheath and a chemically and structurally distinct core, consistent with a cell wall or membrane around intracellular or cytoplasmic matter.

Università Di Bologna , “Oldest fossils of methane-cycling microbes expand frontiers of habitability on early Earth” at Eurekalert

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

Researchers: Spiders use the same cues as vertebrates in distinguishing living vs. non-living things

The researchers actually put jumping spiders on a treadmill:

To investigate this phenomenon in invertebrates for the first time, researchers partially restrained 60 wild-caught jumping spiders (Menemerus semilimbatus) on a spherical treadmill and used a computer screen to show point-light displays on each side of their peripheral vision (only visible to their lateral eyes). They found that spiders were more likely to try to turn and face displays that showed random movements, compared to those that moved in a more biological way, with the distances between joints constrained.

The result seems contrary to the expectation that spiders should focus their attention on objects in their surroundings that appear to be living — potential prey, mate or predator. However, the authors suggest that this behavior may allow the spiders to focus their forward-facing primary eyes on unidentifiable objects to get a better look. Complex vision evolved independently in vertebrates and arthropods and so the ability to distinguish living from non-living motion using the relative positioning of the joints has most likely arisen convergently in the two groups of animals.

“Jumping spiders’ secondary eyes confirm themselves to be a marvelous tool,” the researchers add. “In this experiment, we observed how they alone can tell apart living from non-living organisms, using the semi-rigid pattern of motion that characterize the formers and without the aid of any shape cue. Finding the presence of this skill, previously known only in vertebrates, opens up new and exciting perspectives on the evolution of visual perception. My co-authors and I can’t wait to see what other visual cues can be perceived and understood by these tiny creatures.”

PLOS, “How spiders distinguish living from non-living using motion-based visual cues” at ScienceDaily

In other words, convergent evolution means that the spiders achieve the same goals as vertebrates by different means, with no slow plod up the Darwinian tree of life.

The paper is open access.

See also: In what ways are spiders intelligent?

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

But the war IS actually on logic … and that’s the point

Some of us have had a really hard time getting across the fact that the war on math is in fact a war on adding up numbers. That’s what the warriors mean — and they do mean it.

Similarly, a war on logic means just that. An attempted takedown of ID (here linked to opposition to Critical Race Theory) illustrates the point:

“In form, the fight over critical race theory in schools resembles earlier panics over the teaching of intelligent design and its cousin creationism,” observes Sarah Jones in a recent article for New York Magazine’s online Intelligencer website.

I found myself doing a double-take after reading that sentence. Does Jones really mean to suggest that those creating a “panic” over critical race theory (CRT) are like the dogmatic Darwinists who tried to create a “panic” over the teaching of intelligent design?

Bear with Me as I Explain

In her article, Jones essentially argues that worries about critical race theory have been ginned up by conservative provocateurs who play fast and loose with the facts. In her view, critical race theory is simply an effort to teach historical reality, and those attacking it are unfairly manufacturing a crisis over it.

But if that’s what she believes about those who are creating “panic” over CRT, then the logic of her comparison would seem to require a similar view of those who opposed intelligent design: The intolerant defenders of Darwinian evolution who tried to instill “panic” over the teaching of intelligent design must also have been provocateurs who were ginning up a fake controversy, while in reality there was nothing wrong with teaching intelligent design.

Surely Jones couldn’t actually mean that, I thought.

A Proper Comparison

Sure enough, she didn’t. Reading the rest of her article I realized she simply didn’t know how to frame a proper comparison. She actually was attempting to malign those who support intelligent design, not those who tried to create panic over it. Apparently neither she nor her editor is particularly good with logic.

John West, “Critical Race Theory and Intelligent Design: The Mixed-Up Comparison of Sarah Jones” at Evolution News

But that’s the whole point. The whole enterprise is a war on logic. It’s like the war on math and the war on science. And there is a sophisticated public for that.

Dr. West is assuming that logic is wanted. No, this is the same sort of thing as the attack on non-Darwinists as “white supremacists” when, in fact, almost all the white supremacy stuff was on the Darwinian side… The revolutionary genius today, such as it is, is in throwing logic to the winds and making a straight-up appeal to mere vulgar prejudice in their reading public.

We can’t tell you whether it will work. We can safely warn that it won’t be pretty and that it will never do any good.

See also:

At Scientific American: “Denial of Evolution Is a Form of White Supremacy” Wow. Has the Darwin lobby hired itself a PR firm that recommended getting someone on board to accuse everyone who doubts Darwin of being a “white supremacist”? Quite simply, Charles Darwin’s Descent of Man is surely by far the most racist iconic document ever to be lauded by all the Right People! And getting someone to holler about “white supremacy” among Darwin doubters is, ahem, just a cheap shot, not a response to the stark raving racism in print of the actual document. Guys, try another one.

and

Darwinian biologist Jerry Coyne speaks out on a SciAm op-ed’s claims that denial of evolution stems from white supremacy. It seems obvious, on reflection, that Hopper’s piece is a disastrously clumsy effort on the part of Scientific American to get Woke. Darwinian evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne thinks the mag is not just circling the drain but “approaching the drainhole.” To the extent that the editors couldn’t find someone who at least gets basic facts right, he has a point.

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 do dogs understand people better than wolves?

The difference in attitude to humans between dog pups and wolf pups was dramatically demonstrated in a recent study:

In the study, the wolf pups were raised so as to trust humans and the dog pups were not. Yet the wolf pups did not trust humans — but the dog pups did.

“Yet, both sets of puppies were equally skilled at other tests of mental ability, Salomons said. It was only people-reading skills that the dog puppies were better at.” …

The results, while dramatic, should not be surprising. Humans have been breeding dogs for thousands of years. We have been intelligently designing them to depend on us, obey us, help us, and want our approval …

News, “Why do dogs understand people better than wolves? ” at Mind Matters News

You may also wish to read: In what ways are dogs intelligent? There is no human counterpart to some types of dog intelligence.

and

The real reason why only human beings speak. Language is a tool for abstract thinking—a necessary tool for abstraction—and humans are the only animals who think abstractly.

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

How do humans have a number sense?

It’s a surprisingly controversial question with a — perhaps unsettling — answer

A critic might retort, “Of course it’s just biology! Lots of animals can count!”

Well yes, they can, but for them it is not an abstraction. It seems always related to small, practical quantities:

In the late 1980s, researchers showed that chimpanzees could add up the number of chocolates in two food bowls (up to five pieces of chocolate in each bowl), compare it with the sum of two other food bowls, and correctly choose the larger of the two sums 90 percent of the time.

JOSEPH CASTRO, “CAN ANIMALS COUNT?” AT LIVESCIENCE (DECEMBER 3, 2017)

The ability to distinguish more from fewer chocolates probably has a biological explanation. But chimpanzee chocolate fans are not interested in the chiliagon. We need a different account of that interest. Evolution won’t help because we don’t know when or even how language emerged.

Mathematics may well be an argument for dualism, the idea that the universe is intrinsically dual. It is both concrete and abstract, depending. Both the Chimp Chocolate Stakes and Chaitin’s Unknowable Number.

News, “Is our “number sense” biology, culture — or something else?” at Mind Matters News

Takehome: Mathematics supports a dualist view of the universe. Both concrete and abstract, depending. Both the Chimp Chocolate Stakes and Chaitin’s Unknowable Number.

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

Quotes of Nobel Laureates & Scientists About God and Evolution

Relax with coffee …

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 Evolution News: Is the universe “causally closed”?

Michael Egnor explains why not:

In my recent debate with David Papineau about materialism and dualism, much of our discussion turned on the question of causal closure. Materialists generally argue that dualism of mind and brain is not possible because of causal closure — by which they mean that all physical effects have physical causes. They generally extend this argument to deny the existence of God. They argue that the fundamental cause of everything is just the material universe and that causation of the universe by God would violate causal closure and would be unintelligible. To the question “What caused the universe?” atheists and materialists argue that the universe is not an effect but exists in its own right and therefore does not need a cause.

To buttress their argument, materialists claim that modern physics affirms causal closure.

They Couldn’t Be More Wrong

As I noted, causal closure means that all physical effects have physical causes. Modern physics is replete with examples of physical effects that have no physical causes and cannot have physical causes.

Michael Egnor, “Is the Universe Causally Closed?” at Evolution News and Science Today

Egnor goes on to cite the Big Bang, singularities in black holes, and the field equations of curved space-time, quantum entanglement, and — of course — the immaterial mind.

That should be enough to keep the average materialist busy thinking up purely material explanations.

See also: Other fun moments in the Egnor–Papineau debate:

Neurosurgeon Michael Egnor takes on philosopher David Papineau

Round 1. In the debate, Egnor begins by offering three fundamental reasons why the mind is not the brain. Neuroscience caused Egnor to honestly doubt Papineau’s materialist perspective that the mind is simply what the brain does.

Round 2: Philosopher Papineau replies to neurosurgeon Egnor. Dr. Papineau is considered to be one of the best defenders of naturalism (nature is all there is), often called “materialism.” Papineau: Mental processes, including conscious processes, are one in the same as physical processes. I’m curious about how Michael Egnor would answer it.

Round 3: Egnor vs Papineau: The Big Bang has no natural beginning. In the debate between theistic neurosurgeon Michael Egnor and naturalist philosopher David Papineau, the question gets round to the origin of the universe itself. Egnor maintains that the Big Bang, which is held to have created the universe, is an effect with no physical cause. Papineau agrees.
Round 4: Egnor vs. Papineau Egnor defends the mind vs. the brain

Round 4: Philosopher David Papineau does not feel that neurosurgeon Michael Egnor is being “entirely helpful” at this point… It became quite the dustup actually. Egnor deals with the brain as an organ, not a theory, and doesn’t see it as equivalent to the mind. Papineau differs.

Round 5: Can traditional philosophy help us understand mind vs. brain? Michael Egnor asks us to look back to the traditional idea that the soul is the “form” of the body. In the Western world, the traditional view of the soul originated with Greek philosophers, chiefly Aristotle and Plato.

Quantum physics: Is everything determined? Egnor vs. Papineau Physicalist philosopher David Papineau is clearly unhappy with the implications of quantum mechanics, as neurosurgeon Michael Egnor sets them out. As a physicalist, Papineau is quite sure that the universe is deterministic and he endorses the many-worlds (multiverse) theory.

Also: Philosopher: Consciousness Is Not a Problem. Dualism Is! He says that consciousness is just “brain processes that feel like something” Physicalist David Papineau argues that consciousness “seems mysterious not because of any hidden essence, but only because we think about it in a special way.” In short, it’s all in our heads. But wait, say others, the hard problem of consciousness is not so easily dismissed.

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 hint as to how unicellular life forms grew to be multicellular?

We are told, “When facing a predator, single cells sometimes unite to defend themselves, paving the way for more complex multicellular life forms to evolve:

One theory posits that single-celled organisms evolved multicellularity through a specific series of adaptations. First, cells began adhering to each other, creating cell groups that have a higher survival rate, partly because it’s harder for predators to kill a group of cells than a single cell. But this defensive adaptation comes at the price of a lowered reproduction rate; only through adaptations acquired over generations do cell groups become better at reproducing than single cells.

Stephen Johnson, “How evolution shifts from unicellular to multicellular life” at BigThink (July 14, 2021)

The theory was tested on algae:

After six months, all the algae strains that faced the predator had evolved into cell groups. Meanwhile, only four of the 10 algae strains without predators evolved into groups. Surprisingly, this transition toward simple multicellularity occurred relatively quickly, over just 500 generations or six months. (The algae replicated about once every 9 hours.) …

After cell groups boosted their defenses against predators, they were able to increase their reproductive rates. The researchers noted that these adaptations occurred on the genome level and were heritable, suggesting that with enough exposure to a selection pressure, like predation, the evolution toward multicellularity might be inevitable.

Stephen Johnson, “How evolution shifts from unicellular to multicellular life” at BigThink (July 14, 2021)

The paper is open access.

But wait. Before we get carried away, botanist Margaret Helder writes to say,

Lots of algae exhibit clumping together in groups. This is not the definition of multicellularity. There are quite a number of colonial relatives of Chlamydomonas, for example like Eudorina, Pandorina and Volvox. They are not evolving into anything.

Multicellularity, by definition, involves differentiation of cells into different tissues with different roles.

This study seems very simplistic. One wonders if the referees knew anything about algae.

The referees do know that claiming a breakthrough is good for business.

Generally, a colony of cells is not a multicellular body, even if the cells co-operate. It takes more than that. They must be obligate members of a system.

Here are the study’s vids:

and

Here’s a Volvox colony:

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: The reality of the mind: The argument from epilepsy

Neurosurgeon Michael Egnor asks, Why do epileptic seizures evoke many odd behaviors but not abstract thought?

In the continuing discussion between neurosurgeon Michael Egnor and philosopher David Papineau, Egnor talked about his experience
with epilepsy patients.:

Michael Egnor: There are three metaphysical questions that I think can be answered in an inferential way, by neuroscience, about the mind-brain relationship. The first question is, is the mind metaphysically simple? That is, can it be divided into parts? The second question is are there aspects of the mind that are immaterial? And the third question is, is free will real? [00:50:00] The immaterial one is a good one to start with.

Wilder Penfield, who was a pioneer in seizure neurosurgery in the mid-20th century, found that when he did “awake craniotomies” to treat seizure patients, these patients were fully awake during the surgery, with local anesthesia so they felt no pain (and I’ve done the same kind of surgery) that he could not evoke any abstract thought or intellectual content on stimulating the brain. He could invoke movement … he could evoke sensations, he could evoke emotions, and he could evoke memories. He could not evoke abstract thought.

“Note: Awake craniotomy “Awake brain surgery, also called awake craniotomy, is a type of procedure performed on the brain while you are awake and alert. Awake brain surgery is used to treat some brain (neurological) conditions, including some brain tumors or epileptic seizures.” Why? “Surgery while you are awake reduces the risk of damaging critical brain areas that control speech and other skills.” – Mayo Clinic”

Michael Egnor: He also noted that there are no seizures that evoke intellectual content, and I’ve seen the same thing.

News, “The reality of the mind: The argument from epilepsy” at Mind Matters News

You may also wish to read the earlier portions of the debate:

Neurosurgeon Michael Egnor takes on philosopher David Papineau

Round 1. In the debate, Egnor begins by offering three fundamental reasons why the mind is not the brain. Neuroscience caused Egnor to honestly doubt Papineau’s materialist perspective that the mind is simply what the brain does.

Round 2: Philosopher Papineau replies to neurosurgeon Egnor. Dr. Papineau is considered to be one of the best defenders of naturalism (nature is all there is), often called “materialism.” Papineau: Mental processes, including conscious processes, are one in the same as physical processes. I’m curious about how Michael Egnor would answer it.

Round 3: Egnor vs Papineau: The Big Bang has no natural beginning. In the debate between theistic neurosurgeon Michael Egnor and naturalist philosopher David Papineau, the question gets round to the origin of the universe itself. Egnor maintains that the Big Bang, which is held to have created the universe, is an effect with no physical cause. Papineau agrees.
Round 4: Egnor vs. Papineau Egnor defends the mind vs. the brain

Round 4: Philosopher David Papineau does not feel that neurosurgeon Michael Egnor is being “entirely helpful” at this point… It became quite the dustup actually. Egnor deals with the brain as an organ, not a theory, and doesn’t see it as equivalent to the mind. Papineau differs.

Round 5: Can traditional philosophy help us understand mind vs. brain? Michael Egnor asks us to look back to the traditional idea that the soul is the “form” of the body. In the Western world, the traditional view of the soul originated with Greek philosophers, chiefly Aristotle and Plato.

Round 6: Quantum physics: Is everything determined? Egnor vs. Papineau Physicalist philosopher David Papineau is clearly unhappy with the implications of quantum mechanics, as neurosurgeon Michael Egnor sets them out. As a physicalist, Papineau is quite sure that the universe is deterministic and he endorses the many-worlds (multiverse) theory.

Also: Philosopher: Consciousness Is Not a Problem. Dualism Is! He says that consciousness is just “brain processes that feel like something” Physicalist David Papineau argues that consciousness “seems mysterious not because of any hidden essence, but only because we think about it in a special way.” In short, it’s all in our heads. But wait, say others, the hard problem of consciousness is not so easily dismissed.

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 Oscillations: Michael Ruse’s attempted takedown of evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin (but read the story!)

The recent death of Richard Lewontin, an intellectual giant in evolution theory, has prompted a number of reflections.

Science journalist Suzan Mazur talks about an e-mail she received from Darwinian philosopher Michael Ruse, a figure of whom many readers will be aware, commenting on her own thoughts on Lewontin at her blog, Oscillations:

Michael Ruse sees Richard Lewontin as a “brilliant scientist,” albeit “tragic figure.” Tragic because Lewontin pulled the plug on natural selection after, as Ruse tells it, “he did more to establish the plausibility of evolution through natural selection than anyone.” Ruse’s July 8, 2021 email to me about Lewontin follows …

Suzan Mazur, “Michael Ruse — Lewontin “Tragic Figure” AND “Greatest [Scientist] of the Twentieth Century”” at Oscillations (July 13, 2021)

Read the story. Ruse appears to have been a relentless enforcer of Darwinian orthodoxy behind the scenes, including a blistering attack on philosopher Jerry Fodor, who questioned it.

Note: Mazur is the author of The Altenberg 16: An exposé of the evolution industry (2010), about a significant revolt against orthodox Darwinism by a number of evolutionary theorists.

See also: Science journalist Suzan Mazur remembers Richard Lewontin. She remembers him as “opposing the establishment of Darwinian dogma.”

Other remembrances of Lewontin:

Richard Lewontin (1929 – 2021) has died

The Scientist’s obit on Harvard evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin (1929–2021) notes his takedown of the notion of “race” At The Scientist: “He also wrote a seminal 1972 paper in which he argued there is more genetic variation within members of a population of humans than there is between members of different groups, undermining the idea that there is a genetic basis for the idea of race. “

and

Tributes to Richard Lewontin (1919 – 2021) Paul Nelson: Lewontin opposed the facile storytelling of much of sociobiology, with its invocation of hypothetical genes for equally hypothetical behavioral traits. The fact that his opposition stemmed in part from his politics is no indictment; his evidential critique holds its value, or stands on its own two legs, independently of the Marxism. Show me the actual data, he would say, or stop the storytelling.

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