Michael J. Behe's Blog, page 200

May 11, 2021

Study: Animals do not usually try to avoid mating with their own kin

Contrary to widespread belief among biologists, according to authors of a recent wide-ranging study:

Biologists have long believed that it’s adaptive for most species to avoid mate pairings between close kin because of the potential genetic fallout, but a meta-analysis published May 3 in Nature Ecology & Evolution challenges this long-held assumption…

The finding also bolsters what were previously considered to be unexpected findings of frequent inbreeding or a lack of inbreeding avoidance in some wild populations.

The authors examined nearly 140 experimental studies of inbreeding avoidance conducted on 88 species—everything from fruit flies to humans—and found little evidence that animals on the whole prefer non-relatives.

Christie Wilcox, “Incest Isn’t Taboo in Nature: Study” at The Scientist

The paper is open access, via a SharedIt token.

Thing is, it was never clear exactly what the mechanism is supposed to be for animals to try to avoid mating with kin. So it’s no surprise that most aren’t really doing that anyway.

Maybe if researchers focus on situations where breeding with close kin can really be shown to be happening, they can identify how the animals know. Then try to find out how such mechanisms would come to exist.

One problem with Darwinian thinking is that theory comes first and then evidence is found for it. That seems to have happened with beliefs about animals avoiding mating with kin.

Even author Regina Vega-Trejo falls into that trap when discussing the comparatively smaller number of animal species that prefer to mate with kin:

One of the things to keep in mind is that when you make a decision to mate or to reproduce, what you basically want is to pass on your genes. And half of your genetic material will go to your offspring, but the other half of the genetic material will come from your partner. And if you mate with your brother, for example, you’re actually passing on more genes that belong to you [because he has some of the same genes]. So, that might be one of the things that animals—I mean, they don’t think or consider—but that’s one of the advantages [of inbreeding].

Christie Wilcox, “Incest Isn’t Taboo in Nature: Study” at The Scientist

No, indeed. The animals don’t “think or consider.” They also don’t want to pass on their genes. That’s ultra-Darwinian nonsense. They want to mate and whatever happens is what happens. Darwinian nonsense around a drive to pass on genes simply clouds the picture.

See also: Mice from opposite coasts of North America show the same changes in genes. The house mouse, beloved of cats, only arrived in North America with Europeans, so there aren’t millions of years to make up a story about how things happened.

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 May 11, 2021 19:47

Philosopher Angus Menuge on why traditional physicalism isn’t really working

Angus Menuge

Some philosophers today claim that the mind is simply what the brain does; a newer group thinks the mind emerges from the brain but is not simply the brain. Angus Menuge of Concordia University explains:

And it’s interesting that, over time, thinkers have moved more and more in non-reductionist directions. More and more they use the language of emergence…

And, it’s amazing, now there are positions endorsed which would have seemed quite desperate, such as panpsychism, the idea that maybe everything physical has something mind-like about it. Eventually, mind-like properties emerge. An extraordinary proliferation of theories and about the only thing that people can agree on in philosophy of mind is that they all seem to have serious difficulties and are unsatisfactory in one way rather than another.

News, “How have various thinkers tried to solve the mind–body problem? ” at Mind Matters News

The shift toward emergentism will probably begin to affect debates over evolution. Evolution theories based on physicalism will likely face challenges from unexpected quarters.

Here are the earlier parts of the series:

Part 1: How do we know we are not just physical bodies? The mind–body problem is one of the most difficult issues in modern philosophy. Philosopher Angus Menuge cites the immateriality and indivisibility of the mind and discusses the evidence from near-death experiences.

Part 2: If the mind and body are so different, how can they interact? A look at different models of the mind–body problem. Angus Menuge asks, Why should wanting a drink of milk produce physical changes like opening the fridge? It’s a harder question than many think.

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on May 11, 2021 18:48

The wall between classical and quantum physics is shifting

aluminum/CC BY 3.0

Rob Sheldon explains, if nearly visible objects can be turned into waves — as was done recently — the wall between quantum and classical physics has moved:

Just recently, researchers managed to “entangle” two very tiny aluminum drums as if they were merely quantum particles — a first that helps pave the way for quantum computing. But it’s an unsettling first because the world above the level of the electron (macroscopic world) is supposed to behave according to Newton’s classical physics rules, not weird quantum rules under which two entangled particles sync no matter how far apart they are (non-locality).

[From Sheldon]In the recent experiment, the group at NIST had about a trillion aluminum atoms in a microscopic “drumhead” that bends up and down like a drum when they shine microwaves of the same frequency on it.

They connected two drums together with a microwave waveguide. Then, like Pritchard, they cooled their drums down to eliminate random shaking from hot atoms, pinged them with a microwave pulse to start them vibrating, and looked to see if their vibrations are talking to each other. They claim that it takes lots and lots of statistics, but after all the random stuff is smoothed out, the trillion or so atoms are syncing up with each other in ways that cannot be classical.

The result? We now have evidence that we can coherently treat a trillion aluminum atoms as a single wave. The wall between QM and classical has moved, and nearly naked eye visible objects can be turned into waves.

News, “Researchers make a trillion aluminum atoms behave as single wave” at Mind Matters News

The world is stranger than we used to think.

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on May 11, 2021 18:17

May 10, 2021

Ethan Siegel asks why so few challenge the Big Bang

It only really became a standard idea in the 1960s:

As recently as 20 years ago, the Big Bang was one of many ideas that scientists continued to entertain: quasi-steady state theory, plasma cosmology, and quantized redshifts remained mainstays in the scientific literature. But today, it’s largely crackpots and a few fringe contrarians who muster even the flimsiest of challenges to the consensus position: that the Universe began with a hot Big Bang. Is the field of cosmology succumbing to groupthink, as its detractors often claim, or is the lack of alternatives justified? Let’s dive in and find out…

So what happened over the past few decades, that all of the major challenges to the Big Bang have fallen away? Two major events: the collection of large suites of high-quality data, which validated the Big Bang’s major predictions to incredibly high precision, and the fact that the main advocates of the alternatives — once they no longer became defensible on their own merits — got old and died.

If any scientifically viable alternatives to the Big Bang ever arise, almost every modern cosmologist would thoroughly welcome it, and then immediately put it to the test.

Ethan Siegel, “Why Isn’t Anyone Seriously Challenging The Big Bang?” at Forbes

Well, not so sure they would put it to anything like a serious test.

The Big Bang has been very unpopular. It reeks of purpose and is an incitement to theism. It survives only because the evidence rules out all alternatives, as Siegel notes.

But don’t mistake frustration on the part of naturalist atheists for acceptance.

This is the kind of thing naturalist atheists hate:

See also: The Big Bang: Put simply,the facts are wrong.

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on May 10, 2021 19:47

Richard Dawkins goes after people with Down syndrome… again

Richard Dawkins Cooper Union Shankbone.jpg

Richard Dawkins by David Shankbone (2010) New York City’s Cooper Union to discuss his book The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution (CC BY 3.0)

Richard Dawkins appeared on Brendan O’Connor’s RTE radio show in Ireland on May 9, probably on the assumption that he’d bash Catholics and God. Apparently, he shared his “termination” views re people born with a disability. As it happens, the daughter of radio host O’Connor, has Down syndrome. It’s at the 1 hr 17 min mark at Brendan O’Connor. We don’t have transcript but O’Connor is considered to have handled the matter with dignity.

Something like that happened in 2014 when former Alaska governor Sarah Palin got wind of Dawkins’s views, widely aired, that it was immoral not to abort kids with Down’s. She said would instruct her son Trig (who also has Down syndrome) to be polite.

Brendan O’Connor

It’s interesting that, for decades, Dawkins could say the most awful things and still be popular. But there’s some evidence, noted here, that he’s starting to lose his shine, along with Darwinism in general.

We’ll keep an eye on that one; could be an early signal of a trend.

Ken Francis, hat tipped below, says that Dawkins should have been asked these questions:

He should’ve been asked the following questions:

Where do these moral values you talk about come from?How can humans, if we’re animals according to Darwinism, act morally if animals aren’t moral agents?How can humans perform moral acts if they don’t have freedom of the will?If a Down syndrome baby has moral worth when born, why don’t they have it in the womb; is this argument based on geographical location and/or size?

See also: Mind Matters News Why do some famous materialist scientists hate philosophy? Takehome: Perhaps some scientists disparage philosophy because they do not like to admit that science starts with choices and choices entail philosophy. Philosopher of biology Massimo Pigliucci takes Richard Dawkins to task for that but he might have said the same of Stephen Hawking:

Hat tip: Ken Francis, co-author with Theodore Dalrymple of The Terror of Existence: From Ecclesiastes to Theatre of the Absurd

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

1 like · Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on May 10, 2021 18:55

Why “Follow the science” is showing its age as a slogan

In a longish but most informative piece, physicist and political scientist Matthew Crawford asks us to look at what goes into the sausage of science these days:

The phrase “follow the science” has a false ring to it. That is because science doesn’t lead anywhere. It can illuminate various courses of action, by quantifying the risks and specifying the tradeoffs. But it can’t make the necessary choices for us. By pretending otherwise, decision-makers can avoid taking responsibility for the choices they make on our behalf.

Increasingly, science is pressed into duty as authority. It is invoked to legitimise the transfer of sovereignty from democratic to technocratic bodies, and as a device for insulating such moves from the realm of political contest.

Over the past year, a fearful public has acquiesced to an extraordinary extension of expert jurisdiction over every domain of life. A pattern of “government by emergency” has become prominent, in which resistance to such incursions are characterised as “anti-science”.

But the question of political legitimacy hanging over rule by experts is not likely to go away. If anything, it will be more fiercely fought in coming years as leaders of governing bodies invoke a climate emergency that is said to require a wholesale transformation of society. We need to know how we arrived here.

Matthew Crawford, “How science has been corrupted” at Unherd

There is certain to be a door marked Exit. Better find it. Science is no better fitted, all by itself, to be government than religion is.

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on May 10, 2021 18:05

May 9, 2021

Sheffield University: Darwin ruled “problematic” figure due to racism

Had to happen:

A university has been slammed by academics for putting Charles Darwin on a list of ‘racist’ scientists as part of a guide to ‘decolonise’ its biology curriculum.

Sheffield University has created a handbook for students and lecturers in its science department to help ‘tackle racial injustice’ by ‘reflecting on the whiteness and Eurocentrism of our science’.

As part of the guide, the department created a list of 11 ‘problematic’ scientific figures – including Darwin – whose views ‘influenced the type of research they carried out and how they interpreted their data’.

William Cole, “Sheffield University tells staff Charles Darwin was ‘racist’ and used natural selection theory to justify white male superiority in ‘decolonising curriculum’ lecturing handbook” at Daily Mail

Author William Cole emphasizes Darwin’s opposition to slavery but one of his quoted experts puts that in perspective: “Professor James Moore, a biographer of Darwin, told The Telegraph: ‘Almost everyone in Darwin’s day was “racist” in 21st century terms, not only scientists and naturalists but even anti-slavery campaigners and abolitionists.”

Of course. There’s no reason why a racist couldn’t also be a passionate abolitionist. Whatever a person may believe about human equality, slavery is a corrupting influence on any society.

A wiser approach to fighting back would be to pry Woke administrators and faculty loose from employment, wherever possible. Choosing between them and civilization should not be difficult.

The article provides a whole list of non-woke historically significant scientists about to be subjected to whatever the Woke have in store for them, mostly post-mortem. That should be an incentive.

Hat tip: Ken Francis, co-author with Theodore Dalrymple of The Terror of Existence: From Ecclesiastes to Theatre of the Absurd

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on May 09, 2021 21:25

A materialist philosopher explains how panpsychism is logically compatible with materialism

Galen Strawson starts with the one fact of which we are most certain — our own consciousness:

He breaks his approach down into steps:

Step one is: one thing we know for sure is that consciousness is real.

Step two—this is an assumption, technically— [is] I believe there’s only one kind of stuff and I call it “physical stuff.”

So, I’m a physicalist and I know that consciousness is real. I have to say that consciousness is physical. That’s step three.

ROBERT WRIGHT, “WHAT IS IT LIKE TO BE AN ELECTRON? AN INTERVIEW WITH GALEN STRAWSON” AT NONZERO (JUNE 28, 2020)

But now what is Step four? If consciousness is physical, is it universal in both animate and inanimate nature?

Whether or not Strawson’s panpsychism offers a coherent view of evolution, it’s easy to see the attraction: a way of accommodating consciousness, the one thing of which we feel utterly certain, in a wholly material universe. Those who are content to make fun of panpsychism are probably underestimating that attraction.

Takehome: To Strawson, it makes more sense to say that consciousness is physical — and that electrons are conscious — than that consciousness is an illusion.

You may also wish to read: Why would a neuroscientist choose panpsychism over materialism? It seems to have come down to a choice between “nothing is conscious” and “everything is conscious.”

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

1 like · Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on May 09, 2021 20:51

Most human origin stories incompatible with the fossils?

[image error]The last common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans represents the starting point of human and chimpanzee evolution. Fossil apes play an essential role when it comes to reconstructing the nature of our ape ancestry./
Printed with permission from © Christopher M. Smith

Well, that’s what some researchers are saying:

“When you look at the narrative for hominin origins, it’s just a big mess–there’s no consensus whatsoever,” said Sergio Almécija, a senior research scientist in the American Museum of Natural History’s Division of Anthropology and the lead author of the review. “People are working under completely different paradigms, and that’s something that I don’t see happening in other fields of science.” …

“In The Descent of Man in 1871, Darwin speculated that humans originated in Africa from an ancestor different from any living species. However, he remained cautious given the scarcity of fossils at the time,” Almécija said. “One hundred fifty years later, possible hominins–approaching the time of the human-chimpanzee divergence–have been found in eastern and central Africa, and some claim even in Europe. In addition, more than 50 fossil ape genera are now documented across Africa and Eurasia. However, many of these fossils show mosaic combinations of features that do not match expectations for ancient representatives of the modern ape and human lineages. As a consequence, there is no scientific consensus on the evolutionary role played by these fossil apes.”

Overall, the researchers found that most stories of human origins are not compatible with the fossils that we have today.

American Museum of Natural History, “Review: Most human origins stories are not compatible with known fossils” at Eurekalert (May 6, 2021)

Of course, human origins stories don’t need to be compatible with the fossils; they only need to be compatible with the theory.

Philip Cunningham draws our attention to a 2013 item as well:

The article, “No known hominin species matches the expected dental morphology of the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans,” relies on fossils of approximately 1,200 molars and premolars from 13 species or types of hominins — humans and human relatives and ancestors. Fossils from the well-known Atapuerca sites have a crucial role in this research, accounting for more than 15 percent of the complete studied fossil collection.,,, They conclude with high statistical confidence that none of the hominins usually proposed as a common ancestor, such as Homo heidelbergensis, H. erectus and H. antecessor, is a satisfactory match. “None of the species that have been previously suggested as the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans has a dental morphology that is fully compatible with the expected morphology of this ancestor,” Gómez-Robles said.

Indiana University, “No Known Hominin Is Common Ancestor of Neanderthals and Modern Humans, Study Suggests” at ScienceDaily (October 21, 2013)

Hat tip: Philip Cunningham

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on May 09, 2021 20:02

BioLogos hosts Stephen Meyer to talk about his new book, Return of the God Hypothesis

Readers may recall Biologos as a theistic evolution confab, founded by, among others, genome mapper Francis Collins. Here’s both a podcast and transcript of an interview with Steve Meyer on The Return of the God Hypothesis. BioLogos Vice President Jim Stump is the host.

There’s also a guide to the episode.

David Klinghoffer observes at Evolution News and Science Today:

The tension makes the podcast particularly interesting. Their disagreements take some familiar forms, if you’ve followed the debate up till now. Stump advances the “God of the gaps” critique, which Meyer blunts. For his part, Steve notes “a default assumption of naturalism” in the BioLogos position and, as I said, in their very words.

For the armchair sociologist, the words take on an additional significance. While I’m not a Christian, I have the sense that BioLogos speaks to a very specific slice of the American Evangelical Christian community. That’s as compared with ID’s big tent, which is broad both as to other commitments (philosophical, theological) and as to geography. ID is a diverse, international phenomenon. I even detect a certain BioLogos manner of writing and speaking, which I think I would recognize anywhere.

David Klinghoffer, “Return of the God Hypothesis — BioLogos Hosts Stephen Meyer for a Podcast Discussion” at Evolution News and Science Today

Klinghoffer’s onto something there. Needing to defend Darwinism to evangelicals is kind of a specialty.

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on May 09, 2021 18:42

← Previous 1 2 … 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 … 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.