Michael J. Behe's Blog, page 207

April 24, 2021

Seeds like airplanes

Remarkable footage has been captured of falling Alsomitra vine seeds, which use paper-thin wings to disperse like giant gliders.

The seeds, which are produced by a football-sized pod, can glide hundreds of metres across the forest.

That ensures that the seeds fall far from their parent, giving the next generation of vines a head start.

Matt Walker, “Vine seeds become ‘giant gliders’” at Earth News

Double bill:

But, we are told, there is no design in nature? Time to stop catering to wilful stupidity.

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 »

1 like · Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on April 24, 2021 20:44

Even if humans were “evolving smarter,” would it make any difference?

The really surprising thing, science writer David Robson, author of The Intelligence Trap: Why smart people make dumb mistakes (2019), notes, is that it may not matter as much as we think:

Apparently, intelligence does not cause us to be less influenced by cognitive biases like these:

● temporal discounting — We grab short-term gains in place of long-term benefits. For example, we insist on a particular new traffic control system because it is popular (thus we are popular too) when a different new system would perform better over the long run (but requires long-term investment).

● confirmation bias — In a pro vs. con discussion, we pay more attention to evidence that supports our current views than evidence that doesn’t. We don’t even look for evidence that tests our views. For example, if we already believe that the popular new traffic control system is a must, we focus on the traffic studies that support our views and ignore the ones that do not.

● sunk cost bias — We continue to invest in something that is clearly failing because facing reality after all this time is just too painful. For example, we continue to support the new traffic control system even though it has multiplied our traffic problems because, by now, the lesson is too much of a wallop to our egos.

News, “Are we humans getting smarter or have we peaked?” at Mind Matters News

Takehome: Surprising as it may seem, there is no clear evidence that key thinking skills improve with measured intelligence.

It’s almost like the critical thing for human beings to have is not merely intelligence but wisdom. Oh, wait …

You may also wish to read: Is the octopus a “second genesis” of intelligence? Can its strange powers provide insights for robotics or the human mind?

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

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

1 like · Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on April 24, 2021 20:19

Is there a law of evolution? Can it predict what aliens would be like?

The Zoologist’s Guide to the Galaxy: What Animals on Earth Reveal About Aliens—and Ourselves

Arik Kershenbaum’s new book, Zoologist’s Guide to the Galaxy, argues that convergent evolution on Earth helps us understand what to expect from extraterrestrial life. But then he encounters a difficulty:

The trouble is, we don’t know what aliens have for genes. So this is something we can’t say is quite as universal as some of the other constraints of biology on Earth. It may be that the way that alien life forms are related to each other is completely different, and so their sociality may be completely different as well. – Dan Falk, “Why Extraterrestrial Life May Not Seem Entirely Alien” at Quanta (March 18, 2021)

News, “Zoologist: Law of evolution can predict what aliens will be like” at Mind Matters News

Indeed.

Convergent evolution is a fact of life on Earth and it does imply that there is a structure and design to life, based on physics. But how far can we take these assumptions when we venture into unknown territory?

Kershenbaum wipes out, unfortunately, when he tries to claim that human culture is genetically based. In reality,

These beliefs are immaterial and may or may not originate in genes, as opposed to culture. If extraterrestrials are smart enough to be in touch with us, why shouldn’t we assume that they are not governed wholly by genes either but also by immaterial beliefs?

News, “Zoologist: Law of evolution can predict what aliens will be like” at Mind Matters News

Takehome: Kershenbaum’s argument fails when he addresses human culture: It just isn’t true that co-operation among humans is governed wholly by genes. But his book is probably a fun read.

See also: SETI director warns: Those aliens could be malevolent. Harvard astronomer agrees: We’ve sent a lot of signals in recent years; they may have got them. But now what? Astronomer Avi Loeb has a low-risk practical idea: Look for alien debris on our still, lifeless, atmosphere-free Moon

and

Why some experts hope we don’t find life on Mars. Many thinkers worry about what will happen if the extraterrestrials land. But will they feel worse if we never find ET?

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on April 24, 2021 19:41

William Dembski: Why computers will likely never perform abductive inferences

[image error]

As Erik J. Larson points out in The Myth of Artificial Intelligence: Why Computers Can’t Think the Way We Do (2021), what computers “know” must be painstakingly programmed:

Larson did an interesting podcast with the Brookings Institution through its Lawfare Blog shortly after the release of his book. It’s well worth a listen, and Larson elucidates in that interview many of the key points in his book. The one place in the interview where I wish he had elaborated further was on the question of abductive inference (aka retroductive inference or inference to the best explanation). For me, the key to understanding why computers cannot, and most likely will never, be able to perform abductive inferences is the problem of underdetermination of explanation by data. This may seem like a mouthful, but the idea is straightforward. For context, if you are going to get a computer to achieve anything like understanding in some subject area, it needs a lot of knowledge. That knowledge, in all the cases we know, needs to be painstakingly programmed. This is true even of machine learning situations where the underlying knowledge framework needs to be explicitly programmed (for instance, even Go programs that achieve world class playing status need many rules and heuristics explicitly programmed).

Humans, on the other hand, need none of this…

William A. Dembski, “Why computers will likely never perform abductive inferences” at Mind Matters News

Takehome: Computers require complete data to come to a correct conclusion but humans often work very well with incomplete data.

PS: By the way, we told you Dembski was back, didn’t we?

You may also wish to read:

Are we spiritual machines? Are we machines at all? Inventor Ray Kurzweil proposed in 1999 that within the next thirty years we will upload ourselves into computers as virtual persons, programs on machines. The themes and misconceptions about computers and artificial intelligence that made headlines in the late 1990s persist to this day.

A critical look at the myth of “deep learning” “Deep learning” is as misnamed a computational technique as exists. The phrase “deep learning” suggests that the machine is doing something profound and beyond the capacity of humans. That’s far from the case.

Artificial intelligence understands by not understanding The secret to writing a program for a sympathetic chatbot is surprisingly simple… We needed to encode grammatical patterns so that we could reflect back what the human wrote, whether as a question or statement.

Automated driving and other failures of AI How would autonomous cars manage in an environment where eye contact with other drivers is important? In cossetted and sanitized environments in the U.S., we have no clue of what AI must achieve to truly match what humans can do.

and

Artificial intelligence: Unseating the inevitability narrative. William Dembski: World-class chess, Go, and Jeopardy-playing programs are impressive, but they prove nothing about whether computers can be made to achieve AGI. In The Myth of Artificial Intelligence, Erik Larson shows that neither science nor philosophy back up the idea of an AI superintelligence taking over.

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

1 like · Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on April 24, 2021 18:41

L&FP, 41a: Worldview formation, plausibility structures and geostrategic signs of our times

In discussing worldviews, I added an update on how they are formed and relate to plausibility structures, influencing how we decide and act individually and as community in ways that can be at least framed if not outright predicted.

As such, I think this is worth headlining separately:

++++++++++

An illustration on factors and influences in worldview formation:

Here, we can observe how our perceptions stimulate our thinking, which is also influenced by available knowledge, opinions and views including on key themes tied to core ideas on the world and oneself in it. As we work through our interior lives, we have perceptions, expectations, emotions, focus of attention, reasoning/logic, valuing informed by sense of duty/morals, solution strategies for challenges, discernment, decisions and judgements, actions and influences. As embodied agents in a world and community, we orient ourselves, move, manipulate objects, communicate.

Knowledge and its warrant are key issues, raising questions of reliability, credible truth, degree of certainty, possibility of error, opinion vs soundness and more. Such is a gateway to characteristic themes of philosophy:

the nature of knowledge and its credibility [epistemology]the nature of reality — what exists, whence, what is the world, what are we etc [metaphysics embracing ontology, logic of being],the accepted “world story” that uses these elements to build a narrative on how the world came to be or always was, how we came to be in it, how we are where we are now, why we are as we aresimilarly, where are we headed individually and collectivelywhat death is and signifieswhat is ultimate or source reality, or does such existwhat is duty, what of right and wrong, what of beauty [axiology, ethics and aesthetics]what, then, is valuable and to be prizedthus, religions, philosophies, ideologies, mindsets etc and associated “plausibility structures”:

“In sociology and especially the sociological study of religion, plausibility structures are the sociocultural contexts for systems of meaning within which these meanings make sense, or are made plausible. Beliefs and meanings held by individuals and groups are supported by, and embedded in, sociocultural institutions and processes.” [Semantic Scholar, using Wikipedia]

what is seemingly or actually sensible, reasonable or logical [logic, plausibility, epistemology, ethics etc]what is knowledge, what is known, why, who or what hold credibility, authority and wisdom, why should we trust such sources [epistemology, logic, language, decision-making, governance, policy, law and justice, politics, ponder Plato’s parables of the Cave and of the Ship of State (cf. Ac 27 as a real-life microcosm)]Hence, we may see the significance of the following progression of equations:

1: WORLDVIEW + POLICY/CULTURAL AGENDA = IDEOLOGY

2: IDEOLOGY + POWER/STRONG INFLUENCE = REGIME

3: REGIME (AKA, BALANCE OF POWER-FACTIONS) + DECISION-MAKING INFLUENCES = BUSINESS AS USUAL (BAU)
_______________________________________________

4: BAU + INSISTENT VOYAGE OF SINFUL FOLLY = SHIPWRECK

what makes for a good and successful lifeis there direct awareness of knowledge, i.e. intuitionis there knowledge communicated from God, revelationetc

These help us to understand how we come to have a worldview. And, of how and why, in Francis Schaeffer’s phrase, “ideas have consequences.”

It is worth adding, that once a certain pattern of worldviews, associated patterns of attitudes, expectations, values, life goals etc is established, this model can help us identify the likely reaction to situations, trends, shocks, messages, communication etc.

+++++++++

Worldviews mapping is clearly a highly useful exercise, especially in so dangerous a geostrategic situation as has been developing in recent years:

We would be well advised to ponder where we are taking our civilisation. END

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on April 24, 2021 04:32

April 23, 2021

Oxford theoretical physicist laments discipline’s stalemate

We’re no closer to understanding the big questions, he says, than we were decades ago:

While physicists have been busily verifying ideas devised in the past century, we’ve made almost no progress in figuring out where to go in this one. In fact, we’re at a complete loss at how to explain some of the most fundamental but baffling observations of how our Universe behaves. There is a tremendous, even cosmic, chasm between the physics we know and love, and some of the phenomena that we observe, but simply can’t make head nor tail of. We have no idea how to bridge this chasm – yet we are proceeding, at pace, to construct ever more expensive experiments and observatories in the hope that we will…

I’ve spent most of my adult life staring at the cosmic chasm – the abyss between what we know and what we don’t. And while our knowledge of the Universe has improved dramatically in that time, our ignorance has become only more focused. We’re no closer to answering the big questions about dark matter, dark energy and the origins of the Universe than when I started out. This isn’t for lack of trying, and a titanic effort is now underway to try and figure out all these mysterious aspects of the Universe. But there’s no guarantee we’ll succeed, and we might end up never really grasping how the Universe works. That’s why we need to be creative and to explore. As Einstein once said: ‘Let the people know that a new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move toward higher levels.’ While bridging the cosmic chasm might not be a matter of survival, undoubtedly it’s one of the most pressing challenges of modern science.

Pedro G Ferreira, “The cosmic chasm” at Aeon

But now, a question arises: What answers would theoretical physicists accept? Sometimes, the problem is not a lack of answers but a lack of acceptable answers.

See also: Post-modern physics: String theory gets over the need for evidence

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on April 23, 2021 20:17

Hush. The universe is learning…

Physicist Vitaly Vanchurin explains:

Physics is stagnating. We haven’t had any significant, new theoretical breakthroughs in decades. Do we need a radically new way of understanding the universe? If we treat the world as a neural network which is in the process of learning, then we can better understand quantum gravity, quantum computing and consciousness, writes Vitaly Vanchurin.

Vitaly Vanchurin, “The universe is learning” at iai News (paywall)

Note: This came up last year: The whole universe is a neural network (September 11, 2020). And it is learning?

The main thing to see is that panpsychism is slowly replacing naturalism as the default position of science.

It makes sense. Naturalism requires us to believe that our minds are an illusion. But, as neurosurgeon Michael Egnor says, if your hypothesis is that the mind is an illusion, then you don’t have a hypothesis.

Panpsychists are almost certainly wrong in believing that electrons are conscious or that the whole universe is. But they do start with the idea that something, somewhere is thinking — perhaps even them and us.

Odd as it sounds, that might be an improvement: Wrong but sane

See also: Why is science growing comfortable with panpsychism (“everything is conscious”)? At one time, the idea that “everything is conscious” was the stuff of jokes. Not any more, it seems.

and

From Scientific American: “we may all be alters—dissociated personalities— of universal consciousness.”

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on April 23, 2021 19:24

Researchers: Horizontal (lateral) gene transfer among grasses is widespread

Remember the claim we noted last night that “horizontal gene transfer is considered exceptionally rare outside of bacteria”? Well, now:

Summary

● Lateral gene transfer (LGT) occurs in a broad range of prokaryotes and eukaryotes, occasionally promoting adaptation. LGT of functional nuclear genes has been reported among some plants, but systematic studies are needed to assess the frequency and facilitators of LGT.

● We scanned the genomes of a diverse set of 17 grass species that span more than 50 Ma of divergence and include major crops to identify grass to grass protein coding LGT.

● We identified LGTs in 13 species, with significant variation in the amount each received. Rhizomatous species acquired statistically more genes, probably because this growth habit boosts opportunities for transfer into the germline. In addition, the amount of LGT increases with phylogenetic relatedness, which might reflect genomic compatibility among close relatives facilitating successful transfers. However, genetic exchanges among highly divergent species indicates that transfers can occur across almost the entire family.

● Overall, we showed that LGT is a widespread phenomenon in grasses that has moved functional genes across the grass family into domesticated and wild species alike. Successful LGTs appear to increase with both opportunity and compatibility.
Samuel G. S. Hibdige, Pauline Raimondeau, Pascal-Antoine Christin and Luke T. DunningAnimal and Plant Sciences, University of Shefﬁeld, Western Bank Shefﬁeld S10 2TN, UK

So what becomes of detailed claims about the path that explicitly Darwinian (ancestor to descendant) evolution took if horizontal gene transfer is widespread? How do we know that Darwinian evolution was even involved?

The paper is open access.

See also: Giant corpse flower has lost most of its genes, grabbed some from its plant hosts. At Quanta: “Davis’ team estimated that at least 1.2% of the plant’s genes came from other species, particularly its hosts, past and present. That might not sound impressive, but this kind of horizontal gene transfer is considered exceptionally rare outside of bacteria. So even a single percent of genes arising this way raises eyebrows.” Researchers are still trying to figure out why the parasitic plant has such a huge genome. Commendably, they are NOT claiming it’s all just junk.

and

Horizontal gene transfer: Sorry, Darwin, it’s not your evolution any more

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on April 23, 2021 18:45

Was the “demon duck of doom” a “huge evolutionary experiment”?

Or did copywriters just get carried away?

Back when mega wombats, sheep-sized echidnas, and marsupial lions roamed the ancient lands of Australia, there also lived a gigantic flightless bird. Known by some as the ‘demon duck of doom’, Dromornis stirtoni is described by paleontologist Trevor Worthy as an “extreme evolutionary experiment”.

“It would appear these giant birds were probably what evolution produced when it gave chickens free reign [sic] in Australian environmental conditions,” explained Worthy, a researcher from Flinders University in Australia.

Tessa Koumoundouros, “These Huge ‘Demon Ducks’ With Squished Brains Were an Extreme Evolutionary Experiment” at ScienceAlert (March 26, 2021)

Evolution is described in this story as if it was some sort of lesser god, making lower level decisions.

The species Dromornis stirtoni persisted for 25 million years so it clearly wasn’t a “monster.” Some species were just big, the biggest reaching approximately 500 kg. But then, there was a lot of vegetation to eat so maybe a small organism like the mallard duck or the Canada goose would not have done the job.

Don’t animal size limits relate to environment constraints?

Question: If you don’t believe that evolution is an intelligence, what does a “huge evolutionary experiment” mean?

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on April 23, 2021 18:14

April 22, 2021

“Ultra light bosons” explanation for dark matter doesn’t pan out either

A new study has ruled out a range of dark matter candidates:

The team realized that heavier bosons would limit black holes more, and lighter bosons would constrain them less. So they looked at the LIGO and Virgo data of black hole mergers, which tells us the rotation rate of black holes before they merge. It turns out that some of these black holes rotated so quickly that it rules out the existence of ultra-light dark matter bosons. Based on this study, dark matter can’t be axions or light supersymmetry particles.

So once again, a search for dark matter has shown us not what dark matter is, but what it isn’t. It’s extremely frustrating, and potentially exciting because we are quickly running out of options for dark matter.

Brian Koberlein, “One Idea to Explain Dark Matter – Ultralight Bosons – Fails the Test” at Universe Today (April 20, 2021)

See also: Discover: Even the best dark matter theories are crumbling

Researcher: The search for dark matter has become a “quagmire of confirmation bias” So many research areas in science today are hitting hard barriers that it is reasonable to think that we are missing something.

Physicists devise test to find out if dark matter really exists

Largest particle detector draws a blank on dark matter

What if dark matter just doesn’t stick to the rules?

A proposed dark matter solution makes gravity an illusion

and

Proposed dark matter solution: “Gravity is not a fundamental governance of our universe, but a reaction to the makeup of a given environment.”

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on April 22, 2021 20:27