Michael J. Behe's Blog, page 28

At Quanta Magazine: A Dream of Discovering Alien Life Finds New Hope

Joshua Sokol writes:

One of the many times Lisa Kaltenegger’s dream jolted a little closer toward reality was on a cold April morning a decade ago at an astronomy conference. She was clutching what she recalls was a terrible, just awful cup of coffee, not because she was going to drink any more of it but because she had waited in line and it was warm in her hands. Then Bill Borucki veered in her direction.

She readied herself to tell him to avoid the coffee. But Borucki, head of NASA’s Kepler mission, a space telescope designed to hunt for planets orbiting other stars (or “exoplanets”), had something else to discuss. Kepler had glimpsed its first two Earth-size exoplanets with a decent chance of having liquid water on their surfaces. These were the sort of strange new worlds that everyone at the conference — and possibly most of the human race — had imagined at least once. Would Kaltenegger confirm that the planets might be habitable?

[image error]Samuel Velasco/Quanta Magazine

Kaltenegger, at the time an astrophysicist at the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy in Heidelberg, Germany, started running new climate models before the conference was over, incorporating basic facts like the planets’ diameters and the lukewarm glow of their star. Her ultimate answer: a qualified yes. The planets might be suitable for life, or at least for liquid water; they could even be water worlds, encased in endless oceans without a single rocky outcrop poking above the waves. The caveat was that she would need more advanced observations to be sure.

Kaltenegger has since become perhaps the world’s leading computer modeler of potentially habitable worlds. In 2019, when another exoplanet-hunting NASA spacecraft called TESS found its own first rocky, temperate worlds, she was called on again to play the role of cosmic home inspector. Most recently, the Belgium-based SPECULOOS survey reached out for her help understanding a newfound Earth-size planet dubbed SPECULOOS-2c that’s precariously close to its star. She and her colleagues completed an analysis, uploaded as a preprint in September, showing that SPECULOOS-2c’s water could be in the process of steaming away like sauna vapor, as any seas of Venus did long ago and as Earth’s own oceans will begin to do in half a billion years. Telescope observations should be able to tell within a few years if that’s happening, which will help reveal our own planet’s future and further demarcate the knife’s-edge distinction between hostile and habitable worlds across the galaxy.

In simulating ersatz Earths and more speculative visions of living planets, Kaltenegger leverages the bizarre life and geology found on Earth to develop a more systematic set of expectations about what might be possible elsewhere. “I’m trying to do the fundamentals,” she told me during a recent visit to Cornell University, where she leads an institute named for Carl Sagan, another charismatic Ithaca-based astronomer with big ideas about ending humanity’s lonely sojourn in the cosmos.

Full article at Quanta Magazine.

This very extensive article provides some informative insights into possible bio-signatures that astronomers would hope to see from an exoplanet that might indicate the presence of life.

Copyright © 2022 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 The Scientist: Some Honey Bee Swarms Generate Electrical Charges Stronger Than Storms

Jef Akst writes:

At a field station near the University of Bristol in the UK, experimental ecologist Ellard Hunting and his colleagues noticed an unexpected jump in the atmospheric electrical charge on a clear day, New Scientist reports. As it turns out, the jolt came from a nearby swarm of western honey bees (Apis mellifera), the team reports today (October 24) in iScience.

Researchers already knew that bees and other insects carry small charges, but Hunting tells New Scientist that he was “kind of surprised to see that [the honey bee swarm] had a massive effect.”

Further testing revealed that bee swarms can generate an electrical charge up to 1,000 volts per meter, with denser swarms leading to stronger electrical fields, the researchers write in their paper. That’s a charge density that greatly exceeds thunderstorm clouds and electrified dust storms, they report. The authors speculate that insects’ contribution to atmospheric electricity may influence physical phenomena such as the movement of dust.

Note: Could a lightening strike result from a swarm of bees? No, the quoted value of 1,000 volts per meter refers to electric field strength, not charge density (which would be measured in Coulombs per cubic meter). For an electric arc to develop through air, the electric field strength needs to be about 3,000,000 volts per meter. However, the discovery that bees may use electric fields to communicate or navigate reveals another remarkable ability among many others possessed by bees.

The function of the electrical charges generated by bees and bee swarms is unknown, though some research suggests that certain species can detect weak electric fields with mechanosensory hairs that cover the insects’ bodies. This could mean that bees make use of electrical information to forage, the University of Maine’s Victor Manuel Ortega-Jimenez, who has studied how foraging hummingbirds might be using the electrostatic charges they generate and was not involved in the study, tells New Scientist.

Indeed, Hunting tells The Independent, the electrical field “changes for a while if a bee has visited a flower. . . . The next visiting bee could [detect] this and associate it with flowers that have little or no nectar present, and assist in their decision-making.”

The researchers also used their findings to build a model for the electrical charges produced by other swarming insects such as locusts, whose aggregations can be massive. “[T]heir influence is likely much greater than honeybees,” coauthor Liam O’Reilly of the University of Bristol says in a press release.

“We always looked at how physics influenced biology,” Hunting says in the statement, “but at some point, we realized that biology might also be influencing physics.”

The Scientist

Copyright © 2022 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 Phys.org: Can cosmic inflation be ruled out?

A team of astrophysicists say that cosmic inflation—a point in the universe’s infancy when space-time expanded exponentially, and what physicists really refer to when they talk about the “Big Bang”—can in principle be ruled out in an assumption-free way.

CMBR. Image credit: ESA and the Planck Collaboration – D. Ducros

The astrophysicists, from the University of Cambridge, the University of Trento, and Harvard University, say that there is a clear, unambiguous signal in the cosmos which could eliminate inflation as a possibility. Their paper, published today in The Astrophysical Journal Letters, argues that this signal—known as the cosmic graviton background (CGB)—can feasibly be detected, although it will be a massive technical and scientific challenge.

“Inflation was theorized to explain various fine-tuning challenges of the so-called ‘hot Big Bang’ model,” says the paper’s first author Sunny Vagnozzi who is affiliated with Cambridge’s Kavli Institute for Cosmology and the University of Trento. “It also explains the origin of structure in our universe as a result of quantum fluctuations.”

Note: Here is a statement acknowledging that some scientific theories are promoted not because the they are so robustly supported by the evidence, but due to a commitment to materialism – to avoid the conclusion of divine design. However, the proposed mechanism of cosmic inflation also relies upon layers of fine tuning in order to bring about our present universe. [See Canceled Science, p. 65-66.]

“However, the large flexibility displayed by possible models for cosmic inflation, which span an unlimited landscape of cosmological outcomes, raises concerns that cosmic inflation is not falsifiable, even if individual inflationary models can be ruled out. Is it possible in principle to test cosmic inflation in a model-independent way?” Vagnozzi asks.

Some scientists raised concerns about cosmic inflation in 2013 when the Planck satellite released its first measurements of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), the universe’s oldest light.

“When the results from the Planck satellite were announced, they were held up as a confirmation of cosmic inflation,” says Avi Loeb, Professor of Astronomy from Harvard University and Vagnozzi’s co-author on the new paper. “However, some of us argued that the results might be showing just the opposite.”

Along with Anna Ijjas and Paul Steinhardt, Loeb was one of those who argued that results from Planck showed that inflation posed more puzzles than it solved, and that it was time to consider new ideas about the beginnings of the universe, which, for instance, may have begun not with a bang but with a bounce from a previously contracting cosmos.

The maps of the CMB released by Planck represent the earliest time in the universe humankind could “see,” 100 million years before the first stars formed. We cannot see farther.

“The actual edge of the observable universe is at the distance that any signal could have traveled at the speed-of-light limit over the 13.8 billion years that elapsed since the birth of the universe,” says Loeb. “As a result of the expansion of the universe, this edge is currently located 46.5 billion light years away. The spherical volume within this boundary is like an archaeological dig centered on us: the deeper we probe into it, the earlier is the layer of cosmic history that we uncover, all the way back to the Big Bang which represents our ultimate horizon. What lies beyond the horizon is unknown.”

“It could be possible to dig even further into the universe’s beginnings by studying near-weightless particles known as neutrinos, which are the most abundant particles that have mass in the universe. The universe allowed neutrinos to travel freely without scattering from approximately a second after the Big Bang, when the temperature was ten billion degrees. The present-day universe must be filled with relic neutrinos from that time,” says Vagnozzi.

Vagnozzi and Loeb say we can go even further back, however, by tracing gravitons, particles which mediate the force of gravity.

“The universe was transparent to gravitons all the way back to the earliest instant traced by known physics, the Planck time: 10 to the power of -43 seconds, when the temperature was the highest conceivable: 10 to the power of 32 degrees,” says Loeb. “A proper understanding of what came before that requires a predictive theory of quantum gravity, which we do not possess.”

Vagnozzi and Loeb say that once the universe became transparent to gravitons, a relic background of thermal gravitational radiation with a temperature of slightly less than one degree above absolute zero should have been generated: the cosmic graviton background (CGB).

However, the Big Bang theory does not allow for the existence of the CGB, as it suggests that the exponential inflation of the newborn universe diluted relics such as the CGB to a point that they are undetectable.

This can be turned into a test, the team says: if the CGB were detected, clearly this would rule out the entire cosmic inflation paradigm, which does not allow for its existence.

Vagnozzi and Loeb argue that such a test is possible, and the CGB could in principle be detected in the future. The CGB adds to the cosmic radiation budget, which otherwise includes microwave and neutrino backgrounds. It therefore affects the cosmic expansion rate of the early universe at a level that is detectable by next-generation cosmological probes, which could provide the first indirect detection of the CGB.

However, to claim a definitive detection of the CGB, the “smoking gun” would be the detection of a background of high-frequency gravitational waves peaking at frequencies around 100 GHz. This would be very hard to detect, and would require tremendous technological advances in gyrotron and superconducting magnets technology. Nevertheless, say the researchers, this signal may be within our reach in the future.

Phys.org

Copyright © 2022 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, 63: Do design thinkers, theists and the like “always” make bad arguments because they are “all” ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked?

Dawkins’ barbed blanket dismissiveness comes up far too often in discussions of the design inference and related themes. Rarely, explicitly, most often by implication of a far too commonly seen no concessions, selectively hyperskeptical policy that objectors to design too often manifest. It is time to set this straight.

First, we need to highlight fallacious, crooked yardstick thinking (as exposed by naturally straight and upright plumb-lines). And yes, that classical era work, the Bible, is telling:

Notice, a pivotal point here, is self-evident truths. Things, similar to 2 + 3 = 5:

Notoriously, Winston Smith in 1984 is put on the rack to break his mind to conform to The Party’s double-think. He is expected to think 2 + 2 = whatever The Party needs at the moment, suppressing the last twisted answer, believing that was always the case, while simultaneously he must know that manifestly 2 + 2 = 4 on pain of instant absurdity. This is of course a toy example but it exposes the way crooked yardstick thinking leads to chaos:

Of Lemmings, marches of folly and cliffs of self-falsifying absurdity . . .

(Yes, real lemmings do not act like that. But, humans . . . that’s a whole other story.)

So, now, let us turn to a recent barbed remark by one of our frequent objectors and my reply, laying out a frame of thought and inviting correction — dodged, of course:

KF, 120 in the Foundations thread: [[It is now clear that SG is unwilling to substantially back up the one liner insinuation he made at 84 above, try making a good argument. Accordingly, let me respond in outline, for record, to the general case, that people like us are ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked and the associated zero concessions, selectively hyperskeptical dismissiveness policy. Here, I will show the rational responsibility of the design inference and related ideas, views and approaches, for record and reference:

I will use steps of thought:

1: Reason, in general: Notice, supporters and fellow travellers of evolutionary materialistic scientism undermine the responsible, rational freedom required for reason to be credible. They tend to discount and discredit objectors, but in fact their arguments and assertions are self-referentially incoherent, especially reduction of mind to computationalism on a wetware substrate. Reppert is right to point out, following Haldane and others:

. . . let us suppose that brain state A [–> notice, state of a wetware, electrochemically operated computational substrate], which is token identical to the thought that all men are mortal, and brain state B, which is token identical to the thought that Socrates is a man, together cause the belief [–> concious, perceptual state or disposition] that Socrates is mortal. It isn’t enough for rational inference that these events be those beliefs, it is also necessary that the causal transaction be in virtue of the content of those thoughts . . . [But] if naturalism is true, then the propositional content is irrelevant to the causal transaction that produces the conclusion, and [so] we do not have a case of rational inference. In rational inference, as Lewis puts it, one thought causes another thought not by being, but by being seen to be, the ground for it. But causal transactions in the brain occur in virtue of the brain’s being in a particular type of state that is relevant to physical causal transactions.

2: This extends to Marx’s class/cultural conditioning, to Freud’s potty training etc, to Skinner’s operant conditioning , to claims my genes made me do it, and many more. So, irrationality and undermining of the credibility of reason are a general issue for such supporters and fellow travellers, it is unsurprising to see projection to the despised other (a notorious defence mechanism) and linked failure to engage self referentiality.

3: First principles of right reason: Classically, the core of reason starts with distinct identity, excluded middle, non contradiction. Something x is what it is i/l/o its core characteristics, nothing can be both x and not x in the same sense and circumstances, any y in W = {x| ~x} will be x, ~x, not both or neither. And more. Claimed quantum counter examples etc actually are rooted in reasoning that relies on such. And yes, there have been enough objections that this has come up and is in UD’s Weak Argument Correctives. We leave it to objectors like SG to tell us whether they acknowledge such first principles of right reason: _______ and explain why ________ .

4: Self evidence: There are arguments that, once we have enough experience and maturity to understand [a sometimes big if], will be seen as true, as necessarily true and as true on pain of immediate absurdities on attempted denial. That error exists is a good case in point, and if one is able to see that the attempt to deny objectivity of knowledge for a given reasonably distinct field of thought such as morals or history or reality [metaphysics], or the physical world, or external reality, or in general, etc, one is claiming to objectively know something about that field and so refutes oneself.

5: self referential incoherence and question begging: We just saw an example of how arguments and arguers can include themselves in the zone of reference of an argument in ways that undermine it, often by implying a contradiction. Such arguments defeat themselves. Question begging is different, it assumes, suggests or imposes what should be shown and for which there are responsible alternatives. Arguments can be question begging, and then may turn out to be self refuting.

6: Deduction, induction, abduction (inference to the best [current] explanation [IBE]) and weak-form knowledge: Deduction uses logical validity to chain from givens to conclusions, where if givens are so and the chain valid, conclusions must also be true. Absent errors of reasoning, the debate rapidly becomes one over why the givens. Induction, modern sense, is about degree of support for conclusions i/l/o evidence of various kinds as opposed to demonstration, statistics, history, science, etc are common contexts. Abduction, especially IBE, compares live option alternatives and what they imply, on factual adequacy, coherence and balance of explanatory power, to choose the best explanation so far. In this context weak sense common knowledge is warranted, credibly true (so, reliable) belief. Which, is open to correction or revision and extension.

7: Worldviews context: Why accept A? B. But why B? C, etc. We see that we face infinite regress, or circularity or finitely remote first plausibles . . . which, frame our faith points . . . as we set out to understand our world. Infinite regress is impossible to traverse in reasoning or in cause effect steps, so we set it aside, we are forced to have finitely remote start points to reasoning and believing, warranting and knowing — first plausibles that define our views of the world. Thus, we all live by faith, the question is which, why; so, whether it is rational/reasonable and responsible. Where, too, all serious worldview options bristle with difficulties, hence the point that philosophy is the discipline that studies hard, basic questions. Question begging circles are a challenge, answered through comparative difficulties across factual adequacy, coherence and balance of explanatory power: elegantly simple, neither ad hoc nor simplistic.

[Let’s add an illustration:]

A summary of why we end up with foundations for our worldviews, whether or not we would phrase the matter that way}

[or in Aristotle’s words:]

8: Failure of evolutionary materialistic scientism and fellow traveller views: It will be evident already, that, while institutionally and culturally dominant, evolutionary materialistic scientism and fellow travellers are profoundly and irretrievably incoherent. Yes, a view backed by institutions, power brokers in the academy, the education system and the media can be irretrievably, fatally cracked from its roots.

9: Logic of being (and of structure and quantity), also possible worlds: Ontology and her grand child, Mathematics, grow out of core philosophy, particularly distinct identity and consideration of possible worlds. A possible world, w, is a sufficiently complete description of how our world or another conceivable or even actual world is or may be; i.e. a cluster of core, world describing propositions. In that context, a candidate being or entity or even state of affairs, c, can be impossible of being [e.g. a Euclidean plane square circle] or possible. Possible beings may be contingent [actual in at least one possible world but not all] or necessary [present in every possible world]. We and fires are contingent, dependent for existence on many independent, prior factors; what begins or may cease of existence is contingent. Necessary beings are best seen as part of the fabric or framework for this or any possible world. We can show that distinct identity implies two-ness, thence 0, 1, 2. Ponder, W = {A|~A}, the partition is empty, 0, A is a unit, ~A is a complex unit, so we see 2. So, onward via von Neumann’s construction, the counting numbers N. Thence, Z, Q, R, C, R* etc in any w. This is what gives core Mathematics its universal power.

10: The basic credibility of the design inference: of course, we routinely recognise that many things show reliable signs of intelligently directed configuration as key cause, i.e. design. For example, objectors to the design inference often issue copious, complex text in English, beyond 500 to 1,000 bits of complexity. In the 70’s Orgel and Wicken identified a distinct and quantifiable phenomenon, functionally specific, complex organisation and/or associated information, which I often abbreviate FSCO/I. Organisation is there as things like a fishing reel [my favourite, e.g. the ABU 6500 CT] or a watch [Paley, do not overlook his self replicating watch thought exercise in Ch 2]

or an oil refinery or a computer program [including machine code]

Petroleum refinery block diagram illustrating FSCO/I in a process-flow system

or the cell’s metabolic process-flow network [including protein synthesis]

[with:]

Step by step protein synthesis in action, in the ribosome, based on the sequence of codes in the mRNA control tape (Courtesy, Wikipedia and LadyofHats)

[and:]

all can be described in a suitably compact string of Y/N questions, structured through description languages such as AutoCAD. The inference posits that, with trillions of cases under our belt, reliably, FSCO/I or its generalisation, CSI, will be signs of design as key cause. The controversies, as may be readily seen, are not for want of evidence or inability to define or quantify, but because this challenges the dominant evolutionary materialism and fellow travellers. Which, of course, long since failed through irretrievable self referential incoherence.
_____________________

So, challenge: let SG and/or others show where the above fails to be rational and responsible, if they can__________________ Prediction, aside from mere disagreement and/or dismissiveness, assertions, or the trifecta fallacy of red herrings, led away to strawmen soaked in ad hominems and set alight to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere, they will not be able to sustain a case for general failure to be rational and responsible.]]

The good argument challenge is duly open for response. END

Copyright © 2022 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 SciTech Daily: Artificial Cells With Lifelike Functionality – New Breakthrough Brings Scientists One Step Closer

Researchers have used bacteria to help develop advanced synthetic cells that imitate the real-life functionality of cells.

The study, conducted by the University of Bristol and published in the journal Nature, advances the development of synthetic cells, or protocells, to more precisely replicate the complex composition, structure, and function of living cells.

Establishing true-to-life functionality in protocells is a global great challenge involving several fields, from the origin of life research to bottom-up synthetic biology and bioengineering. Due to previous failures in modeling protocells using microcapsules, the research team turned to bacteria to construct sophisticated synthetic cells utilizing a living material assembly process.

Professor Stephen Mann from the School of Chemistry at the University of Bristol and the Max Planck Bristol Centre for Minimal Biology, and colleagues Drs. Can Xu, Nicolas Martin (now at the University of Bordeaux), and Mei Li from the Bristol Centre for Protolife Research have demonstrated a method for building highly complex protocells using viscous micro-droplets filled with living bacteria as a microscopic building site.

The group initially exposed the empty droplets to two different types of bacteria. One population was captured spontaneously inside the droplets, while the other was confined at the droplet surface.

Establishing true-to-life functionality in protocells is a global great challenge involving several fields, from the origin of life research to bottom-up synthetic biology and bioengineering. Due to previous failures in modeling protocells using microcapsules, the research team turned to bacteria to construct sophisticated synthetic cells utilizing a living material assembly process.

Professor Stephen Mann from the School of Chemistry at the University of Bristol and the Max Planck Bristol Centre for Minimal Biology, and colleagues Drs. Can Xu, Nicolas Martin (now at the University of Bordeaux), and Mei Li from the Bristol Centre for Protolife Research have demonstrated a method for building highly complex protocells using viscous micro-droplets filled with living bacteria as a microscopic building site.

The group initially exposed the empty droplets to two different types of bacteria. One population was captured spontaneously inside the droplets, while the other was confined at the droplet surface.

Corresponding author Professor Stephen Mann said: “Achieving high organizational and functional complexity in synthetic cells is difficult, especially under close-to-equilibrium conditions. Hopefully, our current bacteriogenic approach will help to increase the complexity of current protocell models, facilitate the integration of myriad biological components and enable the development of energized cytomimetic systems.”

First author Dr. Can Xu, a Research Associate at the University of Bristol, added: “Our living-material assembly approach provides an opportunity for the bottom-up construction of symbiotic living/synthetic cell constructs. For example, using engineered bacteria it should be possible to fabricate complex modules for development in diagnostic and therapeutic areas of synthetic biology as well as in biomanufacturing and biotechnology in general.”

SciTech Daily

It seems that the very best efforts of researchers to build a model of a cell from scratch involve insurmountable difficulties, so researchers have resorted to using a “living-material assembly approach”, confirming the biology adage: “Life comes from life.”

Copyright © 2022 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: A Closer Look at the Science of Purpose

Stephen J. Iacoboni writes:

In an earlier post, I introduced and defined what I called the “science of purpose.” Let us take a closer look at what that entails. 

The first thing to notice is that there really cannot be a science of organisms, i.e., biology, without understanding purpose. That this fact has been so neglected is, of course, a consequence of neo-Darwinism, which purports to show that purpose and design in life are only apparent, not real. Organisms that survive simply appear to be purpose-driven because those that are not driven by purpose suffer extinction as imposed by natural selection. Of course, this statement offers no explanation of how purpose-driven life arises.

Vast and Ubiquitous Purpose

Before saying why that’s the case, let us indulge in the great delight of observing the vast and ubiquitous display of purpose in the natural world that surrounds us. In biology we are dedicated to studying the behavior and physiology of all living things. Extraordinary examples of animal behavior include the 70-mile trek by some emperor penguins to feed their young, the 1,000-mile journey that sockeye salmon may navigate to return to the small stream of their birth in order to spawn and die, and the 3,000-mile annual migration of certain caribou in North America.

Photo: Sockeye salmon, by Milton Love, Marine Science Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.

Yet as a physician I am equally if not more astounded by the dazzling display of goal-attainment that takes place in every human body in every second of life. Your heart has been pumping since a time about eight months before you were born. Your kidneys filter metabolic waste and retain life-sustaining fluid and electrolytes without fail and without interruption. The hemoglobin in your red blood cells procures, transports, and delivers life-giving oxygen to every corner of your body, every second of every day. And this can only happen because your lungs expand and contract, again without fail, ceaselessly, even while you sleep. Your body cannot survive outside of a very narrow range of temperatures and fluid and electrolyte concentrations. These are assiduously and jealously monitored, adjusted, and normalized. Without this oversight, your life would come to a rapid end.

Purpose is the sine qua non of life. It permeates every organism, in every ecosystem. 

How Can Anyone Deny This?

The short answer is that biology grew up out of the physical sciences. Even Isaac Newton himself was at pains to eliminate purpose, i.e., teleology, from his science. But Newton’s motivation was entirely different from that of modern scientific atheists. Newton believed firmly in the reality of teleology and purpose, but he also believed that it was outside of the ability of the human mind to reduce God’s purposeful wisdom to scientific terms. Some 250 years after Newton, and following the success of the Industrial Revolution, 19th-century scientists began to see themselves as understanding the world without God’s help. Then along came Darwin. As we all know, he said that creatures survived and speciated based on the random and blind — that is, purposeless — actions of a thoroughly uncaring natural world. He made it all seem so simple: survival of the fittest was all there is to it.

Today, modern science embraces Darwin, in part because biologists want to be physicists, and also because it allows them to continue to leave God out. So the myth of Darwinism, in its new guise of neo-Darwinism, endures. 

You cannot see what you are not looking for. You cannot find Br’er Rabbit until you look into the briar patch. Realizing that, we recognize that the entire edifice of Darwin’s theory is based on a single, demonstrable falsehood. Darwin looked at the natural world and observed organisms of every kind striving to survive, competing for food, shelter, and mating privilege. This was the struggle for existence at the core of his theory. 

The Desire to Struggle

The struggle, however, depends on something else that Darwin didn’t see, something more fundamental. Antecedent to it is the desire to struggle, that is, to act in keeping with the organism’s purpose, to live. Only with this desire does the living thing then go out and fight for its life. The point may seem subtle but it really is not. If as we are told, life is ultimately purposeless and organisms have no innate purpose… then why struggle?

Simply put: Teleology, the purpose-driven innate property of life itself, precedes natural selection as the primary source of agency that explains evolution. Darwinism utterly misses this elementary fact.

Evolution News

Is it reasonable to say that an organism’s struggle to survive is an example of purposeful behavior? Can anyone identify a similar phenomenon outside of the realm of living things? Can the forces of nature produce a struggle to survive?

Copyright © 2022 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 Phys.org: Learning to better understand the language of algae

Can algae talk? “Well, although they don’t have any mouth or ears, algae still communicate with their own kind and with other organisms in their surroundings. They do this with volatile organic substances they release into the water,” says Dr. Patrick Fink, a water ecologist at the UFZ’s Magdeburg site.

These chemical signals are known as BVOCs (biogenic volatile organic compounds) and are the equivalent of odors in the air with which flowering plants communicate and attract their pollinators. When under attack by parasites, some plant species release odors that attract the parasites’ natural enemies to them.

“Algae also employ such interactions and protective mechanisms,” says Fink. “After all, they are among the oldest organisms on Earth, and chemical communication is the most original form of exchanging information in evolutionary history. However, our knowledge in this area still remains very fragmentary.”

An example from the ocean: A diatom bloom represents a true feast for copepods. This rich offering of nutrients should ensure that their population subsequently grows. However, this is not the case.

“Although the copepods are well nourished, their spawn that they carry with them in their egg sack is at serious risk. Because the BVOCS from the diatoms impede cell division and thus disrupt embryonic development,” Fink explains “In this way, the diatoms prevent excessive predation on their descendants—thereby ensuring the preservation of their kind.”

“As the primary producers, algae form the basis of life of all aquatic food webs,” says Fink. “It is therefore important that we learn to better understand the chemical communication of algae and their basic functional relationships in aquatic ecosystems.”

The authors believe that increased understanding of the language of algae could also have useful technical applications, such as in using chemical signals to deter parasites, thereby reducing the use of pharmaceuticals in aquaculture. A better understanding of the chemical communication paths is also important to enable the development of more efficient environmental strategies.

Complete article at Phys.org.

Communication implies the purposeful interchange of information. How does intentionality arise from natural interactions between atoms?

Copyright © 2022 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 Reasons.org: “I Think, Therefore It Must Be True,” Part 2: The Science of Certainty

The following article highlights the importance of humility to not only find the truth, but to make a winsome argument towards others for its validity. One aspect of humility would be a willingness to honestly consider all the evidence, including evidence that is contrary to our presuppositions.

Steven Willing writes:

“Do not be wise in your own eyes.” (Proverbs 3:7)

Most of us think we’re smarter than most of us. In a recent large survey, 65% of Americans rated themselves more intelligent than average.[1] Believing we’re very smart, we assume we’re usually right. But is that confidence warranted?

In the course of my medical career, I have known brilliant physicians of many different faiths. Among the most committed adherents, it is safe to say that all were quite sure regarding the truth of their particular faith. But each tradition contradicts all others in one or more matters. They could all be wrong in part or in whole; they cannot all be right. Logically, we must conclude that not only is it possible to be brilliant, certain, and wrong, but that it is common.

In the previous post, we looked at several nonrational factors that can lead to false beliefs: heuristics and biases, emotions, and social influences. We noted that education and intelligence are unreliable predictors of rational thinking.

Yet false beliefs comprise but one side of the coin. The other side, of equal or even greater importance, is the level of certainty attached to those beliefs. Confidence is our estimate of the probability that we are correct. It is a belief concerning our belief—metacognition, in psychological parlance.

The Illusion of Certainty

Ideally, our confidence should be roughly proportional to the mathematical probability that we are correct. In other words, if we are 90% certain, we should be right 90% of the time. But studies repeatedly show that our degree of certainty consistently exceeds our accuracy. For example, people who are “99% sure” are wrong 50% of the time. This disparity both defines and demonstrates the phenomenon of overconfidence. Our unwarranted certainty could be blamed on misplaced trust; that is, by placing too much credence in an unreliable source. However, since we tend to favor sources we already agree with (confirmation bias), excess certainty usually reflects an excessive faith in ourselves (pride).

In his 2009 tome On Being Certain, neuroscientist Robert Burton argued that certainty is not a state of reason but of feeling, influenced by unconscious physiologic processes.[2] Certainty is mostly illusion, Burton argues, and there is considerable evidence supporting this hypothesis.

Overconfidence has been demonstrated and measured in many domains besides intelligence: driving ability, economic forecasting, and medicine, for example. In almost every domain studied to date, significant majorities express a confidence in their abilities far beyond what is warranted, or even mathematically possible. Sometimes, the least competent people are the most confident, whereas the most skilled and knowledgeable people slightly underestimate their ability. This phenomenon has been dubbed the “Dunning-Kruger” effect, after the original researchers whose landmark paper, “Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments,” not only opened a new avenue of research but also has prompted smiles from those who sensed its ring of truth.[3]

The Intelligence Trap

Highly intelligent people constitute another group with an elevated risk of overconfidence. Intelligent people know they are intelligent, making them less likely to doubt themselves, respect other opinions, or change their minds. They are also every bit as attuned, if not more so, to social influences that motivate belief.[4]

Highly intelligent people can and do believe crazy things. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, creator of the ruthlessly logical Sherlock Holmes, was a devout believer in spiritualism and fairies. Albert Einstein expressed a naïve and unshakeable optimism concerning Lenin, Stalin, and the Soviet Union:

“I honor Lenin as a man who completely sacrificed himself and devoted all his energy to the realization of social justice. I do not consider his methods practical, but one thing is certain: men of his type are the guardians and restorers of humanity.”[5]

In The Intelligence Trap, science writer David Robson informs us that:

College graduates are more likely than nongraduates to believe in ESP and psychic healingPeople with IQ’s over 140 are more likely to max out on their creditHigh IQ individuals consume more alcohol and are more likely to smoke or take illegal drugs[6]

While the popular perception is that intelligent people are naturally skeptical, in fact all humans are believing machines. We drift with the cultural tides, embracing popular ideas on the flimsiest of evidence, then clutch those beliefs tenaciously to protect our egos, strut our virtue, justify our actions, and advertise loyalty to our in-group. This view may seem cynical, but it is well-validated.

There are many strategies for overcoming the “intelligence trap.” They include cognitive reflection, actively open-minded thinking, curiosity, emotional awareness and regulation, having a growth mindset, distrusting the herd, and consistent skepticism. However one habit of mind undergirds all others: an attitude of intellectual humility.

Knowing Our Limits

Intellectual humility could be defined as merely having a realistic view of our mental processing; namely, that our knowledge is inevitably limited, our thinking is unavoidably biased, and that even the smartest among us are prone to error.[7]

In recent decades, psychology has embraced a model of personality based on the “big five”: openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. The more recent version adds a sixth measure: HH, for honesty-humility. Researchers have demonstrated that HH shows a consistent negative correlation with all three elements of the “dark triad”: psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism.[8] On the other hand, HH correlates positively with healthier traits such as cooperation and self-control.

In a 2018 paper from UC Davis, researchers showed that intellectual humility is associated with openness during disagreement, and that promoting a growth mindset served to enhance intellectual humility.[9] Intellectual humility also helps to reduce polarization and conflict.[10] In one study, it was even superior to general intelligence in predicting academic achievement.[11]

Research Affirms Scripture

According to many adherents of the Judeo-Christian tradition, pride is the deadliest sin. Humility is its opposite. It may be tempting to assume this peril concerns only the skeptic, but it’s not just about “them.” It’s about all of us. And the greater the visibility or the higher one’s position in Christian circles, the greater problem is likely to be.

“Do not be wise in your own conceits.” (Romans 12:16, KJV)

Scripture repeatedly warns against unwarranted confidence in our own wisdom. Years of research in cognitive science shows this to be a common human problem that only worsens with intelligence. However, the antidote begins with intellectual humility, an ancient Judeo-Christian virtue whose wisdom has been validated by the latest empirical data.

EndnotesPatrick R. Heck, Daniel J. Simons, and Christopher F. Chabris, “65% of Americans Believe They Are above Average in Intelligence: Results of Two Nationally Representative Surveys,” PLoS ONE 13, no. 7 (July 3, 2018): e0200103, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0200103.Robert Burton,  On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You’re Not  (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2008).Justin Kruger and David Dunning, “Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77, no. 6 (January 2000): 1121–34, doi:10.1037//0022-3514.77.6.1121.Dan M. Kahan, “Ideology, Motivated Reasoning, and Cognitive Reflection,” Judgment and Decision Making 8, no. 4 (July 2013): 407–24.Lewis Samuel Feuer, Einstein and the Generations of Science 2nd ed. (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1989), 25.David Robson, The Intelligence Trap: Why Smart People Make Dumb Mistakes (New York: W. Norton & Company, 2019).Peter C. Hill et al., “A Few Good Measures: Colonel Jessup and Humility,” in Everett L. Worthington Jr., Don E. Davis, and Joshua N. Hook, eds., Handbook of Humility: Theory, Research, and Implications (New York: Routledge, 2017).Joseph Leman et al., “Personality Predictors and Correlates of Humility,” in Worthington, Davis, and Hook, eds., Handbook of Humility.Tenelle Porter and Karina Schumann, “Intellectual Humility and Openness to the Opposing View,” Self and Identity 17, issue 2 (August 9, 2017): 139–62, doi:10.1080/15298868.2017.1361861.Porter and Schumann, “Intellectual Humility.”Bradley P. Owens, Michael D. Johnson, and Terence R. Mitchell, “Expressed Humility in Organizations: Implications for Performance, Teams, and Leadership,” Organization Science 24, no. 5 (February 12, 2013): 1517–38, doi:10.1287/orsc.1120.0795.

Reasons.org

Copyright © 2022 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

An updated ( but not exhaustive) list of how to detect intelligent design

How to recognize the signature of (past) intelligent action

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2805-how-to-recognize-the-signature-of-past-intelligent-action

Claim: Herbert Spencer:  “Those who cavalierly reject the Theory of Evolution, as not adequately supported by facts, seem quite to forget that their own theory is supported by no facts at all.”

Reply: Contrasting and comparing “intended” versus “accidental” arrangements leads us to the notion of design. We have extensive experience-based knowledge of the kinds of strategies and systems that designing minds devise to solve various kinds of functional problems. We also know a lot about the kinds of phenomena that various natural causes produce. For this reason, we can observe the natural world, and living systems, and make informed inferences based on the unraveled and discovered evidence. 

A physical system is composed of a specific distribution of matter: a machine, a car, or a clock. When we describe it and quantify its size, structure, and motions, and annotate the materials used, that description contains information. When we arrange and distribute materials in a certain way for intended means, we can produce things for specific purposes and call them design. Thus, when we see a physical system and discern the arrangement of its parts having intentional functions, we call it designed.  The question thus is, when we see things in nature with purpose and appear designed, ARE they indeed the product of intentional design? 

Leibniz gave a remarkable description 300 years ago, that science would come to confirm only about 70 years ago. He had a remarkably advanced understanding of how biological systems work, without knowing the inner workings of the cell.  Each living cell is full of machines, molecular machines, that operate fully autonomously like robots, but the organelles, organs, organ systems, and last not least, the entire body of a multicellular organism operate as machines, on different levels.

How can random, nonliving matter produce structures of mind-boggling organizational intricacies at the molecular level that leave us in awe,  so sophisticated that our most advanced technology seems pale by comparison? How can a rational, honest person analyze these systems, and say they emerged by chance? These organic structures present us with a degree of complexity that we cannot explain stochastically by unguided means. Everything we know tells us that machines, preprogrammed robotlike production lines, computers, and energy generating turbines, electric circuits, and transistors, are structures of intelligent design. The cooperation and interdependent action of proteins and co-factors in cells is stupendous and depends on very specific controlled and arranged mechanisms, precise allosteric binding sites, and finely-tuned forces. Accidents do not design machines. Intellect does.

We can recognize design and the requirement of an acting mind when we see:

1. Something new created based on no pre-existing physical conditions or state of affairs ( a concept, an idea, a plan, a project, a blueprint)
2. A specific functional state of affairs, based on and dependent on mathematical rules, that depend on specified values ( that are independent, nonconditional, and that have no deeper grounding)
3. A force/cause that secures, upholds, maintains, and stabilizes a state of affairs, avoiding stochastic chaos. Eliminating conditions that change unpredictably from instant to instant or preventing things from uncontrollably popping in and out of existence.
4. Fine-tuning or calibrating something to get the function of a (higher-order) system.
5. Selected specific materials, that have been sorted out, concentrated, and joined at a construction site. 
6. An information storage system ( paper, a computer hard disk, etc.)
7. A language, based on statistics,  semantics, syntax, pragmatics, and apobetics
8. A code system, where meaning is assigned to characters, symbols, words
9. Translation ( the assignment of the meaning of one word in one language to another of another language ) that has the same meaning
10. An information transmission system ( a radio signal, internet, email, post delivery service, etc.)
11. A plan, blueprint, architectural drawing, or scheme for accomplishing a goal, that contains instructional information, directing the making for example of a 3D artifact, 1:1 equivalent to the plan of the blueprint.
12. Conversion ( digital-analog conversion, modulators, amplifiers)
13. Overlapping codes ( where one string of information can have different meanings) 
14. Systems of interconnected software and hardware
15. A library index and fully automated information classification, storage, and retrieval program
16. A software program that directs the making, and governs the function or/and operation of devices with specific functions.
17. Energy turbines
18. To create, execute, or construct something precisely according to an instructional plan or blueprint
19. The specific complex arrangement and joint of elements, parts, or materials to create a machine or a device for specific functions
20. A machine, that is, a piece of equipment with several moving parts that uses power to do a particular type of work that achieves a specific goal
21. Repetition of a variety of complex actions with precision based on methods that obey instructions, governed by rules.
22. Preprogrammed production or assembly lines that employ a series of machines/robots in the right order that are adjusted to work in an interdependent fashion to produce a specific functional (sub) product. 
23. Factories, that operate autonomously in a preprogrammed manner, integrating information that directs functions working in a joint venture together.
24. Objects that exhibit “constrained optimization.” The optimal or best-designed laptop computer is the one that has the best balances and compromise of multiple competing factors. Any human designer knows that good design often means finding a way to meet multiple constraints. Consider airplanes. We want them to be strong, but weight is an issue, so lighter materials must be used. We want to preserve people’s hearing and keep the cabin warm, so soundproofing and insulation are needed, but they add weight. All of this together determines fuel usage, which translates into how far the airplane can fly.
25. Artifacts which use might be employed in different systems (a wheel is used in cars and airplanes)
26. Error monitoring, check, and repair systems, depending on recognizing when something is broken, identifying where exactly the object is broken, to know when and how to repair it (e.g. one has to stop/or put on hold some other ongoing processes; one needs to know lots of other things, one needs to know the whole system, otherwise one creates more damage…) to know how to repair it (to use the right tools, materials, energy, etc, etc, etc ) to make sure that the repair was performed correctly.
27. Defense systems based on data collection and storage to protect a system/house, factory, etc. from invaders, intruders, enemies, killers, and destroyers.
28. Sending specific objects from address A to address B based on the address provided on the object, which informs its specific target destination. 
29. Keeping an object in a specific functional state of affairs as long as possible through regulation, and extending the duration upon which it can perform its task, using monitoring, guaranteeing homeostasis, stability, robustness, and order.
30. Self-replication of a dynamical system that results in the construction of an identical or similar copy of itself. The entire process of self-replication is data-driven and based on a sequence of events that can only be instantiated by understanding and knowing the right sequence of events. There is an interdependence of data and function. The function is performed by machines that are constructed based on the data instructions. (Source: Wikipedia) 
31. Replacing machines, systems, etc. in a factory before they break down as a preventive measure to guarantee long-lasting functionality and stability of the system/factory as a whole.
32. Recycling, which is the process of converting waste materials into new materials and objects. The recovery of energy from waste materials is often included in this concept. The recyclability of a material depends on its ability to reacquire the properties it had in its original state. ( Source: Wikipedia) 
33. Instantiating waste management or waste disposal processes that include actions required to manage waste from its inception to its final disposal. This includes the collection, transport, treatment, and disposal of waste, together with monitoring and regulation of the waste management process. ( Source: Wikipedia) 
34. Electronic circuits are composed of various active functional components, such as resistors, transistors, capacitors, inductors, and diodes, connected by conductive wires through which electric current can flow. The combination of components and wires allows various simple and complex operations to be performed: signals can be amplified, computations can be performed, and data can be moved from one place to another. (Source: Wikipedia) 
35. Arrangement of materials and elements into details, colors, and forms to produce an object or work of art able to transmit the sense of beauty, and elegance, that pleases the aesthetic senses, especially sight.
36. Instantiating things on the nanoscale. Know-how is required in regard to quantum chemistry techniques, chemical stability, kinetic stability of metastable structures, the consideration of close dimensional tolerances, thermal tolerances, friction, and energy dissipation, the path of implementation, etc. See: Richard Jones: Six challenges for molecular nanotechnology December 18, 2005
37. Objects in nature very similar to human-made things

The (past) action or signature of an intelligent designer in the natural world can be deduced and inferred since :

1. The universe had a beginning and was created apparently out of nothing physical. It can therefore only be the product of a powerful, intelligent mind that willed it, and decided to create it.
2. The universe obeys the laws and rules of mathematics and physics, a specific set of equations, upon which it can exist and operate. That includes Newtonian Gravity of point particles, General Relativity, and Quantum Field Theory. Everything in the universe is part of a mathematical structure. All matter is made up of particles, which have properties such as charge and spin, but these properties are purely mathematical.
3. Our universe remains orderly and predictable over huge periods of time. Atoms are stable because they are charge neutral. If it were not so, they would become ions, and annihilate in a fraction of a second. Our solar system, the trajectory of the earth surrounding the sun, and the moon surrounding the earth, are also stable, and that depends on a myriad of factors, that must be precisely adjusted and finely tuned. 
4. The Laws of physics and constants, the initial conditions of the universe, the expansion rate of the Big bang, atoms and the subatomic particles, the fundamental forces of the universe, stars, galaxies, the Solar System, the earth, the moon, the atmosphere, water, and even biochemistry on a molecular level, and the bonding forces of molecules like Watson-Crick base-pairing are finely tuned in an unimaginably narrow range to permit life.
5. Life uses a limited set of complex macro biomolecules, a universal convention, and unity which is composed of the four basic building blocks of life ( RNA and DNA, amino acids, phospholipids, and carbohydrates). They are of a very specific complex functional composition, that has to be selected and available in great quantity, and concentrated at the building site of cells. 
6. DNA is a molecule that stores assembly information through the specified complex sequence of nucleotides, which directs and instructs a functional sequence of amino acids to make molecular machines, in other words, proteins.
7. Perry Marshall (2015): Ji has identified 13 characteristics of human language. DNA shares 10 of them. Cells edit DNA. They also communicate with each other and literally speak a language he called “cellese,” described as “a self-organizing system of molecules, some of which encode, act as signs for, or trigger, gene-directed cell processes.” This comparison between cell language and human language is not a loosey-goosey analogy; it’s formal and literal.
8.L. Hood (2003): Hubert Yockey, the world’s foremost biophysicist and foremost authority on biological information: “Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) AND ARE NOT SYNONYMS, METAPHORS, OR ANALOGIES.”
9. The ribosome translates the words of the genetic language composed of 64 codon words to the language of proteins, composed of 20 amino acids.
10.Zuckerkandl and Pauling (1965): The organization of various biological forms and their interrelationships, vis-à-vis biochemical and molecular networks, is characterized by the interlinked processes of the flow of information between the information-bearing macromolecular semantides, namely DNA and RNA, and proteins.
11. Cells in our body make use of our DNA library to extract blueprints that contain the instructions to build structures and molecular machines, proteins.
12. DNA stores both, Digital and Analog Information 
13. Pelajar: There is growing evidence that much of the DNA in higher genomes is poly-functional, with the same nucleotide contributing to more than one type of code. DNA is read in terms of reading frames of “three letter words” (codons) for a specific amino acide building block for proteins. There are actually six reading frames possible. A.Abel (2008):  The codon redundancy (“degeneracy”) found in protein-coding regions of mRNA also prescribes Translational Pausing (TP). When coupled with the appropriate interpreters, multiple meanings and functions are programmed into the same sequence of configurable switch settings. This additional layer of prescriptive Information (PI) purposely slows or speeds up the translation-decoding process within the ribosome. 
14. Nicholson (2019): At its core was the idea of the computer, which, by introducing the conceptual distinction between ‘software’ and ‘hardware’, directed the attention of researchers to the nature and coding of the genetic instructions (the software) and to the mechanisms by which these are implemented by the cell’s macromolecular components (the hardware).
15. The gene regulatory network is a fully automated, pre-programmed, ultra-complex gene information extraction and expression orchestration system. 
16. Genetic and epigenetic information ( at least 33 variations of genetic codes, and 49 epigenetic codes ) and at least 5 signaling networks direct the making of complex multicellular organisms, biodiversity, form, and architecture
17. ATP synthase is a molecular energy-generating nano-turbine ( It produces energy in the form of Adenine triphosphate ATP. Once charged, ATP can be “plugged into” a wide variety of molecular machines to perform a wide variety of functions).
18. The ribosome constructs proteins based on the precise instructions from the information stored in the genome. T. Mukai et.al (2018):Accurate protein biosynthesis is an immensely complex process involving more than 100 discrete components that must come together to translate proteins with high speed, efficiency, and fidelity. 
19.M.Piazzi: (2019): Ribosome biogenesis is a highly dynamic process in which transcription of the runes, processing/modification of the runes, association of ribosomal proteins (RPs) to the pre-runes, proper folding of the pre-runes, and transport of the maturing ribosomal subunits to the cytoplasm are all combined. In addition to the ribosomal proteins RPs that represent the structural component of the ribosome, over 200 other non-ribosomal proteins and 75 snoRNAs are required for ribosome biogenesis. 
20. Mathias Grote (2019): Today’s science tells us that our bodies are filled with molecular machinery that orchestrates all sorts of life processes. When we think, microscopic “channels” open and close in our brain cell membranes; when we run, tiny “motors” spin in our muscle cell membranes; and when we see, light operates “molecular switches” in our eyes and nerves. A molecular-mechanical vision of life has become commonplace in both the halls of philosophy and the offices of drug companies, where researchers are developing “proton pump inhibitors” or medicines similar to Prozac.
21. A variety of biological events are performed in a repetitive manner, described in biomechanics, obeying complex biochemical and biomechanical signals. Those include, for example, cell migration, cell motility, traction force generation, protrusion forces, stress transmission, mechanosensing and mechanotransduction, mechanochemical coupling in biomolecular motors, synthesis, sorting, storage, and transport of biomolecules
22. Cells contain high information content that directs and controls integrated metabolic pathways which if altered are inevitably damaged or destroy their function. They also require regulation and are structured in a cascade manner, similar to electronic circuit boards.
23. Living Cells are information-driven factories. They store very complex epigenetic and genetic information through the genetic code, over forty epigenetic languages, translation systems, and signaling networks. These information systems prescribe and instruct the making and operation of cells and multicellular organisms.
24. It may well be that the designer chose to create an “OPTIMUM DESIGN” or a “ROBUST AND ADAPTABLE DESIGN” rather than a “perfect design.” Perhaps some animals or creatures behave exactly the way they do to enhance the ecology in ways that we don’t know about. Perhaps the “apparent” destructive behavior of some animals provides other animals with an advantage in order to maintain balance in nature or even to change the proportions of the animal population.
25. There are a variety of organisms, unrelated to each other, which encounter nearly identical convergent biological systems. This commonness makes little sense in light of evolutionary theory. If evolution is indeed responsible for the diversity of life, one would expect convergence to be extremely rare. Some convergent systems are bat echolocation in bats, oilbirds, and dolphins, cephalopod eye structure, similar to the vertebrate eye, an extraordinary similarity of the visual systems of sand lance (fish) and chameleon (reptile). Both the chameleon and the sand lance move their eyes independent of one another in a jerky manner, rather than in concert. Chameleons share their ballistic tongues with salamanders and sand lace fish.
26.L. DEMEESTER (2004):: Biological cells are preprogrammed to use quality-management techniques used in manufacturing today. The cell invests in defect prevention at various stages of its replication process, using 100% inspection processes, quality assurance procedures, and foolproofing techniques. An example of the cell inspecting each and every part of a product is DNA proofreading. As the DNA gets replicated, the enzyme DNA polymerase adds new nucleotides to the growing DNA strand, limiting the number of errors by removing incorrectly incorporated nucleotides with a proofreading function. Following is an impressive example:  Unbroken DNA conducts electricity, while an error blocks the current. Some repair enzymes exploit this. One pair of enzymes lock onto different parts of a DNA strand. One of them sends an electron down the strand. If the DNA is unbroken, the electron reaches the other enzyme and causes it to detach. I.e. this process scans the region of DNA between them, and if it’s clean, there is no need for repairs. But if there is a break, the electron doesn’t reach the second enzyme. This enzyme then moves along the strand until it reaches the error, and fixes it. This mechanism of repair seems to be present in all living things, from bacteria to man.
27. CRISPR-Cas is an immune system based on data storage and identity check systems. [url=by Marina V. Zaychikova]M. V. Zaychikova (2020)[/url]: CRISPR-Cas systems, widespread in bacteria and archaea, are mainly responsible for adaptive cellular immunity against exogenous DNA (plasmid and phage)
28.D.Akopian (2013): Proper localization of proteins to their correct cellular destinations is essential for sustaining the order and organization in all cells. Roughly 30% of the proteome is initially destined for the eukaryotic endoplasmic reticulum (ER), or the bacterial plasma membrane. Although the precise number of proteins remains to be determined, it is generally recognized that the majority of these proteins are delivered by the Signal Recognition Particle (SRP), a universally conserved protein targeting machine
29.Western Oregeon University: The hypothalamus is involved in the regulation of body temperature, heart rate, blood pressure, and circadian rhythms (which include wake/sleep cycles).
30. As a model of a self-replicating system, it has its counterpart in life where the computer is represented by the instructions contained in the genes, while the construction machines are represented by the cell and its machinery that transcribes, translates, and replicates the information stored in genes.  RNA polymerase transcribes, and the ribosome translates the information stored in DNA and produces a Fidel reproduction of the cell and all the machinery inside of the cell. Once done, the genome is replicated, and handed over to the descendant replicated cell, and the mother cell has produced a daughter cell. 
31.L. DEMEESTER (2004): Singapore Management UniversityThe cell does not even wait until the machine fails, but replaces it long before it has a chance to break down. And second, it completely recycles the machine that is taken out of production. The components derived from this recycling process can be used not only to create other machines of the same type, but also to create different machines if that is what is needed in the “plant.” This way of handling its machines has some clear advantages for the cell. New capacity can be installed quickly to meet current demand. At the same time, there are never idle machines around taking up space or hogging important building blocks. Maintenance is a positive “side effect” of the continuous machine renewal process, thereby guaranteeing the quality of output. Finally, the ability to quickly build new production lines from scratch has allowed the cell to take advantage of a big library of contingency plans in its DNA that allow it to quickly react to a wide range of circumstances.
32.J. A. Solinger (2020): About 70–80% of endocytosed material is recycled back from sorting endosomes to the plasma membrane through different pathways. Defects in recycling lead to a myriad of human diseases such as cancer, arthrogryposis–renal dysfunction–cholestasis syndrome, Bardet–Biedl syndrome or Alzheimer’s disease
33. Proteasomes are protein complexes which degrade unneeded or damaged proteins by proteolysis, a chemical reaction that breaks peptide bonds. Enzymes that help such reactions are called proteases. ( Source: Wikipedia) G. Premananda (2013): The disposal of protein “trash” in the cell is the job of a complex machine called the proteasome.  What could be more low than trash collection?  Here also, sophisticated mechanisms work together. Two different mechanisms are required to determine which targets to destroy.” The “recognition tag” and “initiator tag.” Both mechanisms have to be aligned properly to enter the machine’s disposal barrel.  “The proteasome can recognize different plugs1, but each one has to have the correct specific arrangement of prongs.
34.S. Balaji (2004): An electronic circuit has been designed to mimic glycolysis, the Citric Acid (TCA) cycle and the electron transport chain. Enzymes play a vital role in metabolic pathways; similarly transistors play a vital role in electronic circuits; the characteristics of enzymes in comparison with those of transistors suggests that the properties are analagous.
35.M.Larkin (2018): The animal kingdom is full of beauty. From their vibrant feathers to majestic fur coats, there’s no denying that some animals are just prettier than us humans.
36.David Goodsell (1996): Dozens of enzymes are needed to make the DNA bases cytosine and thymine from their component atoms. The first step is a “condensation” reaction, connecting two short molecules to form one longer chain, performed by aspartate carbamoyltransferase. The entire protein complex is composed of over 40,000 atoms, each of which plays a vital role. The handful of atoms that actually perform the chemical reaction are the central players. But they are not the only important atoms within the enzyme–every atom plays a supporting pan. The atoms lining the surfaces between subunits are chosen to complement one another exactly, to orchestrate the shifting regulatory motions. The atoms covering the surface are carefully picked to interact optimally with water, ensuring that the enzyme doesn’t form a pasty aggregate, but remains an individual, floating factory. And the thousands of interior atoms are chosen to fit like a jigsaw puzzle, interlocking into a sturdy framework. Aspartate carbamoyltransferase is fully as complex as any fine automobile in our familiar world.
37. R. Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, p. 1 “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” F. Crick, What Mad Pursuit,1988, p 138. “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” Richard Morris, The Fate of the Universe, 1982, 155.”It is almost as though the universe had been consciously designed.”

Copyright © 2022 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 Reasons.org: “I Think, Therefore It Must Be True,” Part 1: The Science of Belief

Steven Willing writes:

Late in life, atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell received this challenge: if, after death, he found himself face to face with God, what would he say? Russell replied, “I probably would ask, ‘Sir, why did you not give me better evidence?’”¹

Theists contend that though evidence for God is both present and sufficient, bias can fog even brilliant minds like Russell’s. It’s possible that bias could explain Russell’s atheism, but is the accusation of bias merely an ad hominem counter argument? We often assume that human beliefs arise from the application of reason to facts and experience; that we are, in effect, Homo rationalis (rational man). If Russell were objectively rational after considering all the evidence, then his defense is valid. His unbelief would signify failure on God’s part.

Reasons.org

Homo rationalis is widely embraced and resonates with our self-perception. We always think our own beliefs are based on facts, reason, and experience.

Social scientists in the 1970s broadly accepted two ideas about human nature. First, people are generally rational, and their thinking is normally sound. Second, emotions such as fear, affection, and hatred explain most of the occasions on which people depart from rationality.²

However, the Christian Scriptures reject the doctrine of Homo rationalis, instead predicting that people would refuse to believe in the face of overwhelming evidence. In a parable recorded in Luke 16, Jesus says, “If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.” And in Romans 1:21, Paul writes, “Because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.”

In recent decades, researchers from a range of disciplines have investigated the nature of human belief. The results of this research enable us to test which is more correct, Homo rationalis or the biblical perspective.

Finding #1: Relying on Heuristics

Humans routinely sift through mountains of information to make even simple decisions. Ideally, a person one would take accurate, complete data and apply reason to reach a logical and correct conclusion. Reality is not so cooperative; we often lack both time and desire for exhaustive analysis, even if perfect information were available. Instead, we make the best possible decisions based on imperfect, incomplete data.

Heuristics are those mental shortcuts people use for deciding as efficiently as possible given the information on hand. We all use them, several times a day. Heuristics are quite helpful, actually. If you encounter a shadowy figure in a dark alley with something shaped like a gun in his hand, the “representativeness” heuristic would recommend avoidance. Logic would be useless until you determined beyond all doubt that (1) yes, it was a gun, and (2) the bearer had malicious intent—which could be too late.

Unfortunately, heuristics are often wrong and used as a substitute for thoughtful reflection. In his book Thinking Fast and Slow, renowned psychologist Daniel Kahneman offers a comprehensive portrayal of how our minds work and how an expanding catalog of cognitive biases and faulty heuristics routinely and predictably lead us astray. Heuristics are automatic, quick, and effortless. Kahneman labels this “System 1” thinking. Thoughtful reflection (“System 2” thinking) yields better decisions at the cost of time and effort. What Kahneman and his collaborators found was that our minds are naturally lazy so we rely on System 1 as much as possible: “System 1 is gullible and biased to believe, System 2 is in charge of doubting and unbelieving, but System 2 is sometimes busy, and often lazy.”³

Cognitive biases are tendencies deeply embedded in our subconscious that lead us to err in predictable ways. Almost two hundred have been described in the literature. Many serve to enhance our own self-image or minimize emotional tension. For example, confirmation bias is the tendency to assign greater significance to evidence that supports our preexisting opinion. Heuristics and biases are closely intertwined. One way to understand the connection is that heuristics represent a shortcut to decision making, but are neutral regarding outcome. Biases push those decisions in certain (somewhat) predictable directions. Having invested a lifetime researching heuristics and biases, Kahneman concluded that “the human mind is not bound to reality.”4

Finding #2: Emotional Influences

It would be a sorry state of affairs if we regarded tragedy and suffering with cold indifference. But to what extent do emotions determine our beliefs? Is it merely an occasional exception or do emotions undermine the validity of Homo rationalis? In recent decades, a clear picture has emerged. It began with the observation that patients with specific brain injuries lost all capacity for emotion. The surprising consequence, though, was that such patients also lost the ability to make decisions. They could analyze a problem all day long without ever forming a conclusion. Dr. Antoine Bechara summarized the outcome of this research in 2004: 5

The studies of decision-making in neurological patients who can no longer process emotional information normally suggest that people make judgments not only by evaluating the consequences and their probability of occurring, but also and even sometimes primarily at a gut or emotional level. (emphasis added)

Now, this is far from saying that every decision is purely or primarily emotional nor that emotions inevitably lead to flawed conclusions. But when it comes to objective analysis or honest truth-seeking, emotions may not merely impede our progress; they can propel us right off the cliff. Consider the emotional fervor over certain political, social, religious, and even scientific issues. It is easy to believe the issues inflame our passion; more often it is our passions that inflame the issue. Despite the evidence, few will admit to thinking emotionally rather than logically. Most likely we don’t even know we’re doing it.

In 2015, Jennifer Lerner of Harvard University reviewed 35 years of research on the role of emotions in judgment and decision making.6

The research reveals that emotions constitute potent, pervasive, predictable, sometimes harmful and sometimes beneficial drivers of decision making. Across different domains, important regularities appear in the mechanisms through which emotions influence judgments and choices.

Finding #3: Social influences

If Homo rationalis existed, then we could completely trust expert opinions. But there are two obvious problems. First, experts often disagree. Second, recent history shows that experts sometimes fail spectacularly. The bandwagon effect inclines people to conform their opinions to the perceived majority position. This may occur either to enhance one’s own conformity and social acceptance, or because one sincerely (perhaps naively) trusts the wisdom of the majority.

When formulating an opinion on a complex subject, rarely do people rely on their own analysis. For example, on initial consideration, Professor B may consider Professor A’s opinion. The opinion of Professor A will be treated as additional data, sometimes prompting Professor B to reach the opposite conclusion from what he might have reached independently. Professor C then comes along and, rather than seeing disagreement between Professors A and B, she sees unanimity. If she trusts her colleagues, the inclination toward agreement becomes ever greater. This is the mechanism by which information cascades develop. In an information cascade, the early deciders have a disproportionate impact over equally qualified experts who arrive later. When a cascade has occurred, the majority viewpoint of 100 experts may be completely opposite to the opinion of the same 100 experts analyzing the data independently, blinded to the opinions of their colleagues.

Finding #4: Intelligence and Religiosity

There is no evidence that more intelligent or better educated individuals transcend their own emotions and biases or are less susceptible to peer pressure. In Kahneman’s collaborative research, it didn’t matter whether the subjects were average high school students or Ivy League undergrads. Highly intelligent and educated people are more confident,7 making them less likely to doubt their opinions or change their minds. Rather than pursuing truth wherever it may be found, smarter people channel their energy toward arguing and reinforcing their preexisting opinions.8

Belief Formation Research Supports Scripture

While Bertrand Russell, and many others, may attribute unbelief to lack of evidence, the Bible declares that belief is a choice. Research on human decision making has demonstrated that we are heavily influenced by nonrational factors that can lead to faulty decisions and incorrect belief (or unbelief). It seems the Bible’s view is well supported. To paraphrase Solzhenitsyn, the dividing line between fact and fancy cuts through the mind of every person, believer and skeptic alike.

Reasons.org

The conclusions of this article indicate the importance of continuing to strive to evaluate the available evidence rationally and objectively.

Copyright © 2022 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