Michael J. Behe's Blog, page 32

At Mind Matters News: Why it’s difficult for science to answer some basic questions

Are we reaching the edge of the things science can tell us?

Siegel asks pessimistically, “Is theoretical physics broken? Or is it just hard? When you don’t have enough clues to bring your detective story to a close, you should expect that your educated guesses will all be wrong.” It’s fashionable today to talk about a “crisis in cosmology” due to issues like these. But it is a static crisis, if such is possible. That is, things could go on this way indefinitely.

Will another discovery resolve the questions, as so often in the past? Or are we reaching the edge of the things science can tell us — the territory of “Why is there something rather than nothing”? We can only research and see what happens, as the questions that science is expected to answer grow more basic and more profound.

Takehome: We can only research and see what happens, as the questions science is expected to answer grow more basic and more profound.

You may also wish to read: A recent Big Bang debate: Sheer politeness underscores a shakeup. Takehome point: “Everyone would be keen to abandon the theory if there’s a better alternative, nobody’s married to the Big Bang theory.” Such sudden, widespread cosmological doubt is bound to have a major cultural impact even if it’s too soon to see how it will play out in, say, science fiction.

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

Otangelo Grasso has a new book out — Origin of life and the virus world

The subtitle is “By means of an intelligent designer”

Readers may recall Grasso from many venues, including an item we published here, “Otangelo Grasso on the difficulties of reasoning with atheists,” which has attracted 121 comments so far.

About Origin of life and the virus world, he writes to tell us,

This book is about one of the deepest unsolved mysteries: The immensely difficult puzzle of the origin of life. Watson and Crick discovered the DNA molecule in the early fifties, and Miller & Urey performed their chemical experiments in 1953, which started the modern era of investigation of the origin of life. Huge sums of money were spent, and incalculable man-hours were invested to solve the mystery of life’s origin, but it did not bring clear answers to the trajectory from non-life to life by unguided natural means.

Investigators have come up with numerous hypotheses, but are even in the dark about having an idea about the trajectory, or a clear model. In popular media, the impression is being nourished, that solving the problem of the origin of life is just a matter of time. “Science is working on it” — so they say. Truth is, there is widespread ignorance and lack of knowledge in regards to the size of the problem — not acknowledged beyond the narrow circle of specialists.

Otangelo Grasso’s work is the result of many years of investigations into biochemistry, and the origin of life. We can now advance Paley’s Watchmaker argument, to the factory maker argument:

Cells have a codified description of themselves in digital form stored in genes and have the machinery to transform that blueprint through information transfer from genotype to phenotype, into an identical representation in analog 3D form, the physical ‘reality’ of that description.

The cause leading to a machine’s and factory’s functionality has only been found in the mind of the engineer and nowhere else.

This book is divided into the following main sections: Cells are chemical factories (Chapter 1), Setting up a framework to investigate the Origin of Life (The Methods [2, 3]) The prebiotic origin of the four building blocks of life (The Materials [4-7]) the origin of biological information storage, transmission, and systems of expression (8) the origin of the Virus world (9), and some notes on why Intelligent Design is the most plausible explanation for the Origin of Life and Viruses (10).

Again, the book is here.

Good thing someone is including the virus world in the discussion.

If readers wish to respond, maybe Otangelo will offer comments below. Some of us would like to know more of his views on the virus world, often avoided in these contexts.

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: How fluctuating oxygen levels may have accelerated animal evolution

Oxygen levels in the Earth’s atmosphere are likely to have “fluctuated wildly” 1 billion years ago, creating conditions that could have accelerated the development of early animal life, according to new research. 

Scientists believe atmospheric oxygen developed in three stages, starting with what is known as the Great Oxidation Event around 2 billion years ago, when oxygen first appeared in the atmosphere. The third stage, around 400 million years ago, saw atmospheric oxygen rise to levels that exist today. 

What is uncertain is what happened during the second stage, in a time known as the Neoproterozoic Era, which started about 1 billion years ago and lasted for around 500 million years, during which time early forms of animal life emerged.  

“Up until now, scientists had thought that after the Great Oxidation Event, oxygen levels were either low and then shot up just before we see the first animals evolve, or that oxygen levels were high for many millions of years before the animals came along.

“But our study shows oxygen levels were far more dynamic. There was an oscillation between high and low levels of oxygen for a long time before early forms of animal life emerged. We are seeing periods where the ocean environment, where early animals lived, would have had abundant oxygen—and then periods where it does not. 

Dr. Benjamin Mills, who leads the Earth Evolution Modeling Group at Leeds and supervised the project, said, “This periodic change in environmental conditions would have produced evolutionary pressures where some life forms may have become extinct and new ones could emerge.” 

Dr. Mills said the oxygenated periods expanded what are known as “habitable spaces”—parts of the ocean where oxygen levels would have been high enough to support early animal life forms. 

He said, “It has been proposed in ecological theory that when you have a habitable space that is expanding and contracting, this can support rapid changes to the diversity of biological life. 

“When oxygen levels decline, there is severe environmental pressure on some organisms which could drive extinctions. And when the oxygen-rich waters expand, the new space allows the survivors to rise to ecological dominance. 

“These expanded habitable spaces would have lasted for millions of years, giving plenty of time for ecosystems to develop.”

Full article at Phys.org.

Note that while a decline in oxygen levels could certainly drive some organisms into extinction, the reverse process has no magical powers to produce new organisms. Increased atmospheric oxygen is not a mechanism for generating novel functional biocomplexity. However, an intelligent agent (say, a divine Creator) could use the “habitable space” produced by higher oxygenation to create new species that require more oxygen.

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 Mind Matters News: Smoke and drink too much? Blame Neanderthal man!

Besides passing on addictive habits, if you believe a study of casts from fossil skulls, our Neanderthal ancestors couldn’t meditate either…

“The study found that while Neandertal DNA showed over-proportional numbers of associations with several traits that are associated with central nervous system diseases, the diseases themselves did not show any significant numbers of Neandertal DNA associations. Among the traits with the strongest Neandertal DNA contribution were smoking habits, alcohol consumption and sleeping patterns. Using data from other cohorts such as the Estonian Biobank, the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety, FinnGen, Biobank Japan and deCode, several of these results could be replicated. Of specific note were two independent top-risk Neandertal variants for a positive smoking status that were found in the UK Biobank and Biobank Japan respectively. ESTONIAN RESEARCH COUNCIL, “NEANDERTHAL DNA MIGHT BE LINKED TO SMOKING, DRINKING, SLEEPING PATTERNS IN MODERN HUMANS: STUDY” AT EUREKALERT (OCTOBER 6, 2022) THE PAPER IS OPEN ACCESS.”

So. Neanderthal man, long extinct as a separate human group, now explains why we smoke and drink to excess… How handy. And who can refute it?” …

The interesting thing is that, over the years, Neanderthal man — once just a brute — has actually gotten smarter. That’s not because he has changed. It’s because we know more than we used to about our ancestors. It would be nice to think that it is also because we are less arrogant now but that would be much very harder to prove.

Takehome: Actually, in recent years, researchers have found evidence of a rich Neanderthal culture, belying the stereotypes we have incorporated into our culture. So when did human evolution actually take place?

You may also wish to read: Why is Neanderthal art considered controversial? It makes sense that whenever humans started to wonder about life, we started to create art that helps us think about it. Science writer Michael Marshall reports that some researchers are accused of banning others from taking samples that would prove a Neanderthal was the artist.

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 Mind Matters News: New function for our brains’ cerebellum: Emotional memory

Memory is all immaterial information. But very different types of information. Researchers found that the cerebellum handles a lot of emotional memory

We use the same word “memory” to mean very different types of things. There’s the new phone number, in which we have no emotional investment. Then there’s the smell of cinnamon buns from a long-ago home-town bakery, which is a non-shareable emotional investment. And again, there’s a colleague’s advice about addressing a difficult client’s needs… that’s a mixture of a number of different types of memory, in getting the right approach down pat.

All memory is immaterial information, of very different types. And a team of researchers finds that our brains’ cerebellum handles a lot of emotional memory.

At least neuroscience is past the “lizard brain” theory and all that.

Takehome: If a number of brain regions are affected by traumatic memories, recovery may be prolonged. “Aw, get OVER it!” will be even less useful advice.

You may also wish to read: A little-known structure tells our brains what matters now. Work with monkeys and mice has shed light on the filtering role of a neglected feature of the mammalian brain. The cuneate nucleus (CN) in the brain stem turns out to communicate regularly with your prefrontal cortex and spine as to what you had better notice.

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 Mind Matters News: Researchers are zeroing in on animal number sense

We’re beginning to find out more about how animals that don’t really “think” much can keep track of numbers, when needed.

That said, Butterworth’s and other researchers’ work is encouraging in that it helps us understand how, exactly, life forms that do not really think in a human sense can handle numerical tasks anyway, on account of the way their brains are organized.

Knowing the neuroscience behind a life form’s abilities is much more useful for science than, say, a declaration that a number sense “enables the frog to secure a better mate” or “helps the zebrafish survive.” Doubtless, those observations are correct. But the science question is, how does the life form secure that advantage?

Takehome: It’s long been known by observation that many life forms can count, up to a point. The question of how, exactly, they do it is the science goal at present.

You may also wish to read: Are our neurons really wired for numbers? Some neuroscientists say they have shown hardwiring in studies of crows and macaques but others say no, these life forms differ too much. For humans, the story is even more complex. Abstract math, driven by curiosity, may result in practical everyday benefits, not the other way around.

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 Mind Matters News: One-celled life form uses early “computer” to stand in for brain

Researchers found that that’s how Euplotes eurystomus controls “legs” in a sort of walking pattern

One unexpected thing that the computer has done is given us some insight into how life forms that are utterly different from ourselves manage to do things. For example, there is an analogy between the way ants think and computer programming. That helps us understand how an anthill can be organized in a very complex way without any individual ant ever seeing the big picture — or needing to.

In the same way, a single-celled organism uses an “internal ‘computer’” to walk without needing a brain

(And it is all supposed to have happened with no intelligence or design.)

Takehome: The researchers suspect that other single-celled life forms also use something roughly like early computing methods as an alternative to a brain.

You may also wish to read: The intelligence birds and bees naturally have — and we don’t. An exploration of the stunning findings in Eric Cassell’s new book, “Animal Algorithms.” Cassell observes that it would take deep thought and sophisticated design techniques to build a robot to accomplish what the bees, ants and termites can do.

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 Mind Matters News: Reductionism as a dead end in neuroscience — captured in an essay

From the evidence that he presents, Anil Seth could at most show that animal consciousness is more complex than previously thought. But what does he say? Stuff like

“This returns us one last time to Descartes. In dissociating mind from body, he argued that non-human animals were nothing more than ‘beast machines’ without any inner universe. In his view, basic processes of physiological regulation had little or nothing to do with mind or consciousness. I’ve come to think the opposite. It now seems to me that fundamental aspects of our experiences of conscious selfhood might depend on control-oriented predictive perception of our messy physiology, of our animal blood and guts. We are conscious selves because we too are beast machines – self-sustaining flesh-bags that care about their own persistence.”

So, contemplating the vast mystery — as well as complexity — of consciousness, Dr. Seth asserts that it shows that “we too are beast machines.”

Actually, it provides a convincing demonstration of how reductionism does not work well in neuroscience. At most, it would mean that animal consciousness is more complex than we have earlier supposed. For that, at least, we have a growing body of evidence.

Takehome: Dr. Seth surely does not show what he proposes: “Scientists and philosophers might have made consciousness far more mysterious than it needs to be.”

You may also wish to read: Psychiatry has always been difficult but … it’s unclear how trashing almost every philosophical tradition from which it is approached will really help. Understanding the human mind is necessarily complex because it is both what we are trying to perceive and the tool by which we hope to perceive it.

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

From The New Atlantis: The Fine-Tuning Of Nature’s Laws – What Physics Tells Us About The Improbability Of Life

Physicist Luke Barnes writes (from a 2015 essay, continued):

Credit: The New Atlantis

So, what if one day the Ultimate Law of Nature is laid out before us, like a completed crossword puzzle? Whatever we think about that law will have to be deeper than physics, so to speak. We will be thinking about science — that is, we will be doing philosophy. Even if the only fact about what is beyond physics is that “there is nothing beyond physics,” we must remember that this is a statement about physics, not of physics.

Naturalism is not the only game in town when it comes to explaining why some law of nature might be the ultimate one. Its competitors include axiarchism, the view that moral value, such as the goodness of embodied, free, conscious moral agents like us, can explain the existence of one kind of universe rather than another; or, in the words of John Leslie, the theory’s chief proponent, it is “the theory that the world exists because it should.” Theism is another alternative, according to which God designed the universe and its fundamental laws and constants. These two views can trim the list of candidate explanations of the fundamental laws of nature, heavily favoring those possible universes that permit the existence of valuable life forms like us. By suggesting that fundamental physical principles are calibrated to make the existence of beings like us possible, investigations into fine-tuning seem to lend support to these kinds of theories. A full appraisal of their merits would also need to consider their relative simplicity, and other aspects of human existence, such as goodness, beauty, and suffering.

Are we special? This is not the kind of question that science usually asks, and for good reason — we don’t have a specialometer. And yet, certain observations do hold a special place in science. The faint static detected in 1964 by the antenna of Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson seemed unremarkable; all scientific instruments are plagued by noise. Only when this experiment came to the attention of Robert Dicke and his colleagues at Princeton University was it realized that they had discovered the cosmic microwave background, a relic of the early universe.

Facts can be special to a theory. That is, they can be special because of what we can infer from them. Fine-tuning shows that life could be extraordinarily special in this sense. Our universe’s ability to create and sustain life is rare indeed; a highly explainable but as yet unexplained fact. It could point the way to deeper physics, or beyond this universe, or even to principles beyond the ultimate laws of nature.

Cited from the full article at The New Atlantis.

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

From The New Atlantis: The Fine-Tuning of Nature’s Laws – What physics tells us about the improbability of life

Physicist Luke Barnes writes (from a 2015 essay):

Our “ancient instinct of astonishment,” suggests G.K. Chesterton, is awakened when we consider how the world could have been very different. The possibilities of existence are explored in fairy tales and fuel children’s endless questions about why the universe is the way it is. This kind of curiosity, if left unchecked in youth, can easily develop into a career in physics.

Credit: The New Atlantis

Physicists’ deepest theories of the cosmos have several loose ends. They leave open a set of possibilities — ways that our universe could have been. They describe our universe, but can just as easily describe universes that started differently, or that have different fundamental properties. If we want to know why the universe is as it is, we need to know why, of all the possibilities, ours is the actual universe. Just as science has illuminated our place in the solar system, the galaxy, and the universe at large, we must consider our place in the laws of nature.

Physicists tend to picture the advancement of science in two ways. The experimentalist dreams of new data that overthrows our current theories. For example, in 1905 Henri Poincaré called the element radium “that grand revolutionist of the present time,” a substance that glowed for months on end with no obvious energy source. Perhaps energy is not conserved, or perhaps atoms have an enormous internal reservoir of energy. Either way, something about physics had to change.

The theorist, on the other hand, seeks a creative insight that explains the world in a simpler, more elegant, more unified way. For example, when Apollo astronaut David Scott dropped a hammer and a feather on the Moon, they hit the ground at the same time. This was a dramatic illustration of the long-understood but still counterintuitive truth that weight does not determine how fast an object will fall. But it took the genius of Einstein, reasoning theoretically, to show that gravity is the curvature of space and time, and that this explains why the hammer and the feather fall together — the curvature of space and time caused by the mass of the moon is the same for both, and so both travel in the same locally straight paths along the curvature of spacetime.

Experimentalists are still studying complex phenomena like turbulence and superconductors, still making new observations with supercolliders and space telescopes and other tools, still finding all kinds of unexplained data for theorists to puzzle over. Underlying all of these endeavors, however, is a question that has vexed physicists ever since Thales first postulated that water was the unifying principle of the cosmos: What are the most fundamental laws and principles of nature?

Today, our deepest understanding of the laws of nature is summarized in a set of equations. Using these equations, we can make very precise calculations of the most elementary physical phenomena, calculations that are confirmed by experimental evidence. But to make these predictions, we have to plug in some numbers that cannot themselves be calculated but are derived from measurements of some of the most basic features of the physical universe. These numbers specify such crucial quantities as the masses of fundamental particles and the strengths of their mutual interactions. After extensive experiments under all manner of conditions, physicists have found that these numbers appear not to change in different times and places, so they are called the fundamental constants of nature.

These constants represent the edge of our knowledge. Richard Feynman called one of them — the fine-structure constant, which characterizes the amount of electromagnetic force between charged elementary particles like electrons — “one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man.” An innovative, elegant physical theory that actually predicts the values of these constants would be among the greatest achievements of twenty-first-century physics.

Since physicists have not discovered a deep underlying reason for why these constants are what they are, we might well ask the seemingly simple question: What if they were different? What would happen in a hypothetical universe in which the fundamental constants of nature had other values?

There is nothing mathematically wrong with these hypothetical universes. But there is one thing that they almost always lack — life. Or, indeed, anything remotely resembling life. Or even the complexity upon which life relies to store information, gather nutrients, and reproduce. A universe that has just small tweaks in the fundamental constants might not have any of the chemical bonds that give us molecules, so say farewell to DNA, and also to rocks, water, and planets. Other tweaks could make the formation of stars or even atoms impossible. And with some values for the physical constants, the universe would have flickered out of existence in a fraction of a second. That the constants are all arranged in what is, mathematically speaking, the very improbable combination that makes our grand, complex, life-bearing universe possible is what physicists mean when they talk about the “fine-tuning” of the universe for life.

The extensive, complete article can be found at The New Atlantis.

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