Michael J. Behe's Blog, page 424
October 3, 2019
Researchers: The Golden Ratio is found in human skulls but not other animal skulls
From ScienceDaily:
The Golden Ratio, described by Leonardo da Vinci and Luca Pacioli as the Divine Proportion, is an infinite number often found in nature, art and mathematics. It’s a pattern in pinecones, seashells, galaxies and hurricanes.
In a new study investigating whether skull shape follows the Golden Ratio (1.618 … ), Johns Hopkins researchers compared 100 human skulls to 70 skulls from six other animals, and found that the human skull dimensions followed the Golden Ratio. The skulls of less related species such as dogs, two kinds of monkeys, rabbits, lions and tigers, however, diverged from this ratio.
“The other mammals we surveyed actually have unique ratios that approach the Golden Ratio with increased species sophistication,” says Rafael Tamargo, M.D., professor of neurosurgery at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. “We believe that this finding may have important anthropological and evolutionary implications.” Paper. (open access) – Rafael J. Tamargo, Jonathan A. Pindrik. Mammalian Skull Dimensions and the Golden Ratio (Φ). Journal of Craniofacial Surgery, 2019; 30 (6): 1750 DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000005610 More.
Skull shape might help explain why we discovered the golden ratio in the first place. Faces are something we pay attention to.
See also: Why early humans preferred the golden ratio
Golden ratio in guitar solos
and
Does The Golden Ratio, 1.618, Unify Science?
Copyright © 2019 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
Sabine Hossenfelder asks if reductionism has run its course

Hossenfelder, author of Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray, asks, how far down the universe can we realistically go?
In summary, history does not support particle physicists’ belief that a deeper understanding of natural law will most likely come from studying shorter distances. On the very contrary, I have begun to worry that physicists’ confidence in methodological reductionism stands in the way of progress. That’s because it suggests we ask certain questions instead of others. And those may just be the wrong questions to ask.
If you believe in methodological reductionism, for example, you may ask what dark energy is made of. But maybe dark energy is not made of anything. Instead, dark energy may be an artifact of our difficulty averaging non-linear equations.
It’s similar with dark matter. The methodological reductionist will ask for a microscopic theory and look for a particle that dark matter is made of. Yet, maybe dark matter is really a phenomenon associated with our misunderstanding of space-time on long distances. …
The root of our problem may instead be that quantum theory itself must be replaced by a more fundamental theory, one that explains how quantization works in the first place.
Sabine Hossenfelder, “Has Reductionism Run its Course?” at BackRe(Action)
She definitely does not think that looking for shorter distances and smaller particles is the answer.
See also: Sabine Hossenfelder Explains The Problem With The “Many Worlds” Hypothesis
and
Rob Sheldon Responds To Sabine Hossenfelder On The Hologram Universe
Follow UD News at Twitter!
Copyright © 2019 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
Are the “redundant” particles of the universe evidence of fine-tuning?

McMaster University’s Physics and Astronomy faculty consider the Standard Model of our cosmos to be on the verge of failure. Here is one item they point to:
New particles — muons, pions and a horde of other new particles — continued to be discovered, initially through studies of the cosmic rays that continuously bombard our atmosphere from space. This temporarily led to a much more complicated picture, whose underlying simplicity did not emerge until the 1960s when many of the particles known by that point were themselves found to be made up of still smaller constituents. What then emerged as elementary particles remain so now: six species of ‘quarks’ (up, down, strange, charm, bottom and top), and six species of ‘leptons’ (electron, muon, tau and three species of neutrinos).
The resulting list of particles is strangely redundant. Essentially all of everyday matter is made only of electrons and up and down quarks (of which the last two make up the proton and neutron), which, together with a neutrino, make up what is called the ‘first generation’ of elementary particles. Remarkably Nature seems to come to us with two more ‘generations’ of particles, whose properties directly copy this first generation (i.e. the charm and top quarks resemble the up quark; the strange and bottom quarks resemble the down quark; the muon and tau are copies of the electron; and so on).
Department Of Physics & Astronomy, “Particle Physics At The Crossroads” at McMaster University
Our physics color commentator, experimental physicist Rob Sheldon, who is also the author of Genesis: The Long Ascent, offers some thoughts, explaining why it is evidence of fine-tuning of the universe:
I looked over the McMaster website, and it is a pretty good summary of the state-of-the-art in particle physics. Not sure why they still have the Higgs boson as unconfirmed, but the Standard Model is portrayed well.
The 3 columns in the Fermion section of the table are being discussed in the paragraph you quoted. The up/down quark, the electron and electron_neutrino leptons make up some 99% of the matter in the universe. So why do we have the charm/strange quark, the muon/neutrino leptons (column 2) or the top/bottom quark and tau/neutrino leptons (column 3)?
By analogy to the appendix and the tonsils, or junk DNA, they don’t seem to be doing very much, so what is the significance of families 2 & 3? Why not families 4 & 5? Couldn’t creation have been easier on God if he just left out this redundant stuff?
![The Long Ascent: Genesis 1â 11 in Science & Myth, Volume 1 by [Sheldon, Robert]](https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/hostedimages/1541285109i/26543752.jpg)
As George puts it, everything comes down to the theological argument “if I were God, I wouldn’t have done it this way.” The counter-argument is very simple, “just because we don’t know what it is doing doesn’t mean it is junk,” or more trenchantly, “it’s a good thing you aren’t God.”
As it turns out, the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) model makes use of every bit of particle physics we know. The ratio of protons to neutrons in the very early universe determines the amount of each element that is created. That ratio depends on the strong interaction (quarks), the weak interaction (leptons), the temperature, the number of families (3), and all the different masses of each elementary subatomic particle. While you don’t hear this mentioned as often as the fine-tuning of the mass/expansion-rate ratio (which has to be accurate to 1:10^60), the number of fermion families is likewise fine-tuned. If columns 2 & 3 didn’t exist, the ratios in the BBN would be off, and the universe would look very different.
Given that particle physicists haven’t been able to explain dark matter or dark energy, they really haven’t devoted themselves to the fine-tuning of the 3 families of quarks and leptons. But it is my view, (one day realized I hope), that in the GeV era of ultra-hot-Big-Bang, the neutrinos carry a charge or a current, which converts this era into a plasma universe. It is this plasma that produces a huge magnetic field that decayed away in the first 3 billion years of the BB and today are seen as quasars, AGNs, and jets. The number of current-carrying species (families of quarks and leptons) determines how complex the plasma can be, and the complexity stores information. Therefore the huge gap in information between a butter-smooth hot Big Bang, and the cold, galaxy- and planet-rich universe we see today is explained by the information content of this GeV plasma.
So despite McMaster U. thinking this odd, and believing (hoping?) for a failure of the Standard Model, I see this as a necessary means of storing the information in the hot Big Bang and demonstrating the ultimate fine-tuning of the cosmos.
See also: What becomes of science when the evidence does not matter?
Follow UD News at Twitter!
Copyright © 2019 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
October 2, 2019
Cells’ feedback circuitry is all in the math
Now that some enterprising researchers have figured out how they do it:
Vital as that negative feedback is, however, biologists have been hard pressed to explain how cells and more complex organisms implement feedback systems with the necessary responsiveness and precision. Only within the past couple of decades have they been able to sort out some of the fundamentals. Most recently, in an important advance this past summer, a team led by Khammash demonstrated a synthetic feedback system that could be installed in cells to help them adapt perfectly to disturbances, just like the robot. The work is backed by a mathematical proof that no simpler answer exists — a good indication that natural feedback systems probably work the same way …
Negative feedback is a powerful example of the remarkable similarities between biology and engineering. In 1948, the mathematician Norbert Wiener proposed that regulatory systems in both animals and machines should be studied together, in a field he named cybernetics (from the Greek kubernētēs, meaning “steersman”).
“What math and engineering and biology have in common, at least modern engineering, is enormous hidden complexity,” Doyle said. Take, for example, a cellphone. It seems simple to operate, but underneath, many layers of control circuits are built atop one another.
“Biology’s kind of like that,” he said. “We live day to day in the complexities of our bodies; unless we’re sick, it’s largely automatic and unconscious. We are hardly aware of it.”
XiaoZhi Lim, “Math Reveals the Secrets of Cells’ Feedback Circuitry” at Quanta
And the only other examples we know of are all acknowledged to be designed.
Hat tip: Philip Cunningham
See also: J. Scott Turner and the giant crawling brain Come to think of it, Turner was not banished for his 2017 non-Darwinian evolution book, Purpose and Desire: What Makes Something “Alive” and Why Modern Darwinism Has Failed to Explain It
Follow UD News at Twitter!
Copyright © 2019 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
Does the electron “know” of an impending collision?
Recent research suggests that it acts that way:
Albert Einstein received the Nobel Prize for explaining the photoelectric effect: in its most intuitive form, a single atom is irradiated with light. According to Einstein, light consists of particles (photons) that transfer only quantised energy to the electron of the atom. If the photon’s energy is sufficient, it knocks the electrons out of the atom. But what happens to the photon’s momentum in this process?…
The question of which reaction partner (electron or atom nucleus) conserves the momentum of the photon has occupied physicists for over 30 years. “The simplest idea is this: as long as the electron is attached to the nucleus, the momentum is transferred to the heavier particle, i.e., the atom nucleus. As soon as it breaks free, the photon momentum is transferred to the electron,” explains Hartung’s supervisor, Professor Reinhard Dörner from the Institute for Nuclear Physics. This would be analogous to wind transferring its momentum to the sail of a boat. As long as the sail is firmly attached, the wind’s momentum propels the boat forward. The instant the ropes tear, however, the wind’s momentum is transferred to the sail alone.
However, the answer that Hartung discovered through his experiment is—as is typical for quantum mechanics—more surprising. The electron not only receives the expected momentum, but additionally one third of the photon momentum that actually should have gone to the atom nucleus. The sail, (electron), of the boat, (nucleus), therefore “knows” of the impending accident, (collision from the photon), before the cords tear and steals a bit of the boat’s (nucleus’s) momentum….
Goethe University, “Beyond Einstein: Physicists solve mystery surrounding photon momentum” at Phys.org October 1, 2019
Or something.
Hat tip: Philip Cunningham
See also: Electron’s near perfect roundness stymies the search for new physics
Copyright © 2019 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
Aliens are observing us from Mars orbit
Aliens are said to be spying on us:
Physicist suggests orbiting objects are stakeouts for Martian probes to observe life on Earth and feeds into a 1960 theory that ‘superior galactic communities’ are watching …
An American physicist has proposed that alien ‘lurkers’ may have been observing us for millions of years.
James Benford released a paper suggesting these ancient Martians have setup ‘probes’ on a class of rocky near-Earth objects (NEO).
Theses co-orbital objects follow Earth’s similar loop around the sun and do it very closely to our planet – ‘providing an ideal way to watch our world from a secure natural object’.
Stacy Liberatore, “Are alien ‘lurkers’ SPYING on us?” at Daily Mail
The story also surfaced at ScienceAlert based on a paper in the Astronomical Journal. (paywall)
Gotta be true. Is this to certain secularist communities in science what an imminent Rapture is to certain evangelical Christian ones?
Hat tip: Ken Francis, co-author with Theodore Dalrymple of The Terror of Existence: From Ecclesiastes to Theatre of the Absurd
See also: Tales of an invented god
Follow UD News at Twitter!
Copyright © 2019 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
October 1, 2019
What? David Berlinski and Gunter Bechly reply to Jerry Coyne … at Quillette?
The disappearance of Yale computer scientist David Gelernter for doubting Darwin seems to have been delayed. Readers may be aware that Gelernter left the Darwin religion a few months back. And for some reason, the Beard has not yet struck him dead, though many of the Beard’s followers are restless…
At Quillette, Darwinian evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne waded in, harrumphing a proper Darwinian response. That should have been the end of Gelernter’s credibility.
But now, disappeared paleontologist Gunter Bechly, Brian Miller, and philosophical enfant terrible David Berlinski, have claimed a right of reply, almost unheard of in these times.
Their response is fairly specific and technical. But remember, people like Coyne are used to having their sweeping assertions accepted, not dissected:
David Gelernter accepted the conclusion that there were no putative ancestors of the Cambrian phyla in the preceding Ediacaran strata. He is in good company. So do most paleontologists who specialize in this field. This conclusion is not controversial, and it is obviously at odds with Darwin’s theory. Coyne is unpersuaded, maintaining that, yes, we have found Ediacaran “animals that appear to be arthropods, muscle-clad cnidarians (the group that includes modern jellyfish and anemones), echinoderms, mollusks, and probable sponges.”
This is pure fantasy. Coyne is unacquainted with the facts. There are no Ediacaran arthropods. There are no Ediacaran echinoderms either. Akarua adami, it is true, was initially attributed to the echinoderms. But apart from pentaradial symmetry, Akarua adami lack all of the synapomorphic characteristics of the echinoderms. The Cambrian fossil record contains stem echinoderms in helicoplacoids and homalozoans (carpoids) after all; and we know from reconstructed phylogenetic trees that pentaradial symmetry does not belong to their ground plan. The mollusks to which Coyne confidently appeals as friends of the family? They belong to the Ediacaran fossil genus Kimberella. First described as a jellyfish, Kimberella was later indeed sometimes associated with early mollusks. This attribution remained controversial: several characteristics contradicted it. A comprehensive paper recently reviewed the “problem of Kimberella” and concluded that “the possibility that Kimberella is coelenterate grade should therefore not be excluded.” Although likely a metazoan, they went on to write, “its placement remains problematic; it may be on the bilaterian stem group rather than within the stem group of any particular phylum.”
Günter Bechly, Brian Miller and David Berlinski, “Right of Reply: Our Response to Jerry Coyne” at Quillette
Once we get down to actual evidence rather than assertions of the need for conformity to dogma, Darwinism is dead, except for the taxpayer-funded institutions feeding off it and the legislation protecting it.
It would be fun to discuss the history of life for once without the dead hand of Darwin overruling all. From the looks of things, it may also be possible now.
Hat tip: Philip Cunningham
See also: See also: Brit Commentator Melanie Phillips Weighs In On David Gelernter Dumping Darwin
Lay Catholics questioning Darwinism? It was interesting to see that, just recently, a California Catholic paper has started to smell the coffee at last and picked up on George Weigel’s article from First Things
At First Things, They Are Also Getting Over Darwinism
Another Think Tank Now Openly Questions Darwinism So Power Line is interviewing J. Scott Turner, author of Purpose and Desire: What Makes Something “Alive” and Why Modern Darwinism Has Failed to Explain It. He’s not an “ID guy” but that doesn’t matter. His book’s title tells you what you need to know. He understands that something is wrong. And his insights into insects’ hive mind are a piece in the puzzle.
Hoover Institution interview with David Berlinski
Mathematicians challenge Darwinian Evolution
The College Fix LISTENS TO David Gelernter on Darwin! It’s almost as though people are “getting it” that Darwinism now functions as an intolerant secular religion. Evolution rolls on oblivious but here and there heads are getting cracked, so to speak, over the differences between what really happens and what Darwinians insist must happen.
Follow UD News at Twitter!
Copyright © 2019 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana
Researchers: Whales took to water by LOSING genes
Eighty-five genes:
Abstract: The transition from land to water in whales and dolphins (cetaceans) was accompanied by remarkable adaptations. To reveal genomic changes that occurred during this transition, we screened for protein-coding genes that were inactivated in the ancestral cetacean lineage. We found 85 gene losses. Some of these were likely beneficial for cetaceans, for example, by reducing the risk of thrombus formation during diving (F12 and KLKB1), erroneous DNA damage repair (POLM), and oxidative stress–induced lung inflammation (MAP3K19). Additional gene losses may reflect other diving-related adaptations, such as enhanced vasoconstriction during the diving response (mediated by SLC6A18) and altered pulmonary surfactant composition (SEC14L3), while loss of SLC4A9 relates to a reduced need for saliva. Last, loss of melatonin synthesis and receptor genes (AANAT, ASMT, and MTNR1A/B) may have been a precondition for adopting unihemispheric sleep. Our findings suggest that some genes lost in ancestral cetaceans were likely involved in adapting to a fully aquatic lifestyle.
– Matthias Huelsmann, Nikolai Hecker, Mark S. Springer John Gatesy, Virag Sharma1,| and Michael Hiller, Science Advances 25 Sep 2019: Vol. 5, no. 9, eaaw6671 DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aaw6671

But isn’t that the kind of thing the villain Michael Behe argues in Darwin Devolves?
If much evolution occurs by the loss of information. we need a theory other than Darwinism (natural selection acting on random mutations allegedly creates information) to help us understand the history of life.
See also: A Review Of Behe’s Darwin Devolves That Looks At What Behe Actually Says
and
Follow UD News at Twitter!
Copyright © 2019 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
Findings: Two-thirds of researchers claim pressure to cite superfluous work
It was an online poll which drew in 4300 Nature readers, and the proportion claiming such influence was higher than in previous surveys.
The difference could be down to the Nature poll’s limitations: respondents were self-selecting and people who have been affected or are interested in coercive citation may be more likely to respond. Whether citations are ‘superfluous’ is likely to be subjective in some cases, and respondents were not asked whether reviewers were asking for their own studies to be cited.
Dalmeet Singh Chawla, “Two-thirds of researchers report ‘pressure to cite’ in Nature poll” at Nature
That said, as time goes on, the gravy train gets longer and longer. Lots of rackets collapse when there are just too many users to pay off.
See also: Peer review and citation ring busted
Copyright © 2019 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
September 30, 2019
Karsten Pultz: The perils of talking about ID He wonders, should he give up?
(Danish ID proponent Karsten Pultz reflects on the conflict.)

As usual, I felt seriously annoyed and slightly depressed after giving a talk about ID in a Christian setting, and I spent the next one and a half days pondering what had gone wrong.
Having recently read The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World by British psychiatrist Iain McGilchrist, I suddenly realized I had a tool to dissect my frustrations around these talks.
As a proponent of ID, I very much feel I represent a scientific theory which points to very important empirical facts we need in order to establish a realistic worldview, but that those facts are few and that ID leave us with a lot of unanswered questions. Fortunately, I find that very satisfying because I like to think for myself, I’m not troubled by unanswered or unanswerable questions nor am I afraid of being wrong and being placed in a situation where I need to adjust my understanding and point of view on some issues. I have learned from McGilchrist that this is a trait of people who are dominated by the right brain hemisphere.

I realized that the world seems to consist of different tribes who primarily seek information that can feed their confirmation bias. Because confirmation bias is situated in the left hemisphere it follows that this tribal behavior is largely due to left hemisphere domination. ID is bad news for people who want a fully packaged worldview served on a silver plate which leave them with no need to think for themselves, – and this is where the dog is buried.
In Denmark, 85 % of the population believes in evolution as a proven fact. This 85% can be split into two groups, atheists and theistic evolutionists. We also have 10 % Muslim migrants and finally 5 %, among whom we find the creationists, I assume most creationists are the Young Earth type.
The ID-talk I gave was to an audience of evangelical Christians and judging from the questions I got, probably most of them were Young Earth Creationists.
So what’s the problem here? Well, the atheists think I promote creationism because anyone who thinks there is evidence for design in organisms is by definition a creationist, and naturally, therefore, a moron. The theistic evolutionists also think I’m a creationist. Being a Christian myself, I give Christianity a bad name by exposing my moronic belief that evolution is wrong. The Muslims do not want to listen to me because I’m an infidel. Thus, the only audience I can get is to be found among the small fraction of Danish creationists.

Now then, speaking to creationists about ID should be enjoyable; after all,it ought to be water in their mill. But no, it is not. Creationists, like the atheists and the theistic evolutionists, belong to a tribe, a tribe with strict rules that tell what you can and cannot believe. Their worldview is a complete package, like that of the atheists and TE people who also have their complete worldview packages. ID does not feed their confirmation bias sufficiently, so they regard ID as suspicious, inadequate, or simply as a theory that they consider an enemy of creationism.
Again I stood there with an audience who insisted on discussing the age of the earth, six days creation, the Flood and other issues I do not want to touch on them because they lie outside the realm of detecting design in nature. Again I found myself forced to take stands on topics I find no empirical evidence for and likely to compromise my intention of keeping strictly to empirical data and the design inference.
Atheists, theistic evolutionists, and creationists act like if they were political parties where you either submit to the ruling dogmas or you leave the party. This is no wonder because dogmatic thinking is situated in the left hemisphere, which can only relate to and accept already acquired knowledge. A tribe will therefore primarily be excited when listening to a lecture given by one who agrees on every dogma approved by the tribe. Anything that falls outside the tribal dogmas is off-limits because it challenges the left hemisphere’s desperate need for only having served confirmation of what it already has accepted. Left hemisphere thinking is also characterized by the need for absolute control, which means that unanswered or unanswerable questions must under no circumstances exist. The left hemisphere would rather make stuff up than accept that there are things we cannot know—so you better tell us that the earth is 6000 years old, or we might panic!
So ID is bad news for people of a variety of views who suffer from severe left hemisphere domination, and there is nothing I can do about it. I can’t force people of any tribe to love what they hate, namely being challenged on their full package worldview. I am seriously considering abandoning giving ID-talks in Christian settings, as it seems completely purposeless and because I find it exhausting, depressing and frustrating. While atheists and theistic evolutionists reject ID because they consider it creationism, the creationists reject ID because it is not creationism. This leaves me with only one open-minded listener – my wife.
More from Karsten Pultz and Denmark:
Educating Oneself Away From Science Denial: Two True Stories
Denmark: Slowly developing a conversation about design in nature
Something Is Rotten In The State Of Denmark
Denmark: Perhaps Not So Rotten After All
and
Swedish Mathematician Explains Why He Sees Design In Nature (And Became A Christian)
Copyright © 2019 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
Michael J. Behe's Blog
- Michael J. Behe's profile
- 219 followers
