Michael J. Behe's Blog, page 466

June 18, 2019

Is today’s biology missing a Big Idea?

From an online book in progress by Stephen L. Talbott tentatively titled “Evolution As It Was Meant To Be — And the Living Narratives That Tell Its Story” (Overview) at the Nature Institute:

Every organism is an entity in which certain ideas and intentions are manifest — observably expressed and realized. We have to be willing to say, as everyone does say, “This cell is preparing to divide.” We would never say (as I mentioned earlier), “This planet is preparing to make another circuit of the sun.” The organism obviously gives us a reality different from planets and suns. Shouldn’t this manifest difference be front and center in the biologist’s attention — all the more if there exists a prejudicial urge to approach biological explanation solely in the causal style we bring to planets and suns?
I am fully aware that what I have just said comes at the contemporary scientist from a strange and, at this point, probably objectionable, direction. But perhaps this initial statement will at least intrigue some readers. We will pursue the ideas further throughout the remainder of the book.
Stephen L. Talbott, “Biology’s Missing Ideas” at Evolution as it Was Meant to Be: A work in progress

Hat tip: Philip Cunningham

See also: What if there is no genetics apart from epigenetics? Talbott: Not that the gene sequences are themselves mutated in the usual sense. Rather, the researchers found that various epigenetic modifications in the hippocampus alter the way the genes work (Weaver et al. 2004).

and

Life forms have a story but rocks don’t Talbott: An animal’s end-directed activity may, of course, be very far from what we humans know as conscious aiming at a goal. But all such activity nevertheless displays certain common features distinguishing it from inanimate proceedings

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

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on June 18, 2019 06:06

Life forms have a story but rocks don’t

Maybe rocks have a history but not a story. That fact matters to a discussion of evolution. From an online book in progress by Stephen L. Talbott tentatively titled “Evolution As It Was Meant To Be — And the Living Narratives That Tell Its Story” (Overview) at the Nature Institute:

We heard in “The Organism’s Story” that living activity has a certain future-oriented (“purposive” or “intentional” or end-directed) character that is missed by causal explanations of the usual physical and chemical sort. This is true whether the end being sought is the perfection of adult form through development, or the taking of a prey animal for food.
An animal’s end-directed activity may, of course, be very far from what we humans know as conscious aiming at a goal. But all such activity nevertheless displays certain common features distinguishing it from inanimate proceedings: it tends to be persistent, so that it is resumed again and again after being blocked; it likewise tends to be adaptable, changing strategy in the face of altered circumstances; and the entire activity ceases once the end is achieved.
This flexible directedness — this interwoven play of diverse ends and means within an overall living unity — is what gives the organism’s life its peculiar sort of multi-threaded, narrative coherence. Life becomes a story. Events occur, not merely from physical necessity, but because they hold significance for an organism whose life is a distinctive pattern of significances.

Stephen L. Talbott, “The Mystery of an Unexpected Coherence” at Evolution as it Was Meant to Be: A work in progress

Indeed. What’s wrong with so many discussions of animal intelligence is precisely the loss of this perspective, that the animal or plant is part of a story, the theme of which is its own survival.

Thus, slime molds can replicate a highway map of Canada in search of bread crumbs. Are they smart? No. Do they need to be smart?

No. Similarly, plants can communicate with each other and with animals. Are they smart? No. Not in the human sense of consciousness, reason, or moral choice. And they clearly don’t need that in order to aspire to survive.*

It’s not clear that a wholly naturalist (nature is all there is), often called “materialist” approach to life can address the difference this makes. If all these creatures have purpose, it is reasonable to think that the universe as a whole does. But the truth is, many philosophers of biology don’t even appear to notice the gaping hole.

Is salad murder? No.

Hat tip: Philip Cunningham

and

Is today’s biology missing a Big Idea? Talbott: Every organism is an entity in which certain ideas and intentions are manifest — observably expressed and realized. We have to be willing to say, as everyone does say, “This cell is preparing to divide.” We would never say (as I mentioned earlier), “This planet is preparing to make another circuit of the sun.”

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on June 18, 2019 05:35

What if there is no genetics apart from epigenetics?

For whom would that make a difference? From an online book in progress by Stephen L. Talbott, tentatively titled “Evolution As It Was Meant To Be — And the Living Narratives That Tell Its Story” (Overview), at the Nature Institute:

“Are genes equivalent to destiny?” in a new light. In 2007 a team of researchers at Duke University reported that exposure of pregnant mice to bisphenol A (a chemical that was then used in many common plastics such as baby bottles and dental composites) “is associated [in the offspring], with higher body weight, increased breast and prostate cancer, and altered reproductive function“. The exposure also shifted the coat color of the mice toward yellow — a change again found to be transmitted across generations despite its not being linked to a gene mutation. Moreover, the changes brought on by the chemical were negated when the researchers supplemented the maternal diet with folic acid, a B vitamin (Dolinoy et al. 2007).

And so an epigenome that responds to the environment can respond to healthy as well as unhealthy influences. As another illustration of this: researchers at McGill University in Montreal looked at the consequences of two kinds of maternal behavior in rats. Some mother rats patiently lick and groom their newborns, while others generally neglect their pups. The difference turns out to be reflected in the lives of the offspring: those who are licked grow up (by the usual measures) to be relatively confident and content, whereas the neglected ones show depression-like symptoms and tend to be fearful when placed in new situations.

This difference is correlated with different levels of activity in particular genes in the hippocampus of the rats’ brains. Not that the gene sequences are themselves mutated in the usual sense. Rather, the researchers found that various epigenetic modifications in the hippocampus alter the way the genes work (Weaver et al. 2004). Other investigations have pointed toward similar changes in the brains of human suicide victims who were abused as children (Poulter et al. 2009).

What has perhaps excited the general public most is this application of epigenetic studies to human beings…

Stephen L. Talbott, “All Genetics Is Epigenetics” at Evolution as it Was Meant to Be: A work in progress

Hat tip: Philip Cunningham

See also: Life forms have a story but rocks don’t Talbott: An animal’s end-directed activity may, of course, be very far from what we humans know as conscious aiming at a goal. But all such activity nevertheless displays certain common features distinguishing it from inanimate proceedings

There’s a gene for that… or is there?

and

Epigenetic change: Lamarck, wake up, you’re wanted in the conference room!

Follow UD News at Twitter!

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on June 18, 2019 05:07

Robert J. Marks: Simple sentences confuse AI

Fun with the grammar we take for granted:

Groucho Marx (1890–1977) used to start one of his quips with “I once shot an elephant in my pajamas.” That seems clear enough but then he follows up with “How he got into my pajamas I’ll never know.”

The punch line depends on the ambiguity of the question. At first, we interpret the words in a common-sense way; we assume that Groucho was wearing his own pajamas. The joke consists in surprising us with a grammatically possible but fantastic alternative. Contemporary comedian Emo Phillips quips that ambiguity is the devil’s volleyball.1

Computers have no sense of humor. Given the sentence without context, they don’t have a clue who is wearing Groucho’s pajamas. A class of such ambiguous expressions called Winograd Schemas2 continues to baffle AI software. Robert J. Marks, “AI is no match for ambiguity” at Mind Matters News

See also: The US 2016 Election: Why Big Data Failed Economics professor Gary Smith sheds light on the surprise result

Follow UD News at Twitter!

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on June 18, 2019 04:39

June 17, 2019

Evidence for irreducible complexity in proteins

Using, as an illustration, a toy familiar to those who have spent time with small infants:

Tim describes the chirality problem as evidence against creation by chance. Tim Barnett, “Evidence for Intelligent Design in Proteins (Video)” at Stand to Reason

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

Follow UD News at Twitter!

See also: Determining irreducible complexity using power sets

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on June 17, 2019 12:57

ARN Contest: Should “irreducible complexity” be taught in engineering?

That’s Michael Behe’s irreducible complexity in case the Darwinians among us need a reason to freak out.

Access Research Network is offering a $50 Visa voucher for the best answer to the following Question of the Month. Send your response here.

The whole question:

QUESTION OF THE MONTH

What ought to be taught in public schools regarding the ultimate question of our origins? Be thinking about courses including History, Philosophy, Physics, Chemistry and Biology.

For extra credit: Should the concept of irreducible complexity be taught in Engineering or Computer Science classes? For even more credit: Should Darwinian Naturalism be taught in English classes when discussing science fiction. Explain.

Feel free to test out ideas here.

See also: May:

In the Introduction to his Origin of Species Charles Darwin admitted, “I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived.”

What directly opposite conclusions could Darwin have meant?

How could natural selection inhibit major evolutionary change from occurring on a gradual step-by-step basis?

Previous questions

Follow UD News at Twitter!

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on June 17, 2019 05:43

Researchers: Toxic gases would slow emergence of life on exoplanets

dwarf star Trappist’s exoplanets/ NASA/JPL-Caltech)

Assuming we accept that life can emerge randomly from the swish of chemicals:

The habitable zone for complex life around many stars could be much smaller than previously thought once the concentrations of carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide on planets is considered. That is the conclusion of astrobiologists in the US, who say that high concentrations of these gases could completely preclude the existence of life on planets orbiting some stars.

The search for extraterrestrial life often focuses on what is known as the “habitable zone” of stars. This is commonly defined as the range of distances from a host star warm enough for liquid water, a key requirement for life, to exist on a planet’s surface. However, according to Edward Schwieterman, at the University of California, Riverside, and his colleagues that description works for basic, single-celled microbes, but not for more complex creatures – everything from simple sponges to humans.
Michael Allen, “Toxic gases in habitable zone could hinder emergence of alien life” at Physics World

Abstract: The habitable zone (HZ) is commonly defined as the range of distances from a host star within which liquid water, a key requirement for life, may exist on a planet’s surface. Substantially more CO2 than present in Earth’s modern atmosphere is required to maintain clement temperatures for most of the HZ, with several bars required at the outer edge. However, most complex aerobic life on Earth is limited by CO2 concentrations of just fractions of a bar. At the same time, most exoplanets in the traditional HZ reside in proximity to M dwarfs, which are more numerous than Sun-like G dwarfs but are predicted to promote greater abundances of gases that can be toxic in the atmospheres of orbiting planets, such as carbon monoxide (CO). Here we show that the HZ for complex aerobic life is likely limited relative to that for microbial life. We use a 1D radiative-convective climate and photochemical models to circumscribe a Habitable Zone for Complex Life (HZCL) based on known toxicity limits for a range of organisms as a proof of concept. We find that for CO2 tolerances of 0.01, 0.1, and 1 bar, the HZCL is only 21%, 32%, and 50% as wide as the conventional HZ for a Sun-like star, and that CO concentrations may limit some complex life throughout the entire HZ of the coolest M dwarfs. These results cast new light on the likely distribution of complex life in the universe and have important ramifications for the search for exoplanet biosignatures and techno signatures. – Edward W. Schwieterman, Christopher T. Reinhard, Stephanie L. Olson, Chester E. Harman, and Timothy W. Lyons A Limited Habitable Zone for Complex Life The Astrophysical Journal, 878:19 (9pp), 2019 June 10 | https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab1d52
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10... (open access)

Initial hype:

See also: Does nature just “naturally” produce life?

Can all the numbers for life’s origin just happen to fall into place?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on June 17, 2019 04:08

Getting the facts right on “unbelief”

This item somehow missed the post last night. A study of atheists and agnostics, funded by Templeton, came up with some illuminating facts:

2. In all six of our countries, majorities of unbelievers identify as having ‘no religion’. Nevertheless, in Denmark fully 28% of atheists and agnostics identify as Christians; in Brazil the figure is 18%. 8% of Japan’s unbelievers say they are Buddhists. Conversely, in Brazil (79%), the USA (63%), Denmark (60%), and the UK (52%), a majority of unbelievers were brought up as Christians. (1.1, 1.2)
3. Relatively few unbelievers select ‘Atheist’ or ‘Agnostic’ as their preferred (non)religious or secular identity. 38% of American atheists opt for ‘Atheist’, compared to just 19% of Danish atheists. Other well-known labels – ‘humanist’, ‘free thinker’, ‘sceptic’, ‘secular’ – are the go-to identity for only small proportions in each country. (1.3)
Unbelief in God doesn’t necessarily entail unbelief in other supernatural phenomena. Atheists and (less so) agnostics exhibit lower levels of supernatural belief than do the wider populations. However, only minorities of atheists or agnostics in each of our countries appear to be thoroughgoing naturalists. (2.2, 2.3 More. –

Stephen Sullivant, Miguel Farias, Jonathan Lanman, Lois Lee, Understanding Unbelief: Atheists and agnostics around the world – Interim findings from 2019 research in Brazil, China, Denmark, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States

It would appear to explain a lot. Read the rest; it’s free.

See also: Why is the New York Times into witchcraft now? The good news is, we have far less to fear from hexes than from anti-free speech legislation and crackdowns on academic freedom at the universities. We really must encourage them all to spend more time, much more time, on hexes.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on June 17, 2019 03:22

June 16, 2019

The Problem of “God-talk” in Biology Textbooks

Why the textbook zombie can’t just die. From a recent article on science education:

Abstract: We argue that a number of biology (and evolution) textbooks face a crippling dilemma.

On the one hand, significant difficulties arise if textbooks include theological claims in their case for evolution.

(Such claims include, for example, ‘God would never design a suboptimal panda’s thumb, but an imperfect structure is just what we’d expect on natural selection.’) On the other hand, significant difficulties arise if textbooks exclude theological claims in their case for evolution. So, whether textbooks include or exclude theological claims, they face debilitating problems. We attempt to establish this thesis by examining 32 biology (and evolution) textbooks, including the Big 12—that is, the top four in each of the key undergraduate categories (biology majors, non-majors, and evolution courses).

In Section 2 of our article, we analyze three specific types of theology these texts use to justify evolutionary theory. We argue that all face significant difficulties.

In Section 3, we step back from concrete cases and, instead, explore broader problems created by having theology in general in biology textbooks. We argue that the presence of theology—of whatever kind—comes at a significant cost, one that some textbook authors are likely unwilling to pay.

In Section 4, we consider the alternative: Why not simply get rid of theology? Why not just ignore it? In reply, we marshal a range of arguments why avoiding God-talk raises troubles of its own. Finally, in

Section 5, we bring together the collective arguments in Sections 2-4 to argue that biology textbooks face an intractable dilemma. We underscore this difficulty by examining a common approach that some textbooks use to solve this predicament. We argue that this approach turns out to be incoherent and self-serving. The poor performance of textbooks on this point highlights just how deep the difficulty is. In the end, the overall dilemma remains. (paywall)
Steve Dilley and Nicholas Tafacory, “Damned if You Do and Damned if You Don’t” at Communications of the Blyth Institute

See also: Zombies march for science

Accredited Times Offers The Scoop On Jon Wells And Zombie Science

and

Zombie Science

Follow UD News at Twitter!

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on June 16, 2019 05:54

Why is the New York Times into witchcraft now?

To see the progressive war on science in action, it’s best to watch it unfold at a dinosaur medium:

Apparently, the NYT hasn’t quite hit rock-bottom yet. Somebody at the Gray Lady said, “Hold my beer and watch this.”
In a bizarre article titled “Here’s What Being a Witch Really Means,” author Pam Grossman explains, “My grandma Trudy used to tell us that she had ‘healing hands.’ I soon discovered that I did, too.” What sort of healing? Well, Ms. Grossman says that her grandma could make her headaches vanish by simply touching her forehead. Apparently, she resurrected a dying horse, too.
Notwithstanding the Lazarus Horse, the headache “cure” has an easy explanation: The placebo effect.
Anyway, not to be outdone by her show-off grandmother, Ms. Grossman later discovered that she, too, had the power to heal… or at the very least, make horny teenagers kiss each other…
Alex Berezow, “New York Times Promotes Witchcraft, Condemns Itself In Op-Ed” at American Council on Science and Health

Unfortunately, we know “what’s with.” The Timesers are victims of the progressive war on science. It’s awful to watch. In some ways, the war on math is even worse.

What’s really interesting is that naturalism (nature is all there is), often called “materialism,” appears to offer little protection from this sort of thing.

The good news is, we have far less to fear from hexes than from anti-free speech legislation and crackdowns on academic freedom at the universities.

We really must encourage them all to spend more time, much more time, on hexes.

See also: Bill Nye As “A Terrible Spokesman For Science” (cf Alex Berezow)

Why has a historic medical publication gone weird? (cf Alex Berezow)

Follow UD News at Twitter!

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on June 16, 2019 05:22