Michael J. Behe's Blog, page 512

March 10, 2019

Surprise! War trauma makes people more religious

Will he return?/(CCO) Public Domain

If you are familiar with the saying, “No atheists in foxholes,” you mayn’t need to read this but:

To understand the relationship between war and religion, Henrich and his colleagues gathered data from more than 1,700 interviews with people in 71 villages scattered throughout Sierra Leone, Tajikistan, and Uganda. Their results showed that, among those who were most exposed to war, membership in religious groups increased by 12, 14, and 41 percentage points, respectively.

In addition, the researchers found that those who experienced the trauma of war were likelier to attend religious services and were likelier to rank religion as being significant in their lives than those who were not. And in some cases, those effects were surprisingly long-lived.

“One of the more interesting findings was that in some cases we found the effect endures,” Henrich said. “In Tajikistan we find the effect even 13 years post-conflict, and there’s no sense in which it declines.” Peter Reuell, “Study shows that many who experience trauma of war become increasingly religious” at Phys.org

The researchers offer various evolutionary psychology musings, bypassing the obvious point: When tragedy or disaster strikes, merely facile, trendy accounts of life don’t work anymore. So people turn to timeless questions and timeless truths.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

See also: Evolutionary conundrum: is religion a useful, useless, or harmful adaptation?

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 »

1 like · Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on March 10, 2019 05:59

Devout atheist gamer proposes to build complex structures from nothing

Been at it eight years:

“I have been sitting here watching the open landscape since 2011 when Minecraft first came out,” Bassett told reporters. But critics say that evolutionary theory claims that it takes billions of years for worlds to magically create themselves. When confronted with this question, Bassett adjusted his fedora and explained, “Minecraft starts out further along than our universe did. It has all the essential building blocks, plus a lot of other blocks.”

Bassett also cites math to justify his experiment. “Let me drop some math on you. A Minecraft day is 20 minutes long. That means one Minecraft year is 72 Earth years. By the end of 2019, I’ll have reached nearly 576 years of Minecraft time.” “Devout Atheist Playing ‘Minecraft’ Patiently Waits For Complex Structures To Build Themselves” at Babylon Bee

He has a great future in evolutionary biology today.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

See also: “Neil DeGrasse Tyson” Debuts At The Babylon Bee In An Op-Ed

Babylon Bee: Bill Nye To Dress Up As Real Scientist For Halloween

Yes, there IS an Old Earth Creation Museum!

and

“Claiming the finding could shed new light on the diversity of amphibian life, scientists from Ohio University announced Thursday that they had discovered a new species of frog that had evolved the ability to spontaneously grow a top hat and cane.”

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on March 10, 2019 05:35

March 9, 2019

Access Research Network’s new Question of the Month

Win a $50 VISA gift card for the deemed best answer to this question:

Given the pervasive pattern of “sudden appearance” and “stasis” in the fossil record, does science need a Theory of Stasis or Theory of Conservation to better explain how nature actually functions. Explain. How would such a theory help to strengthen an inference to intelligent design?

Feel free to hash out ideas here. For possible hints go to:

Stasis: Life goes on but evolution does not happen

and

Law Of Conservation Of Information vs Darwinism

Last month’s question was

How would you would respond to someone when they claim that Intelligent Design is merely an appeal to a “god-of-the-gaps”?

Entry 6 was selected.

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on March 09, 2019 11:15

Oops. “Functionless vestige” of evolution turns out to be better strategy

**Investigating the motility of swimming Euglena

Euglenids/ Noselli et al.

For centuries, researchers knew that Euglenids, a diversified family of aquatic unicellular organisms, could reshape their bodies in any number of elegant ways but no one knew why they did it. Some researchers think they now know:

“Amongst biophysicists, metaboly was thought to be a way to swim in a fluid, where these cells live,” Arroyo said. “However, protistologists are not convinced by this function for metaboly, since Euglena can swim very fast beating their flagellum, as do many other cell types. Instead, the predominant view is that metaboly [body deformations] is a functionless vestige ‘inherited’ from ancestors that used cell body deformations to engulf large prey. Watching cells executing such a beautiful and coordinated dance, we did not believe that it served no purpose. Our study started as an effort to substantiate such a non-scientific gut feeling.” …

“Inspired by these observations and amateur YouTube videos, we hypothesized that the cell deformations could be triggered by contact with other cells or boundaries in a crowded environment, and that under these conditions, metaboly could be useful to crawl, rather than swim,” Antonio De Simone, another researchers involved in the study, told Phys.org. “Confirming this hypothesis was remarkably easy. As soon as we slightly pressed cells between two glass surfaces, or drove them into thin capillaries, they started to systematically perform metaboly, which resulted in the fastest crawling by any cell type, as far as we know,” added Giovanni Noselli, the first author of the study.

Once they finished testing this hypothesis, the researchers started comparing the crawling behaviour they observed in Euglena with that of animal cells, for which a greater number of studies are currently available. Past studies observed that animal cells crawling in a thin tube tend to push against its walls in order to move forward and overcome the resistance of the fluid in the tube.

“We found that, thanks to their peristaltic deformations, Euglena can push either on the walls or on the fluid to move forward, making of metaboly a remarkably robust mode of confined locomotion,” De Simone said. “They can actually move displacing very little fluid in a ‘stealthy’ propulsion mode, and they cannot be stopped even if the hydraulic resistance in the capillary is increased substantially.” Ingrid Fadelli, “Investigating the motility of swimming Euglena” at Phys.org

It turned out that the cells knew their business better than the researchers but maybe the cells are not Darwinists.

A word on behalf of “non-scientific gut feeling.” Gut feeling is often distilled experience. If you see very little in nature that serves no purpose, you will naturally wonder when someone says, “metaboly is a functionless vestige ‘inherited’ from ancestors that used cell body deformations to engulf large prey.” If you find yourself “Watching cells executing such a beautiful and coordinated dance,” you’d be right to come to this conclusion: “we did not believe that it served no purpose.”

There isn’t anything non-scientific about doubting a pronouncement based on experience and observation. Quite the opposite; it’s the person who refuses to do that and simply recites the dogma who is being non-scientific.

At least, in the real world. In the world of establishment Darwinism, undoubted pronouncement and accompanying certitude may serve many researchers better than observation and evidence.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

See also: “Junk DNA” regulates regeneration of tissues and organs

One junk DNA defender just isn’t doing politeness anymore. Hmmm. In a less Darwinian science workplace, that could become more a problem for him than for his colleagues.

and

Junk DNA can actually change genitalia.

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on March 09, 2019 09:22

At the New York Times: Are dark forces messing with our cosmos?

Various theories are aired therein.Then we read:

Thus far, there is no evidence for most of these ideas. If any turn out to be right, scientists may have to rewrite the story of the origin, history and, perhaps, fate of the universe.

Or it could all be a mistake. Astronomers have rigorous methods to estimate the effects of statistical noise and other random errors on their results; not so for the unexamined biases called systematic errors.

As Wendy L. Freedman, of the University of Chicago, said at the Chicago meeting, “The unknown systematic is what gets you in the end.”Dennis Overbye, “Have Dark Forces Been Messing With the Cosmos?” at The New York Times

If this is what passes for theoretical physics these days, Sabine Hossenfelder, author of Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray, is clearly right.

See also: Sabine Hossenfelder: Is science harmed by an illusion of progress? Tellingly, Hossenfelder adds, “So here is the puzzle: Why can you not find any expert, besides me, willing to publicly voice criticism on particle physics? Hint: It’s not because there is nothing to criticize. ”

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Sabine Hossenfelder: Physics Problems That Lead To Breakthroughs Arise From Inconsistencies In Data, Not Beautiful Math

Theoretical Physicist Sabine Hossenfelder Shares Her Self-Doubts About Exposing Nonsense In Cosmology

and

Physicist: How the multiverse can save the soul of physics Basically, the multiverse will kill the body of science but, some argue, not the soul.

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on March 09, 2019 06:36

Total surveillance should worry us more than an AI news writing machine

This question is especially relevant in an age when the battle for intellectual freedom on campus must be fought anew because the internet can so easily be used to identify, freeze, and punish dissidents.

While it’s unclear that the automated news spew is a serious threat (relative to a “handmade” one), there are a number of real AI dangers we should be aware of, especially constant surveillance and data gathering:

Because so much surveillance is now possible, the new AI technologies that promised freedom are becoming a threat to it. It’s well known that the Chinese government is using AI to monitor and police the daily lives of citizens. What’s less well-known is that China is exporting the technology for mass surveillance to developing countries as foreign aid. Or that Canada recently demanded intimate banking data from half a million citizens. It’s probably quite easy for governments to convince themselves that they could solve a lot more of everyone’s problems if they just knew what we are all doing all the time. “AI dangers that are not just fake news” at Mind Matters

The most dangerous tyrannies are the ones intended to bring about some public good. It’s the difference between someone who just wants to rob you and someone who wants to fix you and run your life.

See also: US prez Trump vows to tie federal U funding to campus free speech “In an interview after Trump’s speech, Terry Hartle, senior vice president for the American Council on Education, called the executive order “a solution in search of a problem,” because “free speech and academic freedom are core values of research universities.

Maybe dissent from Darwin can’t kill a career anymore?

See also: Who’s afraid of AI that can write the news? AI now automates formula news in business and sports. How far can it go?

and

Top Ten AI hypes of 2018 (Robert Marks)

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on March 09, 2019 06:19

Naturalists (materialists) can’t believe in love

They try but somehow the love story just won’t tell itself in a way that makes any sense:

It may sound rational to conjecture that love is merely an emergent property of consciousness that has matured throughout the course of human evolution. But emergence is no less of a “god of the gaps” belief than Zeus’s lighting or Thor’s thunder. Zoe is a great film but it presents a storyline often used to show how inexplicable and ineffable love is in order to get me to believe that it isn’t.

For example, the underlying dogma assumes reductionism (everything is material). Thus, the question addressed isn’t the obvious one, “Can a synthetic love a human?”; it is “Can a human love a synthetic?” The assumption, in other words, is that Zoe can definitely love. It is presented without explanation as if no explanation is needed. The story question is whether Cole can love her back.

Fortunately, the film stays with the story; it does not turn into a manifesto for AI rights. For that reason, I’ll give Zoe a 5/10 on the dogma scale.

Overall: Underlying assumptions aside, it’s a great film with good acting and believable dialogue. Adam Nieri, “A Mind Matters Review: Zoe (2018), an Android’s Love Story” at Mind Matters

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Also by Adam Nieri: A Mind Matters Review: Travelers” Portrays AI As A Benevolent God

and

Alita: Battle Angel (2019): A Mind Matters Review If you love anime and felt betrayed by the flop of Ghost, I would highly recommend Alita

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on March 09, 2019 05:51

March 8, 2019

Double genome sometimes creates advantages for a wild plant

Two genomes can be better than one for evolutionary adaptation, study finds

thale cress/Wikimedia Commons

Researchers studied the thale cress (an Arabadopsis relative) which can have either a single or a double genome. Genome doubling is not good news: “It’s almost always a bad thing to have too much DNA, but we think that sometimes it makes for a ‘hopeful monster’ that just might flourish.” They seem to have found one:

“These tough little plants can become little genetic adaptation machines which allows them to invade hostile environments and even thrive where others can’t. In fact, a large proportion of the most invasive plant species in the world are genome doubled, so we hypothesised that there are adaptations that occur as a result of genome duplication that we can focus on and find the genes responsible for the adaptations. To test this hypothesis in this study, we resequenced about 300 genomes of this little plant Arabidopsis arenosa,collected from 39 geographical areas across Europe, and looked for the little footprints of selection, a particular gene, that appeared helpful for adaptation to a particular area.”

“In addition to particular genes, we found something even more significant – that in the genome doubled variants the fundamental processes governing how Darwinian selection operates appear a bit different to how they are in the single genome species. That is, we found broader reasons why genome doubled populations may adapt better that go beyond the fact that they simply have more DNA or might harbour new gene variants.”

They found that in doubled genome versions of a species the linkages between neighbouring genes on the same strand of DNA are less strict. It was more common for two genes near one another on a particular piece of DNA to have different combinations of mutations than it was in single genome versions of the species. It may be that this process of ‘linkage breaking’ between neighbouring genes is more efficient in the doubled genome species because a greater variety of different combinations are present and the DNA recombines with additional partners, generating novel combinations of genes. This means that good versions of one gene can escape from bad versions of another genes in its ‘DNA neighbourhood‘, allowing Darwinian selection to occur more efficiently, purging from a population the bad versions and selecting the good. Emma Rayner, “Two genomes can be better than one for evolutionary adaptation, study finds” at Phys.org

This is very interesting but it’s not clear that it is only a Darwinian process. Genome doubling doesn’t usually work well at all in wild nature, let alone solve all kinds of problems (“This means that good versions of one gene can escape from bad versions of another genes in its ‘DNA neighbourhood‘, allowing Darwinian selection to occur more efficiently, purging from a population the bad versions and selecting the good”). There are probably other factors at work in producing the happy outcome but the researchers are not sure what they are yet.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

See also: Polyploidy: Genetic Fundamentalism Is Still Looking For A Job?

New species originated via polyploidy?

Genome doubling (polyploidy) a key factor in evolution?

and

Life continues to ignore what evolution experts say

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on March 08, 2019 16:45

Evolutionary biologists still puzzled over human breasts

Among primates, only humans have them, including the idea that they act as baby handlebars or energy reserves but claims about sexual selection attract the most attention and seem to have been exhaustively tested. The result?

Men’s preferences seem influenced by number of factors, including: culture (says one study, “Brazilians preferred larger breasts and buttocks than Czechs”), socio-economic status (larger breasts for lower status men), sexual habits, (larger for men in short-term, non-committal relationships), body image, (larger for men who rated themselves more attractive), sexist attitudes (larger for men hostile toward women) and even hunger (hungry British men liked bigger breasts than fed participants). And some experiments focused on other qualities than size, such as how perky or symmetrical breasts are.Bridget Alex, “Scientists Still Stumped By The Evolution of Human Breasts” at Discover Magazine

It wouldn’t be easy to derive a principle of biology from all these studies except that breasts matter. (And we don’t know why.) It’s reminiscent of the many theories that have evolved to explain the fact that humans are fully bipedal. See, for example, a number of theories mentioned in Bipedalism: Regulatory area missing in humans?:

There is a “uniquely human” way of walking upright and there’s no shortage of theses as to why: carrying infants or scarce resources, and saving energy strut the stage. Or it is due to climate change or rough terrain? Don’t assume a “chimpanzee starting point,” counsels one expert. News, Uncommon Descent

How about this: Breasts and bipedalism both evolved to create a market for theories.

Okay, okay, but how much worse is that than some of the other theories?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

See also: Human evolution: The war of trivial explanations

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on March 08, 2019 15:25

Sabine Hossenfelder: Is science harmed by an illusion of progress?

Sabine Hossenfelder, author of Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray, offers some reflections on the price one pays for insisting that we are constantly gaining new knowledge, whether we are or not:

The hype-cycle is self-sustaining: Scientists oversell the promise of their research and get funding. Higher education institutions take their share and deliver press releases to the media. The media, since there’s money to make, produce headlines about breakthrough insights. Politicians are pleased about the impact, talk about international competitiveness, and keep the money flowing.

Trouble is, the supposed breakthroughs rarely lead to tangible progress. Where are our quantum computers? Where are our custom cancer cures? Where are the nano-bots? And why do we still not know what dark matter is made of?

Most scientists are well aware their research floats on empty promise, but keep their mouths shut. I know this not just from my personal experience. I know this because it has been vividly, yet painfully, documented in a series of anonymous interviews with British and Australian scientists about their experience writing grant proposals. These interviews, conducted by Jennifer Chubb and Richard Watermeyer (published in Studies in Higher Education), made me weep… Sabine Hossenfelder, “Merchants of Hype” at BackRe(Action)

Her link takes us to this pay walled article:

Abstract: A focus on academic performativity and a rationalizing of what academics do according to measurable outputs has, in the era of higher education’s (HE) neoliberalization and marketization, engendered debate regarding the ‘authenticity’ of academic identity and practice. In such a context, a ‘performative’ prioritization of leveraging ‘positional goods’, such as external research funds, presents a specific challenge to the construction of academics’ identity where in being entrepreneurial they are perceived to compromise traditional Mertonian edicts of scholarship and professional ideals of integrity and ‘virtuousness’. In this article, we consider how academics sacrifice scholarly integrity when selling their research ideas, or more specifically, the non-academic impact of these, to research funders. We review attitudes towards pathway to impact statements – formal components of research funding applications, that specify the prospective socio-economic benefits of proposed research – from (n = 50) academics based in the UK and Australia and how the hyper-competitiveness of the HE market is resulting in impact sensationalism and the corruption of academics as custodians of truth. – Jennifer Chubb & Richard Watermeyer, Artifice or integrity in the marketization of research impact? Investigating the moral economy of (pathways to) impact statements within research funding proposals in the UK and Australia, Journal of Studies in Higher Education, Pages 2360-2372 | Published online: 24 Feb 2016 (paywall – but Update: Preprint here. Thanks to reader Ian Thompson at 1!) More.

In short, the hype we keep hearing in pop science media isn’t just an invention of soon-to-be-jobless hacks; it’s coming from the profs. And it affects discussion of science. Phrases like “billions of habitable planets” or “masses of evidence for” this n’ that roll off the tongue. Proof of string theory and thinking robots are just around the corner. Have been for decades.

Only people who are in trouble for not barking the party line seem to be accountable. And nothing they can say clears them.

Tellingly, Hossenfelder adds, “So here is the puzzle: Why can you not find any expert, besides me, willing to publicly voice criticism on particle physics? Hint: It’s not because there is nothing to criticize. ”

Follow UD News at Twitter!

See also: Sabine Hossenfelder: Physics Problems That Lead To Breakthroughs Arise From Inconsistencies In Data, Not Beautiful Math

Theoretical Physicist Sabine Hossenfelder Shares Her Self-Doubts About Exposing Nonsense In Cosmology

and

Top Ten AI hypes of 2018 by Robert marks. (AI may be among the worst for hype.)

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on March 08, 2019 10:44