Michael J. Behe's Blog, page 532

Maybe the Darwinists can’t afford to be quite as unhinged any more?

A reader writes to remind us of science journalist Richard Milton, author of Shattering the Myths of Darwinism: A rational criticism of evolution theory (1992), of whose 1992 reception he later writes,

“When the first edition of this book was published, in 1992, it was greeted with a storm of controversy no less fervent than the debate that met the publication of Darwin’s theory of evolution one hundred and thirty years ago.

On one hand, according to a leading article in The Times; “Richard Milton’s Shattering the Myths of Darwinism . .. could shake the ‘religion’ of evolution as much as Honest to God shook popular Christianity 30 years ago.”

While on the other, according to a review by Darwinist Richard Dawkins, the book is “loony,” “stupid,” “drivel” and its author a “harmless fruitcake” who “needs psychiatric help.”

When Shattering the Myths of Darwinism was published, I expected it to arouse controversy, because it reports on scientific research that is itself controversial and because it deals with Darwinism-always a touchy subject with the biology establishment.

I didn’t expect science to welcome an inquisitive reporter, but I did expect the controversy to be conducted at a rational level, that people would rightly demand to inspect my evidence more closely and question me on the correctness of this or that fact.

To my horror, I found that instead of challenging me, orthodox scientists simply set about seeing me off “their” property. Richard Dawkins, a reader in zoology at Oxford University, wrote his review for the New Statesman magazine “lest the paper commission someone else who would treat it as a serious scientific treatise.”

Dawkins devoted two-thirds of his review to attacking my British publishers, Fourth Estate, for their irresponsibility in daring to accept a book criticizing Darwinism and the remainder to assassinating my own character in the sort of terms quoted above.

Dawkins is employed at one of Britain’s most distinguished universities and is responsible for the education of future generations of students. Yet this is not the language of a responsible scientist and teacher. It is the language of a religious fundamentalist whose faith has been profaned. (pp ix-x)

Also:

I experienced this kind of witch-hunting activity by the Darwinist police when I first published Shattering the Myths of Darwinism and found myself subjected to a campaign of vilification. I had expected controversy and heated debate, because that is in the nature of Darwinism. But it was deeply disappointing to find myself being described by a prominent academic, Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins, as “loony,” “stupid,” and “in need of psychiatric help” in response to purely scientific reporting.

and

I know that my article on the decline of the neo-Darwinist theory of evolution has caused some controversy and is bound, if published, to cause even more. May I draw your attention to two points that I believe are important? The first is that it has been said, by some scientists, that I am a secret creationist opposed to neo-Darwinism for religious reasons. I am not a creationist and my criticisms of the neo- Darwinist mechanism are purely scientific objections — as any reading of the article itself clearly shows. (from 1995)

Let me make it unambiguously clear that I am not a creationist, nor do I have any religious beliefs of any kind. I am a professional writer and journalist who specializes in writing about science and technology and who writes about matters that I believe are of public interest. —Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, Richard Milton, p. 268 – 269

…why should science resist any radical review of Darwinist ideas so fanatically? I believe the answer to this question is that to any intelligent, educated, reasonable person, Neo-Darwinism appears to be unassailable because it appears to be the only reasonable theory available. The only alternative appears to be either a religious explanation, as represented by the doctrine of creation, or half-baked speculations about aliens and quantum mechanics. —Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, Richard Milton, p. 274

Dawkins has already shown the kind of methods he uses to foster the “public understanding of science” when he covertly campaigned to have my article for the Times Higher Education Supplement suppressed. It is depressing to find that a professor of the public understanding of science interprets his role as meaning he must supervise the information that the public and academic community are allowed to see and hear, and hence prevent them from gaining access to evidence that contradicts the accepted Darwinian doctrines. How are the rest of us to understand academic behavior such as this? I believe that Darwinism has not only become transformed from scientific theory to scientific ideology, it has now become transformed from ideology to scientific urban myth, probably the most pervasive myth of the twentieth century. —Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, Richard Milton, p. 271

It feels a bit like a scrapbook. But seriously, readers, one gets the impression that the Darwinians can’t afford to be quite as unhinged as that anymore.

This just in: The Nineties called. They want Dawkins back. No rush.

Hat tip: Laszlo Bencze

See also: Researcher: Male birds’ songs do not advertise intelligence It’s odd. The fact that he came to doubt the thesis after twenty years is the first time some of us sense a good reason to at least take it seriously. That is, the fact that a specific hypothesis of that sort might be wrong implies that others might turn out to be right, as opposed to mere Darwinian storytelling.

Science fiction writer Vox Day on the “darkstream descent” of Darwin’s theory of evolution He offers seven reasons for rational dissent and doubt

Also, maybe relevant: New atheism is over, says Darwinian PZ Myers To judge from PZ’s post, it looks as though the new atheists are turning on each other instead of on the rest of us. Doesn’t a proverb somewhere cover that?

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

Do ageless bacteria beneath Earth’s surface give life to panspermia theories?

Surely, no one expected to find life forms down there that are simply very, very inactive and live for millennia, but if they can:

The world’s oldest living individuals may not be gnarled bristlecone pines or shimmering aspen clones, but tiny microbes locked in rock miles beneath the surface whose goal is to not to grow or reproduce, but simply to cheat death.

A growing number of papers published in the last decade indicate that bacteria living – many of them in a hydrated, active state — in sediments, in rocks, and in pockets and fissures buried deep underground are old beyond belief.

For instance, in the early 2000s, scientists revealed that the rate at which microbes in aquifers and sediments were breathing was vastly slower than that of microbes at the surface. The biomass turnover rates – the time in which it takes to replace the molecules in a cell – were measured on the order of hundreds to thousands of years…

Panspermia hypotheses that life seeded the universe by hitchhiking inside asteroids have always seemed very tin-foil hat to me. But these findings, together with the recent realization that life may have appeared on Earth almost as soon as it was possible, force me to at least reconsider. Although space is vast, life is insistent. Jennifer Frazer, “Inside Earth, Microbes Approach Immortality” at Scientific American

Well, maybe not all possible lifeforms would simply disintegrate under interstellar space conditions.

Some of us think panspermia gets a bad rap; that is, it is classed with “They’re OUT There!” theories about intelligent aliens. It is really a much more straightforward question whether life forms could survive extreme conditions and, in general, we are finding life in more extreme conditions all the time.

See also: Skeptic: Panspermia (Life Came From Elsewhere Than Earth) Is “Pseudoscience”

That panspermia paper at Progress in Biophysics & Molecular Biology generated some heat: Links and analysis

Panspermia (maybe life came from outer space) is back, in Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology

and

What we know and don’t know about the origin of life (a generous supply of implausible theories)

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

Science fiction writer Vox Day on the “darkstream descent” of Darwin’s theory of evolution

He offers seven reasons for rational dissent and doubt:

1. The evidence doesn’t exist.

2. The historical timelines that purportedly support it are constantly mutating.

3. The theory is a complete failure as a predictive model.

4. The theory is scientifically and technologically irrelevant. There are no evolutionary engineers.

5. Theoretical epicycles are increasingly required to maintain its viability.

6. The theory is a repeated failure as an explanatory model.

7. There is a very long track record of scientific fraud surrounding it.

Vox Day, “Dark stream: The descent of TENS” at Vox Popoli

He offers a vid to back up these statements:

Hat tip: Ken Francis

See also: Science fiction writer is not a Darwin fan Vox Day: Notice that the evolutionary skeptic’s position has consistently proven to be more reliably scientifically post-predictive than the mainstream evolutionist position.

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

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

Logic and First Principles, 10: Knowable Moral Truth and Moral Government vs. Nihilistic Manipulation

One of the issues we must face is whether there is enduring moral truth that can be warranted to such a degree that it rightly governs our thoughts, words (especially in argument) and deeds. Where, given that we have an inner voice (conscience) that testifies to duty under moral law, as well as an inescapable sense of duty to truth, right reason, prudence, justice, uprightness etc., if that intuition is false, then our whole inner life becomes tainted by grand delusion.

A lot is at stake, in short.

A quick first answer is, that we may recognise that grand delusion is self-referential, incoherent, self-falsifying — a case of reduction to absurdity.

That is, we see the inescapability of being governed by moral truth as part of the same first principles that we cannot prove but must accept on reasonable responsible — note the self-reference! — faith, for all proofs, all arguing must start from such. This then raises the issue of how the IS-OUGHT gap can be bridged, which can only be done at the world-root; or else we will always see the Humean challenge of ungrounded oughts.

This already puts on the table the bill of requisites for such a root: necessary being with inherent moral goodness, causal adequacy to ground a physically, intellectually, mathematically and morally governed unified but diverse world that includes responsibly, rationally free creatures such as we are. (And yes, significant — as opposed to absolute — freedom to think, decide and act would be yet another of those inescapable truths.)

That bill of requisites of course has just one serious candidate bid (the God of ethical theism) . . . if you doubt that, simply provide another under comparative difficulties: ___________ . Namely, the inherently good, wise, truthful creator God, a necessary and maximally great being. One, who is worthy of loyalty and of the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature.

Such is of course hotly contested, from every sort of angle.

Go ahead, just apply comparative difficulties across factual adequacy, coherence and balanced explanatory power. I remain confident that such a process will rapidly come back to there being just one serious candidate.

And, that a searching examination of our morally governed nature, starting with our thought-life, will point towards the dangers of imposing crooked yardsticks as standards of straightness, accurate measure, uprightness. Not least, that what is actually these things will never conform to crookedness. So, we need naturally straight and upright plumb lines to judge between yardsticks.

That is of course the role of logic, first principles and first truths that can be known to an appropriate degree of certainty. Which of course invites the rhetoric of how we old fashioned fuddy duddies and Christofascists etc are imposing agendas under the excuse of certainties.

Indeed, let us contrast a Biblical warning:

Isa 5: 18 Woe (judgment is coming) to those who drag along wickedness with cords of falsehood,
And sin as if with cart ropes [towing their own punishment];
19 Who say, “Let Him move speedily, let Him expedite His work [His promised vengeance], so that we may see it;
And let the purpose of the Holy One of Israel approach
And come to pass, so that we may know it!”

20 Woe (judgment is coming) to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness;
Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

21 Woe (judgment is coming) to those who are wise in their own eyes
And clever and shrewd in their own sight!
22 Woe (judgment is coming) to those who are heroes at drinking wine
And men of strength in mixing intoxicating drinks,
23 Who justify the wicked and acquit the guilty for a bribe,
And take away the rights of those who are in the right! [AMP]

. . . with an example of current political correctness, from US Senator Kamala Harris in a recent CNN Townhall . . . which we cite as a summary of moral claims being made and trumpeted across our world:

“You know, we have to speak truths about this. Racism is real in America. Sexism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, transphobia. These things exist in America, and we have to speak truth that they do so that we can deal with them. But we have seen in the last two years

[–> H’mm, methinks the last two weeks have something to say, here]

that there has been new fuel that is lighting that fire in a way that has been harmful . . . we know that hate is something that in the history of our country, and currently, fuels not only dissension and division, but is — actually can lead to death. And so, we have to take it seriously.”

It is also worth the while to remind ourselves of Cicero in his opening remarks in De Legibus, c. 50 BC:

Marcus [in de Legibus, introductory remarks,. C1 BC]  — . . . the subject of our present discussion . . . comprehends the universal principles of equity and law. In such a discussion therefore on the great moral law of nature, the practice of the civil law can occupy but an insignificant and subordinate station. For according to our idea, we shall have to explain the true nature of moral justice, which is congenial and correspondent with the true nature of man. We shall have to examine those principles of legislation by which all political states should be governed. And last of all, shall we have to speak of those laws and customs which are framed for the use and convenience of particular peoples, which regulate the civic and municipal affairs of the citizens, and which are known by the title of civil laws.

Quintus [his brother]. —You take a noble view of the subject, my brother, and go to the fountain–head of moral truth, in order to throw light on the whole science of jurisprudence: while those who confine their legal studies to the civil law too often grow less familiar with the arts of justice than with those of litigation.

 Marcus. —Your observation, my Quintus, is not quite correct. It is not so much the science of law that produces litigation, as the ignorance of it, (potius ignoratio juris litigiosa est quam scientia) . . . . With respect to the true principle of justice, many learned men have maintained that it springs from Law. I hardly know if their opinion be not correct, at least, according to their own definition; for “Law (say they) is the highest reason, implanted in nature, which prescribes those things which ought to be done, and forbids the contrary.” This, they think, is apparent from the converse of the proposition; because this same reason, when it is confirmed and established in men’s minds, is the law of all their actions. They therefore conceive that the voice of conscience is a law, that moral prudence is a law, whose operation is to urge us to good actions, and restrain us from evil ones. They think, too, that the Greek name for law (NOMOS), which is derived from NEMO, to distribute, implies the very nature of the thing, that is, to give every man his due. [–> this implies a definition of justice as the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities] For my part, I imagine that the moral essence of law is better expressed by its Latin name, (lex), which conveys the idea of selection or discrimination. According to the Greeks, therefore, the name of law implies an equitable distribution of goods: according to the Romans, an equitable discrimination between good and evil. The true definition of law should, however, include both these characteristics. And this being granted as an almost self–evident proposition, the origin of justice is to be sought in the divine law of eternal and immutable morality. This indeed is the true energy of nature, the very soul and essence of wisdom, the test of virtue and vice.

In comparing the three, there is a surprising underlying agreement that we are under moral government. The debates come, on substance — and we must be very cautious when we see the dismissal of longstanding principled concerns as X-phobias, X to be extended to whatever latest fashionable behaviour supported by the “progressives” demands to be treated as a right. Where, a phobia is by definition an IRRATIONAL fear.

Such irrationality must be warranted, not just asserted.

Likewise, a right is a moral claim to support and respect in some particular way, so to justly claim a right, one must manifestly first be demonstrably in the right. For, it patently cannot be a right to demand that another taints conscience by enabling one in wrongdoing . . . something implicit in Isa 5 and in Cicero.

Such leads me to put on the table, that:

 1] The first self evident moral truth is that we are inescapably under the government of ought.

(This is manifest in even an objector’s implication in the
questions, challenges and arguments that s/he would advance, that we
are in the wrong and there is something to be avoided about that. That
is, even the objector inadvertently implies that we OUGHT to do, think,
aim for and say the right. Not even the hyperskeptical objector can
escape this truth. Patent absurdity on attempted denial.)

2] Second self evident truth, we discern that some things are right and others are wrong by a compass-sense we term conscience which guides our thought. (Again, objectors depend on a sense of guilt/ urgency to be right not wrong on our part to give their points persuasive force. See what would be undermined should conscience be deadened or dismissed universally? Sawing off the branch on which we all must sit.)

3] Third, were this sense of conscience and linked sense that we can make responsibly free, rational decisions to be a delusion, we would at once descend into a status of grand delusion in which there is no good ground for confidence in our self-understanding. That is, we look at an infinite regress of Plato’s cave worlds: once such a principle of grand global delusion is injected, there is no firewall so the perception of level one delusion is subject to the same issue, and this level two perception too, ad infinitum; landing in patent absurdity.

4] Fourth, we are objectively under obligation of OUGHT. That is, despite any particular person’s (or group’s or august council’s or majority’s) wishes or claims to the contrary, such obligation credibly holds to moral certainty. That is, it would be irresponsible, foolish and unwise for us to act and try to live otherwise.

5] Fifth, this cumulative framework of moral government under OUGHT is the basis for the manifest core principles of the natural moral law under which we find ourselves obligated to the right the good, the true etc. Where also, patently, we struggle to live up to what we acknowledge or imply we ought to do.

6] Sixth, this means we live in a world in which being under core, generally understood principles of natural moral law is coherent and factually adequate, thus calling for a world-understanding in which OUGHT is properly grounded at root level. (Thus worldviews that can soundly meet this test are the only truly viable ones. if a worldview does not have in it a world-root level IS that can simultaneously ground OUGHT, it fails decisively.)

7] Seventh, in light of the above, even the weakest and most voiceless of us thus has a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of fulfillment of one’s sense of what s/he ought to be (“happiness”). This includes the young child, the unborn and more. (We see here the concept that rights are binding moral expectations of others to provide respect in regards to us because of our inherent status as human beings, members of the community of valuable neighbours. Where also who is my neighbour was forever answered by the parable of the Good Samaritan. Likewise, there can be no right to demand of or compel my neighbour that s/he upholds me and enables me in the wrong — including under false colour of law through lawfare. To justly claim a right, one must first be in the right.)

8] Eighth, like unto the seventh, such may only be circumscribed or limited for good cause. Such as, reciprocal obligation to cherish and not harm neighbour of equal, equally valuable nature in community and in the wider world of the common brotherhood of humanity.

9] Ninth, this is the context in which it becomes self evidently wrong, wicked and evil to kidnap, sexually torture and murder a young child or the like as concrete cases in point that show that might and/or manipulation do not make ‘right,’ ‘truth,’ ‘worth,’ ‘justice,’ ‘fairness,’ ‘law’ etc. That is, anything that expresses or implies the nihilist’s credo is morally absurd.

10] Tenth, this entails that in civil society with government, justice is a principal task of legitimate government. In short, nihilistic will to power untempered by the primacy of justice is its own refutation in any type of state. Where, justice is the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities. Thus also,

11] Eleventh, that government is and ought to be subject to audit, reformation and if necessary replacement should it fail sufficiently badly and incorrigibly.

(NB: This is a requisite of
accountability for justice, and the suggestion or implication of some
views across time, that government can reasonably be unaccountable to
the governed, is its own refutation, reflecting — again — nihilistic
will to power; which is automatically absurd. This truth involves the
issue that finite, fallible, morally struggling men acting as civil
authorities in the face of changing times and situations as well as in
the face of the tendency of power to corrupt, need to be open to
remonstrance and reformation — or if they become resistant to
reasonable appeal, there must be effective means of replacement. Hence,
the principle that the general election is an insitutionalised regular
solemn assembly of the people for audit and reform or if needs be
replacement of government gone bad. But this is by no means an
endorsement of the notion that a manipulated mob bent on a march of
folly has a right to do as it pleases.)

12] Twelfth, the
attempt to deny or dismiss such a general framework of moral governance
invariably lands in shipwreck of incoherence and absurdity. As, has been seen in outline. But that does not mean that the attempt is not going to be made, so there is a mutual obligation of frank and fair correction and restraint of evil.

So, we have good reason to hold that there are moral truths, that some are self-evident, serving as plumb lines that correct crooked yardsticks, that we may therefore establish moral knowledge and that such knowledge is pivotal to sound, sustainable community and government. Where, manifestly moral soundness is under grave threat today, across our civilisation. Where, too, moral government is inseparable from truthful thought, right reason, prudence, justice and more. END

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

Earth’s core hardened just in time to prevent magnetic field collapse

Magnetic field/NASA

Around 565 million years ago, just when life was getting seriously underway:

The finding, reported online January 28 in Nature Geoscience, supports an idea previously proposed by simulations that Earth’s inner core is relatively young. It also provides insight into how, and how quickly, Earth has been losing heat since its formation 4.54 billion years ago —key to understanding not only the generation of the planet’s magnetic shield but also convection within the mantle and plate tectonics.Carolyn Gramling, “Earth’s core may have hardened just in time to save its magnetic field” at ScienceNews

The powerful recent phase protects lifefrom damaging radiation.

Paper. (open access)

See also: Researchers: The Moon made life on Earth possible

and

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

Andrew Jones on Free Will

Over at EN he writes:

If determinism is also true, that does not mean that free will is false. It could be simply that there is a problem with the philosophical abstraction called “libertarian free will” (which seems to assert indeterminism as a fundamentalist tenet).

“If determinism is also true, that does not mean that free will is false.” Yes, it absolutely does. “Free” is the opposite of “determined.”
“It could be simply that there is a problem with the philosophical abstraction called “libertarian free will” (which seems to assert indeterminism as a fundamentalist tenet).” Libertarian free will posits “liberty” (i.e., freedom to do otherwise) as a fundamental (not fundamentalist) tenet.

Like so many, Jones believes compatibilism is the answer. Here is the Wiki entry on compatibilism. Briefly compatibilists  define “free will” as an agent acting according to their own motivation. That is, the agent was not coerced or restrained. However, the motive itself is not free; it is determined. Arthur Schopenhauer captured the theory as “Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.”

I have written about compatibilism before, and the problem with this approach is easy to see. It is a semantic dodge, a word game. Words have meaning; we don’t get to impose meaning on words to suit the conclusion we want to reach.  The whole issue in the determinism/free will debate is whether we could have done otherwise.

Suppose I ask my friend Joe the following question:  “Do I have free will, if by “free will” I mean ‘the ability to have done otherwise?’”  It is obviously no answer to that question for Joe to say, “Yes, you have free will if by free will you mean, “the absence of coercion which gave you the ability to act with a determined motive.”  I really do want to explore the question about whether I could have done otherwise, and Joe’s answer is not helpful.  You might even say Joe dodged the question.

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

Science fiction writer is not a Darwin fan

Vox Day/Tracy White

Vox Day (actually Theodore Beale, a science fiction writer and video game designer) has been critiquing Darwinian evolution (which he calls TENS – Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection) of late: Here, he talks about recent findings that bird beaks don’t necessarily change to adapt to environmental conditions (as was thought to be the case with Darwin’s iconic finches in the Galapagos):

Notice that the evolutionary skeptic’s position has consistently proven to be more reliably scientifically post-predictive than the mainstream evolutionist position: … I’m not even remotely surprised by this, although I am certainly amused given the central importance of bird beaks to the history of TENS. The more that biological science advances, particularly on the genetic front, the weaker, the less necessary, and the more obviously false the theory of evolution by natural selection is consistently proving to be. Vox Day, “TENS continues to degrade” at Vox Popoli

“Evolution” can mean a variety of things but the controversial schoolbook version enforced by the Darwin lobby is “evolution by natural selection.” It’s the one that there never seems to be enough evidence for too, mainly because too much weight is placed on it, more than any one theory could bear.

Hey, if science fiction is real, there is a multiverse and somewhere out there is a universe where Darwinism is true.

See also: Darwinism challenged as explanation for finch beaks

and

Natural selection: Could it be the single greatest idea ever invented?

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

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

Neanderthals were way smarter hunters than we used to think

[image error]Spear fragment from 400,000 years ago/
Annemieke Milks (UCL)

From ScienceDaily:

Neanderthals have been imagined as the inferior cousins of modern humans, but a new study by archaeologists at UCL reveals for the first time that they produced weaponry advanced enough to kill at a distance.

The study, published in Scientific Reports, examined the performance of replicas of the 300,000 year old Schöningen spears — the oldest weapons reported in archaeological records — to identify whether javelin throwers could use them to hit a target at distance…

The research shows that the wooden spears would have enabled Neanderthals to use them as weapons and kill at distance. It is a significant finding given that previous studies considered Neanderthals could only hunt and kill their prey at close range. Paper. (open access) – Annemieke Milks, David Parker, Matt Pope. External ballistics of Pleistocene hand-thrown spears: experimental performance data and implications for human evolution. Scientific Reports, 2019; 9 (1) DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-37904-w More.

Since we’re here anyway, how did the researchers discover this? Safe bet, they weren’t out there throwing sharp objects at dump bears at dusk in Northern Ontario landfills:

We worked with a group of six club-level javelin athletes from the UK who threw replicas of a spear from the 300,000-year-old Neanderthal site of Schöningen in Germany at targets set at different distances. We recorded when they hit and missed the target, and filmed release and impacts with high-speed video cameras. This allowed us to evaluate accuracy and capture aspects of flight and impact that have never been scientifically analysed.

The results show that Neanderthals designed weapons that were capable of impacting a target with significant speed and energy from distances of up to 20 metres. This is surprising – archaeologists have typically viewed hand-thrown spears as close-distance weapons, limited to ten metres at most. This is an extremely close hunting distance and would severely limit the strategies that hunters could use. It would also make it extremely dangerous to hunt larger prey with aggressive behaviours, such as bison. Annemieke Milks, “Neanderthals: javelin athletes helped us show how effective they were at hunting with weapons” at The Conversation

Those Neanderthals now, they get smarter every time we run into them. Will the day come when people think it a social cachet to have Neanderthal ancestors?

Which reminds us:

You probably learned that a species is a group of individuals that can breed to produce fertile offspring, but this is just one of dozens of competing definitions. The lack of consensus on what a species is has big implications for how we think about the natural world and for our efforts to conserve it. But the problems go even deeper. Recent revelations about interbreeding between what some regard as separate species of ancient humans have left many of us wondering: who are “we”, who are “they” and are we actually all one and the same? In other words, how we define a species has become a question at the very heart of human identity. Perhaps it is time to rethink the whole concept.Colin Barras, “Human or hybrid? The big debate over what a species really is” at New Scientist

Hang onto that thought, Colin.

See also: Darwinian Evolution And Underestimating The Neanderthals

See also: Was Neanderthal man fully human? The role racism played in assessing the evidence

and

Neanderthal Man: The long-lost relative turns up again, this time with documents

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

Researcher: Male birds’ songs do not advertise intelligence

After 20 years’ research, he has come to doubt sexual selection in this area:

Behavioral ecologist Steve Nowicki of Duke University called birdsong “unreliable” as a clue for choosy females seeking a smart mate, in a paper published in the March 2018 Animal Behaviour. He will also soon publish another critique based on male songbirds that failed to score consistently on learning tests. And in what he calls a “public service announcement,” Nowicki summarized the negative results of those tests on January 4 at the annual meeting of the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology in Tampa, Fla. “This was a beautiful hypothesis that got beaten up by data,” he says.Susan Milius, “Male birds’ sexy songs may not advertise their brains after all” at Science News

It’s odd. The fact that he came to doubt the thesis after twenty years is the first time some of us sense a good reason to at least take it seriously. That is, the fact that a specific hypothesis of that sort might be wrong implies that others might turn out to be right, as opposed to mere Darwinian storytelling. (= “You see, the reason the male animals fight is that the females will then mate only with the strong ones. Now, you see, Darwin all explained that… ” Meanwhile, in real life, the female runs off with the dopey male who is just standing there beside her because he doesn’t want to get hurt… And as for the Darwinian strong males? Perhaps they have a future as antlers in heaven. )

See also: Rob Sheldon on the failure of the selfish gene theory in peacocks as well as bees.

and

Can sex explain evolution?

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

Reference: Shield of Faith diagram

A classic summary on the Athanasian creed:

Im more abstract form, in English and Latin:

Trust this helps. END

PS: Let me clip from the relevant thread:

my point is, that which the Athanasian Creed summarises and which is reflected in the classic shield of faith diagram:

. . . we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Essence [“substantiam”]. For there
is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the
Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as
the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father
uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father
unlimited [“immensus,” beyond measure]; the Son unlimited; and the Holy
Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost
eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also
there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated;
and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty;
and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties; but
one Almighty. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost
is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God. So likewise the
Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three
Lords; but one Lord.

KF

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