Michael J. Behe's Blog, page 534

January 25, 2019

God Help The Little Babies

Here is a picture of a baby being operated on before
birth. With advances in medical
technology, this has become a fairly common procedure.

Now, imagine the operating room is in New York. In the operating room on the other side of the wall, a doctor could be hacking a practically identical baby to death. Legally.

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 January 25, 2019 14:26

Why some scientists saw asteroid Oumuamua as ET

Could 'Oumuamua be an extra-terrestrial solar sail?

Artist’s impression of interstellar asteroid/comet, Oumuamua /ESO, M. Kornmesser

We are always looking for evidence that we are not alone. Remember when Oumuamua was characterized as an extraterrestrial light sail? It is now in Saturn’s orbit and public attention is fading but an astrophysicist reflects on why some thought Oumuamua was ET:

Telescopes like Pan-STARRS on Haleakalā in Hawaii, with the ability to detect objects like ‘Oumuamua, have been operational only in the past decade. Some calculations suggest that the natural ejection of asteroids from other solar systems should be too rare for us to happen to spot even one interstellar asteroid in the few years since we’ve gained the ability to see them. The velocity of ‘Oumuamua when it entered the solar system is also unusual and in some sense too slow to easily reconcile with ejection from another stellar system. ‘Oumuamua’s shape is more elongated than any solar system object, a challenge to explain. ‘Oumuamua put off no detectable infrared radiation, implying it is very small; some calculations suggest it would have to be unusually reflective to be seen at all. Strangest of all is the fact that ‘Oumuamua is not simply orbiting the sun on a ballistic trajectory—it is receiving small but definite thrusts. Comets receive thrusts, too, as ice sublimates on their surfaces and shoots off as gas, like a rocket. But no gases or dust were detected around ‘Oumuamua. Loeb and colleagues suggest it is responding to sunlight in the same way as an advanced spacecraft design called a solar sail, using the sun’s radiation like a sailboat uses the wind. Steve Desch, “The Anthropomorphization of the Universe” at Slate

Then it all fell apart. Never mind, SETI. ET will always be Out There.

See also: Astronomers: Solar System Object In Transit, Oumuamua, Might Be A “Light Sail Of Extra-Terrestrial Origin”

Astrophysicist: Climate Change Killed The ET Civilizations

SETI finds more creative ways to keep looking. As long as there’s an Out There, They’ll always be Out There, of course.

SETI reacts to the study that says not to wait up for the extraterrestrials

Researchers: We have dissolved the Fermi Paradox!

Extraterrestrial civilizations: When all else fails, try Bayesianism. The good news is, no one can ever prove They’re Not Out There.

and

How do we grapple with the idea that ET might not be out there?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on January 25, 2019 12:15

Darwinian evolution and underestimating the Neanderthals

Neanderthal/Photaro

A zoologist asks why we need to see Neanderthal man as dumb: Talking about a recent paper discussing differences in skull shape, he notes,

In the Pleistocene world of rapidly changing ecological scenarios luck had everything to do with success or failure. It was all about being in the right place at the right time, something that natural selection – with its restriction of acting in the present on templates from the past – could not respond to fast enough.

And so we have consistently mistaken survival and extinction with biological superiority or inferiority. That is why we have incessantly sought differences to explain our observations. We are here and they are not and so we must seek differences to explain the data.

Of course, part of the problem is that we are participants trying to explain a story in which we are actors and that will inevitably lead to bias in our favour. Having given the Neanderthals a name, we immediately conditioned ourselves to seeing them as something else…

Denigrating the Neanderthals has been part of that process of exalting our own. In a recent BBC television documentary I was asked if I would like to meet a Neanderthal today. Clive Finlayson, “Viewpoint: Why we still underestimate the Neanderthals” at BBC News

He decided he wouldn’t like to on the grounds that it might not be good for the Neanderthal.

Oddly, it’s not strictly true that we exalt our species, as he claims. We are constantly hearing that humans are not special. The belief that Neanderthals were somehow inferior and we killed them off is meant to exalt not us but Darwinian evolution. And it’s all the more curious that Dr. Finlayson omits to sing its praises.

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

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

and

A deep and abiding need for Neanderthals to be stupid. Why?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on January 25, 2019 11:24

Embroidery needles much older than thought

One needle found in a Denisovan Cave is about 50,000 years old/Siberian Times/Vesti

Last year, archaeologists discovered sewing needles in Siberia that were 20,000 years old. A recent paper draws together what we know of our ancestors’ clothing habits:

“Many of the needles we discovered were not simply used to manufacture clothes but for embroidery and ornaments. There was an aesthetic role,” says Francesco d’Errico, an anthropologist at the University of Bordeaux in France and a co-author of the study.

As for sewing and clothing in general:

We do not know which Homo species—neanderthalensis or sapiens—first pioneered the practice of wearing furs. But by 76,000 years ago, anthropologists believe that Homo sapiens were creating bone awls, a precursor to the needle, in South Africa. In the millennia to follow, artifacts suggest most prehistoric clothing production was occurring in the Northern Hemisphere, where cooler climes made extra insulation helpful. Jacob Pagano, “Sewing Needles Reveal the Roots of Fashion” at Sapiens

If needles were used for embroidery, the embroiderers must have had a strong sense of symbolic thought. Embroidery is not an especially good way of representing objects naturally; one uses it to represent ideas, symbols, and patterns. The missing link is still missing.

Paper. (paywall)

See also: Did Neanderthals Create The First Spanish Cave Paintings?

Academic bombshell: Neanderthal art found.

and

Researchers: Ancient Peoples Knew Their Astronomy, Some Of The Oldest Cave Paintings Show

Follow UD News at Twitter!

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on January 25, 2019 10:14

Newly identified gecko is the latest in eerily accurate camouflage

Uroplatus finaritra/Mark D. Scherz

A newly discovered gecko is another dramatic example of detailed camouflage:

As night falls on the lowland rainforests in Madagascar, dead, decaying leaves find new life, slowly unfurling in the vanishing light. But as four scaly feet and wide, unblinking eyes emerge from behind the crinkly veil, the leaves reveal their true identities: these are leaf-tailed geckos, unparalleled masters of disguise. Now, researchers have described a species of these secretive lizards totally new to science, discovered in a protected corner of the island.

With charismatic lemurs, cat-like fossas, and prickly tenrecs, Madagascar has no shortage of endemic species. Leaf-tailed geckos, genus Uroplatus, are similarly a Madagascan original. Well over a dozen species have evolved on the island, and all are equipped with impressive camouflage. In the ultimate RPG of Life, these reptiles have maxed out their stealth skill trees, appearing indistinguishable from an old leaf when at rest. Their tails are flattened and leaf-shaped, and their skin has blotchy colors and textures, even incorporating ragged edges on skin folds for that authentic, “brittle decay” look.Jake Buehler, “Newly Discovered Gecko Species Is Extremely Good at Being a Leaf” at Gizmodo

Presumably to avoid predators.

The newly discovered species comes from low altitude areas of Marojejy National Park on Madagascar’s northeastern tip. During the day, the leaf-tailed geckos are difficult to spot. They tend to hang out in dead leaves, covering themselves with their deceptive tail and sticking their limbs out like twigs. At night, however, they come alive, actively hunting in the dense rainforest—that’s when researchers conduct their surveys. Jason Daley, “Newly Discovered Leaf-Tailed Gecko From Madagascar Is Already Threatened by Pet Trade” at Smithsonian

Paper. (paywall)

The tail is amazing up close. One risk is that the species will be collected to near extinction.

There has never been a good Darwinian explanation for carefully detailed camouflage, despite Dawkins’s sneers. What good for natural selection would looking a little bit like a leaf be?

See also: Moths use acoustic camouflage to evade bats

Researchers: Poison Frog Warning Colors Also Act As Camouflage

Insects Used Camouflage 100 Million Years Ago

and

Is this the first recorded instance of smell camouflage?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on January 25, 2019 09:40

Maybe “genetic superbabies” is the junior version of the Fountain of Youth

The CRISPR babies scientist has been fired. (If not worse.) From the news: “CRISPR-baby scientist fired by university”

Investigation by Chinese authorities finds He Jiankui broke national regulations in his controversial work on gene-edited babies.” “He provoked international outcry last November when he revealed that he had used the gene-editing technique CRISPR– Cas9 to modify human embryos in an effort to make them resistant to HIV; the embryos were then implanted into a woman and produced twin girls, Nana and Lulu, in November.

According to the investigation’s findings, He is fully to blame for the gene-editing project, and flouted regulations. (David Cyranoski, Nature)

The girls’ father was HIV-positive. The main reason some of us forebore to dance on the guy’s grave is that China, still officially Communist, is not a nice place and it’s not clear what justice would mean there. Certainly not respect for human life, not with that history. For example, He “flouted regulations”? What if the regulations had commanded him to do something like that?

Interesting:

He Jiankui, a researcher who announced in November that he had edited the genes of twin baby girls when they were embryos, fabricated ethics documents and violated government regulations in China, Xinhua News Agency reports today (January 21). Kerry Grens, “Scientist Forged Ethical Reviews for CRISPRed Babies” at The Scientist

Good to hear they’re taking it seriously. Meanwhile, how realistic is the whole idea of gene editing anyway?:

Will college applicants begin stapling their 23 and Me results to their entrance applications? Will parents seek to engineer smarter kids in the lab? I want to convince you it is a fool’s errand. In fact, distributions of risk for mental disorders are also increasingly viewed to involve hundreds or thousands of gene variants. Thus, while the volition to improve our genomes is clearly evident by the ambition of scientists—and codified in the myths of Gattaca, Jurassic Park, Andromeda Strain and Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein—the reality is that genetic risks and advantages are not as straightforward as computer circuits. Jim Kuzobek, “The Myth of Genetic Superbabies” at Scientific American

We would be happy to hear from someone who knows of a limit to human folly and misguided ambition.

See also: Aging has always been with us, say researchers (to no one’s surprise)

Follow UD News at Twitter!

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on January 25, 2019 04:20

Logic and First Principles, 9: Can we be “certain” of any of our views or conclusions?

Currently, one of the objections on the table to a demonstration on how certain structural and quantitative entities are implicit in there being a distinct possible world is the rejection, dismissal or doubting of certainty of conclusions. This again reflects one of the many problems with thought in our day.

Accordingly, I took the opportunity to comment in the fallacies discussion thread:

[KF, FDT 304:] One of the themes that keeps surfacing is “certainty,” which sets up the issues: warrant, knowledge, reliability, credibility, and responsibility.

Given that we ever so often use knowledge in a sense that is less than absolute, irrefutable certainty, as in science, I have put on the table that knowledge speaks of warranted, credibly true (so, reliable) belief. Obviously, this is normally provisional, but it leaves open cases where the degree of warrant and credibility are such that these claims are utterly certainly true and beyond doubt, save by the irresponsible. That is where self-evident truths and inescapable first principles of right reason live. Such includes mathematical truths of the order

||| + || –> |||||.

Thus, we see that warrant comes in degrees and must attain to some degree of reliability that lends the credibility that leads to responsible belief. This may be less than certain, e.g. by and large scientific theories and models are not certain, they are open to correction on many grounds. Yes, Science is at a relatively low rung on the warrant ladder. Observations of science are another matter, they carry with them the credibility of witness, which can be morally certain.

So, certainty is now on the table, and just like warrant (from which it derives) it comes in degrees depending on cases, context and subject matter.

Moral certainty is a case where the grounds of warrant are sufficiently strong that one would be derelict of duty if one were to willfully treat something of that degree of credibility as though it were false, when something of great moment or value is on the table. For example, in a criminal case under Common Law jurisdictions, one must prove beyond reasonable doubt — this is a criterion of responsibility in the context of duty to justice. In commercial or civil matters, preponderance of evidence is a lower standard.

Beyond that everyday sense of certainty, lie the cases where in effect there is reason to believe that the judgement that x is the case has passed beyond room for reasonable, responsible doubt and is utterly unlikely to be reversed; something is true and is so grounded that there is no real room for doubt, but is not a necessary truth — one that must be so in this and all other possible worlds. Then, there is self-evidence, where x is so, is seen to be so by one with enough experience to understand the claim properly, and is such that the denial is immediately, patently absurd. That error exists, is a case in point, the attempt to deny instantly exemplifies that error exists. Likewise, one cannot be deluded that s/he is conscious, as to doubt is an act of consciousness.

Regrettably, we are so situated that it is impossible to build a whole worldview up from matters that are at least self-evidently so.

However, this degree of warranted certainty (and what lies beyond) serves to provide yardsticks and plumblines to test our worldview cores. For example, that error exists is undeniably true and warranted to self-evident certainty. This confirms that truth beyond opinion exists.

Likewise, that some truths are intelligible, accessible by reason. As we observe and experience that error exists means that observation and experience can access truth. Similarly, we have warrant to undeniable certainty, so certain knowledge exists. If certain knowledge exists, knowledge (embracing weaker senses) exists also.

Further to this, beliefs, opinions, ideologies and worldviews that assume, argue, opine and assert that truth, or knowledge, or warrant or certain knowledge do not exist or that claims to such only serve “intolerance” and oppressor-classes — their name is Legion, are swept away wholesale as error. And yes, for cause I have the fell work of cultural marxism squarely in my sights, along with radical relativism and radical subjectivism.

Moreover, having warranted this point to certainty, I freely hold there is demonstrative warrant and that for cause opinion and rhetorical objection to the contrary avail nothing. Though in a politically correct era, many will take the vapours and will be frightened that I have announced a policy of right wing, Christofascist totalitarianism dressed up in Torquemada’s robes. That is how far ever so many in our civilisation have been misled.

That agit prop induced and/or mal-education induced reaction is unwarranted, the issue is to act responsibly and rationally in light of duty to truth, right reason, prudence, justice, etc.

However, there are higher yet degrees of warrant and certainty of knowledge.

Some truths are necessary, certain, intelligible and knowable to utter, incorrigible certainty and even absolute: the truth, the whole truth on a material matter, nothing but the truth on the material matter. Where, a necessary truth will be so in this or any other possible world. And what is more, many such truths are intelligible and warranted to similarly necessary certainty. Many core principles of reason and mathematics are of this order.

For relevant example, for a distinct world to be possible of existence, it must have in it at least one feature [A] such that it is different from all other possible worlds. We may then freely dichotomise W: W = {A|~A}. This already indicates that rationally intelligible structure and quantity are present in the fabric for such a world, we may readily identify here duality, unity (and complex unity in the case ~A), also nullity. The von Neumann construction then gives muscle to Peano’s succession from unity, and we have the natural counting numbers. From this, we may further recognise Z, Q, R, C and more.

Widening scope, and using reality in the widest sense, in reality (to include the case where there may be plural worlds as domains in reality) there will be some A, thus too ~A and a similar dichotomy obtains, R = {A|~A}. Instantly, A is itself i/l/o its core characteristics, perhaps a bright red ball on a table. This is the Law of Identity, LOI. Similarly, by the contrast and dichotomy, no x in R will be in A and in ~A, law of non contradiction, LNC. Thirdly (notice how counting numbers are implicit) any x in R will be in A or else in ~A, not in both or neither. Law of the excluded middle, LEM.

These three are inescapably true. We cannot prove them by appealing to something deeper, as to try to prove cannot but assume and implicitly use them. Likewise a claimed disproof or possible world in which they do not hold will on inspection be found to be implicitly using them. Such are the start-points for reasoning.

In short, we can see that the claim that we cannot be certain about anything is itself a claim to certainty, so it is advisable to instead explore the degrees of warrant we may obtain, for various types of cases. Once we do so, it becomes clear that there are degrees of warrant thus of certainty. Where, moral certainty is the first such degree, with self-evidence and necessary, undeniable or inescapable truths progressing upwards on the ladder. Such then allow us to have yardsticks and plumb-lines to test our reasoning and knowledge claims.

The common notion that associates certainty with oppression, intolerance etc and reacts by applying a hermeneutic of suspicion fails to properly address warrant and knowledge. END

PS: It is likewise worth pausing to point out the relevant demonstration on how considerable, rationally intelligible substance of structure and quantity are implicit in there being a distinct possible world on the table. Here, 257 in the same thread:

1: Consider reality, and within it some distinct entity, say a bright red ball on a table, B. Thus the rest of reality is the complement to B, ~B. Reality, R = {B|~B}

2: Immediately, B is itself (distinctly identifiable i/l/o its core, distinguishing characteristics), this is the fundamental law of thought, Law of Identity, which sets up the dichotomy and its corollaries.

3: Clearly, no x in R can be B AND ~B. Law of non-contradiction, a corollary.

4: Likewise, any x in R must be in B or in ~B, not between them or separate from them: B X-OR ~B, law of the excluded middle. The second corollary.

5: Now, ponder a possible world, W, a sufficiently complete description of a possible [coherent!] state of affairs in reality, i.e. in this or any other world that could be or is.

6: So far, we have set up a framework for discussion, including pointing out the key first principles of right reason that we must use so soon as we type out a message using distinct characters, etc. These are not provable, they are inevitable, inescapable and thus have a right to be presumed first truths of right reason.

7: Now, W, holds distinct identity, it is a particular possible world, different from all others. That is, if claimed entities W1 and W2 are not discernibly different in any respect, they are just different labels for the same thing W.

8: Notice, all along we are trafficking in statements that imply or assert that certain things are so or are not so, i.e. propositions and that relationship of accurate description of reality that we term truth.

9: All of these are not merely concrete particulars or mere labels, they are abstracta which are inevitable in reasoning. Indeed, the relationship of intentionality implicit in attaching a name is an abstractum, too.
10: Now, W is one of infinitely many possible states of affairs, and shares many attributes in common with others. So, we mark the in-common [genus] and the distinct [differentia].

11: So, we freely identify some unique aspect of W, A. W, then is: W = {A|~A}.

12: But already, we see rationally discernible abstract entities, principles and facts or relationship, quantity and structure; i.e. the SUBSTANCE of Mathematics. Namely,

13: first, that which is in W but external to A and ~A is empty, as is the partition: nullity.

14: Likewise, A is a distinct unit, as is ~A [which last is obviously a complex unity]. This gives us unity and duality.

15: So, simply on W being a distinct possible world, we must have in it nullity, unity and duality. These are abstract structural and quantitative properties embedded in the framework for W.

16: This is, strictly, already enough for the claim that there is an abstract substance of mathematical character that is necessarily embedded in any possible world, which is itself an abstract entity, being a collection of propositions. In at least one case such are actualised, i.e. it is possible to have an accurate summary of our world.

17: However, much more is necessarily present, once we see the force of the von Neumann succession of ordinals (which substantiates Peano’s succession), actually presenting the natural counting numbers starting from the set that collects nothing, which is itself an undeniable abstract entity:

{} –> 0
{0} –> 1
{0,1) –> 2
{0,1,2} –> 3
. . .
{0,1,2,3 . . . } –> w [first transfinite ordinal]
etc, without limit

18: We here have N. Define for some n in N, that -n is such that n + (-n) = 0, and we equally necessarily have Z. Again, rooted in the distinct identity of a world, we are studying, exploring, discovering, warranting (as opposed to proving), not creating through our culturally influenced symbolism and discussion.

19: Similarly, identify the ratio n:m, and we attain the rationals, Q.
20: Use power series expansions to capture whole part + endless sum of reducing fractions converging on any given value such as pi or e or phi etc, and we have the reals, R, thus also the continuum. Where, from Z on, we have has entities with magnitude and direction, vectors.

21: Now, propose an operation i*, rotation pivoting on 0 through a right angle. This gives us i*R, an orthogonal axis with continuum, and where for any r in R+, i*r is on the new [y] axis.

22: Now too, go i*i*r, and we find -r. That is we have that i = sqrt(-1), which here has a natural sense as a vector rotation. Any coordinate in the xy plane as described is now seen as a position vector relative to the origin.

23: We have abstract planar space, thus room for algebraic and geometrical contemplation of abstract, mathematically perfect figures. For instance consider the circle r^2 = x^2 + y^2, centred on o.

24: In its upper half let us ponder a triangle standing at -r [A] and r [B] with third vertex at C on the upper arc. This is a right angle triangle with all associated spatial properties, starting with angle sum triangle and Pythagorean relationships, trig identities etc. Between these two figures and extensions, the world of planar figures opens up.

25: Extend rotations to ijk unit vectors and we are at 3-d abstract “flat” space. All of this, tracing to distinct identity.

26: We may bring in Quaternions and Octonions, the latter now being explored as a context for particle physics.

27: The Wigner Math-Physics gap is bridged, at world-root level.

28: Similarly, we have established a large body of intelligible, rational entities and principles of structure and quantity implicit in distinct identity. Such are the substance we discover by exploration (which is culturally influenced) rather than invent.

29: Where it is an obvious characteristic of invention, that it is temporally bound past-wards, Until some time t, entity e did not exist. Then, after t, having been created, it now exists.

30: The above abstracta are implicit in the distinct identity of a world and so have existed so long as reality has. That is, without past bound. (It can readily be shown that if a world now is, some reality always was.)

I again point out that once a demonstration is on the table, only a counter-demonstration suffices to answer it. Unsubstantiated opinions to the contrary avail nothing. Perhaps, it is helpful to note Aristotle on pathos, ethos, logos:

Of the modes of persuasion furnished by the spoken word there are three kinds. The first kind depends on the personal character of the speaker [ethos]; the second on putting the audience into a certain frame of mind [pathos]; the third on the proof, or apparent proof, provided by the words of the speech itself [logos]. Persuasion is achieved by the speaker’s personal character when the speech is so spoken as to make us think him credible . . . Secondly, persuasion may come through the hearers, when the speech stirs their emotions. Our judgements when we are pleased and friendly are not the same as when we are pained and hostile . . . Thirdly, persuasion is effected through the speech itself when we have proved a truth or an apparent truth by means of the persuasive arguments suitable to the case in question . . . . [Aristotle, The Rhetoric, Book I, Ch. 2. Cf. summary with scholarly observations at http://plato.stanford.edu/entr…..-rhetoric/ and http://www.public.iastate.edu/…..index.html for a hypertext version of the book]

For, appeals to our passions, perceptions and felt reactions are of no more weight than the soundness of underlying judgements. Those to the credibility of an authority or presenter hold no more weight than the merits of the underlying case. It is therefore to the merits of fact and logic that we must always go. This should not be controversial, but that is where we now have reached.

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on January 25, 2019 00:23

January 24, 2019

Are we reaching fundamental limits on building large particle colliders?

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is 1308206_20-A5-at-72-dpi.jpg

Replacing the dipole magnet/CERN

We keep hearing pleas for new ones called “wish lists.” Assessing the alternatives, a Columbia mathematician writes,

If none of these three alternatives is affordable or deemed worth the cost, it looks like the only alternative for energy frontier physics is to do what the US has done: give up. The machines and their cost being considered here are similar in scale to the SSC project, which would have been a 40 TeV CM energy 87 km proton-proton collider but was cancelled in 1993. Note that the capabilities of the SSC would have been roughly comparable to the HE-LHC (it had higher energy, lower luminosity). Since it would have started physics around 2000, and an HE-LHC might be possible in 2040, one could say that the SSC cancellation set back the field at least 40 years. The worst part of the SSC cancellation was that the project was underway and there was no fallback plan. It’s hard to overemphasize how disastrous this was for US HEP physics. Whatever the Europeans do, they need to be sure that they don’t end up with this kind of failure.

Faced with a difficult choice like this, there’s a temptation to want to avoid it, to believe that surely new technology will provide some more attractive alternative. In this case though, one is running up against basic physical limits. Peter Woit, ” Should the Europeans Give Up?” at Not Even Wrong

He doesn’t want to give up but he makes it clear that the options are narrow and expensive. He provides good links to the back-and-forth among physicists.

Perhaps we are entering a period of decline when cosmology is about the multiverse rather than the Higgs boson.

See also: Experimental Physicist: Particle Theory Is “In A Crisis” And A Bigger Collider IS The Answer!

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on January 24, 2019 16:30

“Rube-Bait”: Kevin Williamson vs. David Klinghoffer: Round 3

Kevin Williamson

Mirroring other conflicts in some ways:

In replying to me, Williamson ignored all the scientists I pointed to, quite apart from our friend and colleague Michael Behe, who question Darwinism or affirm design. But “Where are the ID scientists?” is basically the challenge that Williamson issued in the first place. Did he not read what I wrote in response before replying to me? More likely, rather than admit he was mistaken in characterizing intelligent design, there is a kind of self-induced blindness going on.

This is about ego, not science. Of course, an allergy to conceding error is not unique to ID opponents, but as I said, it is typical of them.

Update: For more on the exchange, by Wesley Smith and Michael Behe, see also:

Smith, “Stifling the Intelligent Design Debate Is Bad Science”Behe, “On Intelligent Design, Do Your Own Homework. Make Up Your Own Mind.”Klinghoffer, “Michael Behe’s Marshall McLuhan Moment”

This all adds up, I suppose, to a virtual symposium on mulish prejudice and ignorance.David Klingoffer, “Self-Induced Blindness: Round 3 with Kevin Williamson” at Evolution News and Science Today:

Williamson lives in a time when people don’t need to know correct facts so much as correct positions. Klinghoffer mentions the Covington High School story. The astonishing thing about it is, from the perspective of say, how media might have behaved decades ago, very little conventional verification was done until much later. Notice, I didn’t say “very little fact-checking”; I mean something much more basic and less polarizing thanthat. I mean seeing all of a video or doing a routine records check.

Popular Darwinism thrives in that atmosphere because even to raise problems with a Cool theory. however serious the problems, brands one as unCool. You are never supposed to have problems with a Cool theory. Let’s hope the spread of the attitude doesn’t continue to the sciences.

See also: “Rube-Bait”: Kevin Williamson vs. David Klinghoffer: Round 2

and

Intelligent design as “rube-bait” and David Klinghoffer’s response Klinghoffer offers his vid, The Information Enigma by way of rebuttal. But rebuttal almost misses the point. Today’s Darwinism is a snipe on Twitter, a swipe in passing, a slogan on a whiteboard, a well-practiced rant – not something it would make sense to ask anyone to support with reference to facts or coherent ideas. Williamson’s got that right. No arguing with fashion.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on January 24, 2019 15:52

Researchers: The Moon made life on Earth possible

From ScienceDaily:

Earth most likely received the bulk of its carbon, nitrogen and other life-essential volatile elements from the planetary collision that created the moon more than 4.4 billion years ago, according to a new study by Rice University petrologists in the journal Science Advances.

“From the study of primitive meteorites, scientists have long known that Earth and other rocky planets in the inner solar system are volatile-depleted,” said study co-author Rajdeep Dasgupta. “But the timing and mechanism of volatile delivery has been hotly debated. Ours is the first scenario that can explain the timing and delivery in a way that is consistent with all of the geochemical evidence.”

The evidence was compiled from a combination of high-temperature, high-pressure experiments in Dasgupta’s lab, which specializes in studying geochemical reactions that take place deep within a planet under intense heat and pressure.

In a series of experiments, study lead author and graduate student Damanveer Grewal gathered evidence to test a long-standing theory that Earth’s volatiles arrived from a collision with an embryonic planet that had a sulfur-rich core.

The sulfur content of the donor planet’s core matters because of the puzzling array of experimental evidence about the carbon, nitrogen and sulfur that exist in all parts of the Earth other than the core.

“The core doesn’t interact with the rest of Earth, but everything above it, the mantle, the crust, the hydrosphere and the atmosphere, are all connected,” Grewal said. “Material cycles between them.”

…

“What we found is that all the evidence — isotopic signatures, the carbon-nitrogen ratio and the overall amounts of carbon, nitrogen and sulfur in the bulk silicate Earth — are consistent with a moon-forming impact involving a volatile-bearing, Mars-sized planet with a sulfur-rich core,” Grewal said.

…

Dasgupta said it does not appear that Earth’s bulk silicate, on its own, could have attained the life-essential volatile budgets that produced our biosphere, atmosphere and hydrosphere. Paper. (open access) – Damanveer S. Grewal, Rajdeep Dasgupta, Chenguang Sun, Kyusei Tsuno and Gelu Costin. Delivery of carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur to the silicate Earth by a giant impact. Science Advances, 23 Jan 2019 DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aau3669 More.

And beyond?:

Dasgupta, the principal investigator on a NASA-funded effort called CLEVER Planets that is exploring how life-essential elements might come together on distant rocky planets, said better understanding the origin of Earth’s life-essential elements has implications beyond our solar system.

“This study suggests that a rocky, Earth-like planet gets more chances to acquire life-essential elements if it forms and grows from giant impacts with planets that have sampled different building blocks, perhaps from different parts of a protoplanetary disk,” Dasgupta said.

“This removes some boundary conditions,” he said. “It shows that life-essential volatiles can arrive at the surface layers of a planet, even if they were produced on planetary bodies that underwent core formation under very different conditions.”

Dasgupta said it does not appear that Earth’s bulk silicate, on its own, could have attained the life-essential volatile budgets that produced our biosphere, atmosphere and hydrosphere.

“That means we can broaden our search for pathways that lead to volatile elements coming together on a planet to support life as we know it.” Jade Boyd, “Planetary collision that formed the moon made life possible on Earth” at Rice University