Michael J. Behe's Blog, page 548

Three Knockdown Proofs of the Immateriality of Mind, and Why Computers Compute, not Think

From Neurosurgeon Michael Egnor

Copyright © 2018 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

Will the Large Hadron Collider doom particle physics?

Sabine Hossenfelder, author of Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray, explains why she thinks that’s a risk:

It is possible that in the data yet to come some new particle eventually shows up. But particle physicists are nervous. It’s not looking good – besides a few anomalies that are not statistically significant, there is no evidence for anything out of the normal. And if the LHC finds nothing new, there is no reason to think the next larger collider will. In which case, why build one?

That the LHC finds the Higgs and nothing else was dubbed the “nightmare scenario” for a reason. For 30 years, particle physicists have told us that the LHC should find something besides that, something exciting: a particle for dark matter, additional dimensions of space, or maybe a new type of symmetry. Something that would prove that the standard model is not all there is. But this didn’t happen. Sabine Hossenfelder, “How the LHC may spell the end of particle physics” at BackRe(Action)

And, she adds, particle physicists have reacted “Largely by pretending nothing happened.” She wonders whether the $10 billion plus to build an even bigger collider will be raised, considering that nothing was found that shows that the Standard Model of the universe is not “all there is.”

Well, provided there is no “anti-science” taxpayer revolt, the money will surely be found. Otherwise, uncomfortable questions would start to be asked about why what we can infer abourtthe universe now is such a problem. Consider: The Standard Model begins with the hated Big Bang. Nothing that supports string theory, eternal cosmic inflation, or a multiverse has been found. Don’t many people just have to keep looking and keep quiet about what they find that wasn’t what they hoped for?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

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

Sabine Hossenfelder: Particle Physics Now Belly Up. As It Happens, Her Book Is A Solid String Of 1’S At Amazon

and

Our universe understood at last: An expanding bubble in an extra dimension! The authors hope that their work will “pave the way for methods of testing string theory.” That could come in handy, you never know.

Copyright © 2018 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

Can Big Data beat the humans who compile it? A computer pioneer bet No

Jed Macosko

Fred Brooks says that human intelligence augmented by artificial intelligence will always beat artificial intelligence alone. Is he right? Jed Macosko, an assistant prof at Wake Forest University, explains:

Before we envision scary scenes from The Matrix, we need to remember that Zor, Deep Blue, and any future AI systems are inevitably designed by humans. Developing an algorithm to beat humans or humans-plus-computers in chess requires a lot of other humans doing careful engineering. Not only that but their program designed to play chess won’t suddenly become a champion at Monopoly—or even very good at checkers.

The bottom line is that Brooks’ Bet and his IA>AI inequality principle is a good reality check in the face of fears and hype about what AI will do in the future. AI is powerful and, when designed to mesh directly with the needs and intellect of humans, it becomes even more powerful. The best example of this to date is the Big Data revolution and the amazing augmentation of our intelligence that it provides. More.

See also: Study shows eating raisins causes plantar warts (Robert J. Marks)

and

Too Big to Fail Safe If artificial intelligence makes disastrous decisions from very complex calculations in health care, will we still understand what went wrong?

Copyright © 2018 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

Astrophysicist: Alien hunters, please stop using the Drake Equation

types of planets Kepler found/NAA

An astrophysicist explains, astronomer Frank Drake developed the equation for estimating the likelihood of intelligent ET civilizations to accommodate the needs of a 1961 conference by reducing the general question to a number of smaller, more specific ones. It’s been a staple of discussion of extraterrestrial civilizations since then. A great conversation piece—but that about sums it up:

While the Drake equation may have spurred the early scientific discussion of the search for extraterrestrial intelligence, it doesn’t have much value beyond that. We can’t use to it further our understanding, and we can’t use it to properly guide our thinking. The huge uncertainties in the parameters, the unknown ways those uncertainties mix, and the absolute lack of any guidance in even choosing those parameters robs it of any predictive power. Prediction is at the heart of science. Prediction is what makes an idea useful. And if an idea isn’t useful, why keep it around?Paul Sutter, “Alien Hunters, Stop Using the Drake Equation” at Space.com

Ah, a question we can answer!

The intuition that They Are Out There is not based on science; it is based on deductive reasoning.

If They are not out there, the elaborate fine-tuning of Earth implies that we are somehow special. And if there is one thing properly raised modern human being knows today, it’s that we are not special. We are just animals who may or may not be more intelligent than other animals (maybe IQ tests are unfair to apes), we are wrecking the planet, and maybe even salad is murder.

On a brighter note, maybe They Are Out There and are greater and wiser than us. Or maybe not but at least we won’t feel both bad and alone.

Take heart, SETI, they will Always Be Out There for you.

See also: Fixing the unfixable Drake Equation (2018)

ET still hasn’t phoned Frank Drake (2016)

and

Obituary column: By the time we hear from the space aliens,they will be dead

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Copyright © 2018 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

2018 AI Hype Countdown 3: Robert J. Marks on the claim, You Will Never Have Secrets Again!

AI help, not hype: Did you read about the flap they had to cut out of a volunteer’s skull?:

The reality is that AI can read your mind for a few words repeated often if you have a flap cut out of your skull and electrodes are placed directly on your brain. More.

And then it only works for you, not for someone else with different wiring. With so many new developments in AI, the real story is usually far down in the fine print. And not a close match with the headlines.





See also: Robert J. Marks, “AI That Can Read
Minds?” Mind Matters, August 4, 2018.





2018 AI Hype Countdown 4: Making AI Look More Human Makes It More Human-like! AI help, not hype: Technicians can do a lot these days with automated lip-syncs and smiles but what’s behind them? This summer, some were simply agog over “Sophia, the First Robot Citizen” (“unsettling as it is awe-inspiring”)…





2018 AI Hype Countdown 5: AI Can Fight Hate Speech! AI help, not hype: AI can carry out its programmers’ biases and that’s all. Putting these kinds of decisions in the hands of software programs is not likely to promote vigorous and healthy debate.





2018 AI Hype Countdown 6: AI Can Even Find Loopholes in the Code! AI help, not hype: AI adopts a solution in an allowed set, maybe not the one you expected.





2018 AI Hype Countdown 7: Computers can develop creative solutions on their own! AI help, not hype: Programmers may be surprised by which solution, from a range they built in, comes out on top Sometimes the results are unexpected and even surprising. But they follow directly from the program doing exactly what the programmer programmed it to do. It’s all program, no creativity.





2018 AI Hype Countdown 8: AI Just Needs a Bigger Truck! AI help, not hype: Can we create superintelligent computers just by adding more computing power? Some think computers could greatly exceed human intelligence if only we added more computing power. That reminds me of an old story…





2018 AI Hype Countdown 9: Will That Army Robot Squid Ever Be “Self-Aware”? The thrill of fear invites the reader to accept a metaphorical claim as a literal fact.





2018 AI Hype Countdown: 10. Is AI really becoming “human-like”? AI help, not hype: Here’s #10 of our Top Ten AI hypes, flops, and spins of 2018 A headline from the UK Telegraph reads “DeepMind’s AlphaZero now showing human-like intuition in historical ‘turning point’ for AI” Don’t worry if you missed it.











Robert J. Marks II, Ph.D., is Distinguished Professor of Engineering in the Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering at Baylor University.  Marks is the founding Director of the Walter Bradley Center for Natural & Artificial Intelligence and hosts the podcast Mind Matters. He is the Editor-in-Chief of BIO-Complexity and the former Editor-in-Chief of the IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks. He served as the first President of the IEEE Neural Networks Council, now the IEEE Computational Intelligence Society. He is a Fellow of the IEEE and a Fellow of the Optical Society of America. His latest book is Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics coauthored with William Dembski and Winston Ewert. A Christian, Marks served for 17 years as the faculty advisor for CRU at the University of Washington and currently is a faculty advisor at Baylor University for the student groups the American Scientific Affiliation and Oso Logos, a Christian apologetics group. Also: byRobert J. Marks:

Copyright © 2018 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

Our universe understood at last: An expanding bubble in an extra dimension!

[image error]
In their article, the scientists propose a new model with dark energy and our Universe riding on an expanding bubble in an extra dimension. The whole Universe is accommodated on the edge of this expanding bubble/Suvendu Giri

From ScienceDaily:

It has long been hoped that string theory will provide the answer. According to string theory, all matter consists of tiny, vibrating “stringlike” entities. The theory also requires there to be more spatial dimensions than the three that are already part of everyday knowledge. For 15 years, there have been models in string theory that have been thought to give rise to dark energy. However, these have come in for increasingly harsh criticism, and several researchers are now asserting that none of the models proposed to date are workable.

Recently, we were told that it would lead to a Theory of Everything if it were viable. You propose a new model:

In their article, the scientists propose a new model with dark energy and our Universe riding on an expanding bubble in an extra dimension. The whole Universe is accommodated on the edge of this expanding bubble. All existing matter in the Universe corresponds to the ends of strings that extend out into the extra dimension. The researchers also show that expanding bubbles of this kind can come into existence within the framework of string theory. It is conceivable that there are more bubbles than ours, corresponding to other universes. Paper. (open access) – Souvik Banerjee, Ulf Danielsson, Giuseppe Dibitetto, Suvendu Giri, Marjorie Schillo. Emergent de Sitter Cosmology from Decaying Anti–de Sitter Space. Physical Review Letters, 2018; 121 (26) DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.261301 More.

So this is a string theory thesis that includes our universe riding on an expanding bubble in an extra dimension. The authors hope that their work will “pave the way for methods of testing string theory.” That could come in handy, you never know.

See also: Belief in string theory is becoming, at this point, a sort of social virtue “In the real world?” So string theory is not about the real world? Even the author of the article, Mike McRae, does not sound hopeful for the theory. He compares string theory to a means of bringing warring divorced parents to talk to each other at Christmas. Virtuous, yes, but not what we usually mean by science.

PBS Video: Why String Theory Is Wrong

Researchers: Either dark energy or string theory is wrong. Or both are. But dark energy is so glitzy! Isn’t it a line of cosmetics already?

Researchers: The symmetrons needed to explain dark energy were not found

and

Rob Sheldon: Has dark energy finally been found? In pop science mags?

Copyright © 2018 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

2018 AI Hype Countdown 4: Robert J. Marks on the claim, Making AI Look More Human Makes It More Human-like!

Some are apparently wowed. Others remain unwowed:

Notice that care is taken that the package mimics human nuances like blinking, smiling, and syncing lips so as to line up with words. Doing so increases the impression that the AI is human.

You may fail to notice that Sophia says nothing that it isn’t programmed to say and the whole thing sounds like it was run past a company marketing specialist. That’s understandable, considering that the evil Twitter fairy recently destroyed Microsoft’s chatbot, Tay.ai, which mindlessly repeated Politically Incorrect statements. Unfortunately, the more correct bot, Zo, is, as one critic put it, “a judgmental little brat” that mindlessly offers only Correct ones.

No details are offered as to how the Sophia program would become conscious, which is probably because no one in science today really understands how consciousness works. Note: In a telling denouement, Sophia was granted citizenship in Saudi Arabia. More.

See also the virtual bride (man marries AI woman) and the growing trade in sex robots as a cure for loneliness. As if.

See also: 2018 AI Hype Countdown 5: AI Can Fight Hate Speech! AI help, not hype: AI can carry out its programmers’ biases and that’s all. Putting these kinds of decisions in the hands of software programs is not likely to promote vigorous and healthy debate.

2018 AI Hype Countdown 6: AI Can Even Find Loopholes in the Code! AI help, not hype: AI adopts a solution in an allowed set, maybe not the one you expected.

2018 AI Hype Countdown 7: Computers can develop creative solutions on their own! AI help, not hype: Programmers may be surprised by which solution, from a range they built in, comes out on top Sometimes the results are unexpected and even surprising. But they follow directly from the program doing exactly what the programmer programmed it to do. It’s all program, no creativity.

2018 AI Hype Countdown 8: AI Just Needs a Bigger Truck! AI help, not hype: Can we create superintelligent computers just by adding more computing power? Some think computers could greatly exceed human intelligence if only we added more computing power. That reminds me of an old story…

2018 AI Hype Countdown 9: Will That Army Robot Squid Ever Be “Self-Aware”? The thrill of fear invites the reader to accept a metaphorical claim as a literal fact.

2018 AI Hype Countdown: 10. Is AI really becoming “human-like”? Robert J. Marks: AI help, not hype: Here’s #10 of our Top Ten AI hypes, flops, and spins of 2018 A headline from the UK Telegraph reads “DeepMind’s AlphaZero now showing human-like intuition in historical ‘turning point’ for AI” Don’t worry if you missed it.

Robert J. Marks II, Ph.D., is Distinguished Professor of Engineering in the Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering at Baylor University.  Marks is the founding Director of the Walter Bradley Center for Natural & Artificial Intelligence and hosts the podcast Mind Matters. He is the Editor-in-Chief of BIO-Complexity and the former Editor-in-Chief of the IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks. He served as the first President of the IEEE Neural Networks Council, now the IEEE Computational Intelligence Society. He is a Fellow of the IEEE and a Fellow of the Optical Society of America. His latest book is Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics coauthored with William Dembski and Winston Ewert. A Christian, Marks served for 17 years as the faculty advisor for CRU at the University of Washington and currently is a faculty advisor at Baylor University for the student groups the American Scientific Affiliation and Oso Logos, a Christian apologetics group. Also: byRobert J. Marks:

Copyright © 2018 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

Why did bigger, more complex organisms get started earlier in deep oceans?

oxygen

From ScienceDaily:

In the beginning, life was small. For billions of years, all life on Earth was microscopic, consisting mostly of single cells. Then suddenly, about 570 million years ago, complex organisms including animals with soft, sponge-like bodies up to a meter long sprang to life. And for 15 million years, life at this size and complexity existed only in deep water.

Why did life forms exist at that size only in deep water, where light, food, and especially oxygen must have been scarce. A new paper tests the hypothesis that stable temperature was the key — cold but stable:

Previously, scientists had theorized that animals have an optimum temperature at which they can thrive with the least amount of oxygen. According to the theory, oxygen requirements are higher at temperatures either colder or warmer than a happy medium. To test that theory in an animal reminiscent of those flourishing in the Ediacaran ocean depths, Boag measured the oxygen needs of sea anemones, whose gelatinous bodies and ability to breathe through the skin closely mimic the biology of fossils collected from the Ediacaran oceans.

“We assumed that their ability to tolerate low oxygen would get worse as the temperatures increased. That had been observed in more complex animals like fish and lobsters and crabs,” Boag said. The scientists weren’t sure whether colder temperatures would also strain the animals’ tolerance. But indeed, the anemones needed more oxygen when temperatures in an experimental tank veered outside their comfort zone.

Together, these factors made Boag and his colleagues suspect that, like the anemones, Ediacaran life would also require stable temperatures to make the most efficient use of the ocean’s limited oxygen supplies.

…

In a world with low oxygen levels, animals unable to regulate their own body temperature couldn’t have withstood an environment that so regularly swung outside their Goldilocks temperature. Paper. (open access) – Thomas H. Boag, Richard G. Stockey, Leanne E. Elder, Pincelli M. Hull and Erik A. Sperling. Oxygen, temperature and the deep-marine stenothermal cradle of Ediacaran evolution. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 2018 DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2018.1724 More.

On that theory, when there was more oxygen, creatures living in shallow water could be big too.

See also: Planets With Oxygen Not Necessarily Good Candidates For ET Life?

Researchers: Earth’s oxygen rose and fell several times before the Great Oxidation Event 2.2 bya

Photosynthesis pushed back even further. Time to revisit the “Boring Billion” claim

Researchers: Extreme fluctuations in oxygen levels, not gradual rise, sparked Cambrian explosion Explanations of the dramatic Cambrian explosion of life forms (540 million years ago) are a cottage industry, with arguments about oxygen a staple of the discussion. At times, it feels like trying to understand World War II without allowing for the possibility that any intention underlay any of the events. Maybe that’s why the issues can’t be resolved.

Maverick theory: Cambrian animals remade the environment by generating oxygen

Did a low oxygen level delay complex life on Earth?

There was only a small oxygen jump

Animals didn’t “arise” from oxygenation, they created it, researchers say

Theory on how animals evolved challenged: Some need almost no oxygen

New study: Oxygenic photosynthesis goes back three billion years

Enough O2 long before animals?

Life exploded after slow O2 rise?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Copyright © 2018 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

The Scientist: Life on land half a billion years older than thought is a top 2018 story

From a piece that didn’t number the stories, this one was second:

In July, scientists announced that they had uncovered the earliest evidence of terrestrial life on Earth. “This work represents the oldest and least ambiguous work that we have so far that life existed on land already 3.2 billion years ago,” Kurt Konhauser, a professor of earth and atmospheric sciences at the University of Alberta in Canada who was not involved in the work, wrote in an email to The Scientist. Kerry Grens, “he Biggest Science News of 2018” at The Scientist

The find, ancient microbes in South Africa, backdates terrestrial life by half a billion years, raising the obvious issues about the long, slow process that is supposed to have taken place.

See also: The Scientist: Oldest evidence of terrestrial life is half a billion years older than thought

and

See also: Soil micro-organisms older than thought

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Copyright © 2018 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

If the social justice warriors got rid of Darwinian racism, they might do some good after all

Darwinian evolution, we are told, hasn’t caught on, after 150 years. We are also told, it needs a new social justice narrative:

“Such a human evolution requires a new narrative, both hyper-sensitive to the power of narrative and rooted in science that is light years ahead of Victorian dogma. This is the antidote to a long history of weaponizing human nature against ourselves. Our 45th president credits the survival-of-the-fittest brand of human evolution for his success over less kick-ass men in business and in bed. Pick-up artists and men’s rights activists, inspired by personalities like Jordan Peterson, use mistaken evolutionary thinking to justify their sexism and misogyny. Genetic and biological determinism have a stranglehold on the popular imagination, where evolution is frequently invoked to excuse inequity, like in the notorious Google Memo. Public intellectuals like David Brooks and Jon Haidt root what seems like every single observation of 2018 in tropes from Descent of Man. And there’s the White House memo that unscientifically defines biological sex. Evolution is all wrapped up in white supremacy and a genetically-destined patriarchy. This is not evolution. And this is not my evolution. I know you’re nodding your head along with me. Holly Dunsworth, “It Is Unethical To Teach Evolution Without Confronting Racism And Sexism” at The Evolution Institute“

Well, many of us are nodding off, it is true, but… that’s mainly because we hear all these demons cast out weekly, daily, hourly, zzzzz.

What’s different here, come to think of it, is that Dunsworth is associating her peeves with Darwin’s Sacred Name and even going so far as to suggest remedies other than “You shut up, creationist! If we tell you as a fact that the human mind can explained by apes throwing poop, that’s science to you!”). No, she actually pays some attention to the history of that approach:

“In “Why Be Against Darwin? Creationism, Racism, and the Roots of Anthropology,” Jon Marks explains how early anthropologists, in the immediate wake of Darwin’s ideas, faced a dilemma. If they were to continue as if there were a “psychic unity of (hu)mankind” then they felt compelled to reject an evolution which was being championed by some influential scientific racists. Marks writes, “So either you challenge the authority of the speaker to speak for Darwinism or you reject the program of Darwinism.” Anyone who knows someone who’s not a fan of evolution knows that the latter option is a favorite still today. This is not creationism and it is not science denial. It is the rejection of what we know to be an outdated and tainted notion of evolution. No one can update and clean up evolution as powerfully as we can if we do it ourselves, right there, in the classroom. Holly Dunsworth, “It Is Unethical To Teach Evolution Without Confronting Racism And Sexism” at The Evolution Institute”

Well, good luck with that. It is very difficult to get the average evolution missionary to acknowledge the simple fact that Darwin’s Descent of Man is a racist tract. So what, many say. There were lots of racist tracts around. Why beat up on this one? Well, because the effort that goes into denying the problem and talking around it keeps it alive as a problem.

And bringing the question up to date, many assumptions in evolution have racist roots. See, for example, “Was Neanderthal man fully human? The role racism played in assessing the evidence” If we can’t discuss the racist roots of Darwinian theory honestly, we simply can’t even address questions like that, questions that could be important in the light of new findings.

Dunsworth offers suggestions for teaching evolution, such as “Be a model for the personal satisfaction that thinking evolutionarily brings to your own life.” Well, that’ll be interesting.

In recent months, the heirs of Darwin have come up against the social justice warriors and turned into enraged spaghetti. They are not set up to sustain a long siege. They have always expected to win just by declaring Darwin’s Truth, ridiculing all contrary data, and getting opponents fired. And they have always been allowed to do that. Will that change?

Note: Here’s an earlier story involving Holly Dunsworth, above. When I first heard about the Cuckservatives… (2015). She was a target of the Dark Enlightenment, a group that congregated around science writer Nicholas Wade, whose last book before retirement seems to have been a defence of Darwinian racial ideas (which we might expect Dunsworth to oppose). The Dark Enlightenment was trying to smear her as a creationist. For a bit of background on the larger (and strange) business of Wade’s Troublesome Inheritance book, see Scientific American May Be Owned By Nature But It Is Now Run By Twitter. (2014)

See also: Social justice warriors ( SJWs) turn their sights on another evo psych prof It actually doesn’t matter what he concludes. You can’t reason with a pack. Having been taught from childhood that humans are animals, the SJWs have become a pack. For technical reasons, that is easier for them than becoming a hive.

The perfect storm: Darwinists meet the progressive “evolution deniers” — and cringe…

and

About the facts of life, Darwinian Jerry Coyne is still being stubborn … Darwinian evolutionary biologist Jerry “Why Evolution Is True” Coyne continues to refuse to follow Nature down the primrose path of political correctness and is doubling down on what people used to be allowed to accept as biological fact (Coyne was president of an evolution society which has started to wobble on whether sexes are real divisions.)

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Copyright © 2018 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