Michael J. Behe's Blog, page 560

The Darwinians’ cowardice before SJW mobs explained in detail

They thought the mob was coming for someone else.

Amid the dead silence in the combox following “The perfect storm: Darwinists meet the progressive “evolution deniers” — and cringe…, , EDTA pipes up 1,

Well, how does it feel now that the universal acid shoe is on the other foot? And who on the evolutionist side will have the guts to stand up for what they believe at the risk of their job now?

We are in the odd position of being able to supply an answer in which we are,. unfortunately, confident. No, they won’t. They will continue to pretend nothing is happening and abandon those who speak up, maybe at one of those new, “edgy” mags where you are still allowed to say something like what you really think.

One math and physics guy is quite candid about the capitulation and we appreciate his honesty:

In short, we don’t see most academics risking their careers to speak out against the creep of Social Justice ideology or other institutional and administrative nightmares because the risks just aren’t worth the potential rewards in most cases. This isn’t cowardice. It’s a legitimate problem to be overcome.

It’s cowardice. They  don’t care enough about what they know from experience is true compared to what their colleagues will applaud and promote.  You make all that quite clear in detail in your piece.

The thing is, there won’t be change if a few faculty members speak up. On the contrary, by putting themselves in the firing line and being summarily executed, other academics are likely to be further deterred from speaking out. …

That’s because your colleagues are not only cowards but potential traitors.

The question comes down to what working scientists and other academics who are concerned about Social Justice ideology can do about any of this. Here are a few suggestions. Do as much as you can feel safe doing. That may mean making anonymous posts on message boards, social media or elsewhere. It may mean signing your name to the same, if you think you can. It is probably helpful to feel out the situation with your colleagues and find out whom you can talk to or to seek out similar people online. The purpose of this is to realize that many other people are concerned that the educational reformers and Social Justice busybodies have gone too far. Recognize that what these groups are after is far more than the pleasant sounding diversity, inclusion and equity and look into what those terms really mean. You may find that a great deal of what they’re after is at direct odds with your core values, and this might rouse you to want to do more about it. Most importantly, realize that you’re not alone in this, and you probably have far more colleagues who agree with you than who do not.James A. Lindsay, “Are Academics Cowards? The Grip of Grievance Studies and the Sunk Costs of Academic Pursuits” at Areo

Lindsay, that’s the worst news ever. You are essentially admitting that your colleagues know full well that they are cowards and traitors, hoping to keep their positions by agreeing to whatever approved lies the SJWs demand. Why should we expect them to be honest enough to do good science? There’s no question that these attitudes will creep into their practice.

One last thought: Lindsay writes, “Recognize that what these groups are after is far more than the pleasant sounding diversity, inclusion and equity and look into what those terms really mean. You may find that a great deal of what they’re after is at direct odds with your core values, and this might rouse you to want to do more about it.”

Actually, to the extent that the academics in science believe that our brains are shaped for fitness, not truth, rule by the academic enforcers of the hooded SJWs is in no way at odds with what they believe. They believe that the idea of truth is an illusion that promotes fitness, so when it doesn’t promote fitness, in terms of personal survival, they should cave, right?

All that’s changed is, they didn’t expect a screaming mob to be their Omega Point. But that’s because they are ignoring the history of naturalist atheism, which has never had a clear reason to promote the pursuit of truth over the pursuit of useful falsehood. Or even to refrain from violence in the pursuit of entrenching falsehood.

Anyway, readers, we may soon see more beacons of science felled by a mob they must have thought was coming for someone else.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

See also: The perfect storm: Darwinists meet the progressive “evolution deniers” — and cringe… Double down cringe… Rob Sheldon: Despite the pain they feel, they don’t seem to realize it is their own hands that have torn down the edifice of knowledge. They still think that discrimination is valid when they are in charge, that courtesy is only for friends, that objectivity is their personal possession. The mere argumentation used in this article reveals that the academic battles for truth were lost a generation earlier, and today we are simply sweeping up the shards.

and

Larry Krauss? Francisco Ayala? And now Neil deGrasse Tyson? Were they really the intended targets?

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

Seals are smarter than dogs?

According to the media release from Seals Unlimited, that is. No, but seriously:

Dog lovers may be surprised (and displeased!) by a recent study of animal intelligence that dismisses the intelligence of dogs, compared to that of marine mammals:

… systematically reviewing the animal cognition literature, British psychologists Stephen Lea and Britta Osthaus found dogs to be unremarkable in their cognitive capabilities compared to wolves, cats, dolphins, chimpanzees, pigeons, and several other species. For example, dogs seem no better at learning associations—such as between a behavior and a reward—than other species. Similarly, dogs can spatially navigate within small spaces, but other species can, too. And while dogs have an excellent sense of smell, the “pig’s olfactory abilities are outstanding and might even be better than the dog’s.” DAVID Z. HAMBRICK, “Your Dog May Not Be a Genius, after All” at Scientific American

Hambrick, a cognitive psychologist, also notes that bottlenose dolphins and the grey seals were better able to follow human hand signals, even though dogs are bred to be sensitive to human communications. News, “Dogs are not as intelligent as seals? ” at Mind Matters

But it raises the question of how we assess intelligence.

See also: Crows can be as smart as apes

Yes, Even Lizards can be smart

Is the octopus a “second genesis” of intelligence?

and

Furry, feathery, and finny animals speak their minds. Listen.

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

What makes otherwise intelligent people believe in an AI apocalypse?

Stephen Hawking was hardly the only one:

Along with Sir Martin Rees, Elon Musk, and Henry Kissinger, among many lesser knowns, the late Stephen Hawking worried about an AI apocalypse (the “worst event in the history of our civilization”). Otherwise very bright people don’t seem to have a grasp of the underlying situation. Let’s take just two examples:

1. What would we need to make machines “intelligent”? We don’t even understand animal intelligence clearly. Are seals really smarter than dogs? Plants can communicate to adjust to their circumstances without a mind or brain. Where does that place plants with respect to intelligence? And what about the importance of the brain? Humans with seriously compromised brains can have consciousness. News, “Stephen hawking and the AI Apocalypse” at Mind Matters

On the other hand, it keeps them in the media.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

See also: Noted astronomer envisions cyborg on Mars

AI machines taking over the world? It’s a cool apocalypse but does that make it more likely?

Software pioneer says general superhuman artificial intelligence is very unlikely The concept, he argues, shows a lack of understanding of the nature of intelligence

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

An evolutionary biologist chronicles the onslaught:

At first, left-wing pushback to evolution appeared largely in response to the field of human evolutionary psychology. Since Darwin, scientists have successfully applied evolutionary principles to understand the behavior of animals, often with regard to sex differences. However, when scientists began applying their knowledge of the evolutionary underpinnings of animal behavior to humans, the advancing universal acid began to threaten beliefs held sacrosanct by the Left. The group that most fervently opposed, and still opposes, evolutionary explanations for behavioral sex differences in humans were/are social justice activists. Evolutionary explanations for human behavior challenge their a priori commitment to “Blank Slate” psychology—the belief that male and female brains in humans start out identical and that all behavior, sex-linked or otherwise, is entirely the result of differences in socialization.

This stance is maintained by the belief that evolutionary explanations for sex-linked behavioral differences are biologically essentialist, which is the fatalistic notion that biology alone directly determines our behavior. Blank Slate psychology, however, is universally rejected by experts, as the evidence for innate sex-linked personality differences in humans is overwhelmingly strong. But experts also universally reject that this view demands we embrace biological essentialism, because the environment does play a role, and observed sex differences are simply averages and overlap tremendously between the sexes. Sex no more determines one’s personality than it determines one’s height. Sex certainly influences these traits, but it does not determine them. For instance, most of us know females who are taller than most males, and males who are shorter than most females, though we are all aware that males are, on average, taller than females. In humans, the same is true for behavioral traits.

Wright’s already said enough to get himself fired from most campuses. So no surprise,

Now, armed with what they perceive to be an indisputable truth questioned only by sexist bigots, they respond with well-practiced outrage to alternative views. This has resulted in a chilling effect that causes scientists to self-censor, lest these activists accuse them of bigotry and petition their departments for their dismissal. I’ve been privately contacted by close, like-minded colleagues warning me that my public feuds with social justice activists on social media could be occupational suicide, and that I should disengage and delete my comments immediately. My experience is anything but unique, and the problem is intensifying. Colin Wright, “The New Evolution Deniers” at Quillette

Intensifying? Progressives are felling the careers of Larry Krauss, Francisco Ayala, and Neil deGrasse Tyson, all Darwin stalwarts, on sex harassment charges. In the #MeToo cauldron, who’s gonna risk speaking up for Darwin next?

Rob Sheldon, our physics color commentator, offers some thoughts from the comparatively safe (for now) perch of experimental physics:

Quillette has a tradition of providing a forum for people who can’t get heard on the regular channels, perhaps due to political correctness. This article was by an evolutionary biologist who thinks that the slogan “gender is a social construct” denies Darwin. Here are the conclusions:

“Back when evolution was under attack from proponents of Biblical Creation and Intelligent Design, academic scientists were under no pressure to hold back criticism. This is because these anti-evolution movements were almost exclusively a product of right-wing evangelicals who held no power in academia. Now we have a much bigger problem, because evolution denialism is back, but this time it’s coming from left-wing activists who do hold power in academia. This makes the issue both harder to ignore and harder to remove. Social justice and hyper-militant trans activism now seems to act as a kind of anti-universal acid, and not merely a strong buffer solution. While the universal acid of evolution eats through old cherished beliefs and replaces them with deeper understanding and a clearer picture of reality, the anti-universal acid of social justice ideology is a recklessly destructive force, aiming to abolish scientific truth and replace it with relativistic postmodern nonsense…”

Rob Sheldon is the author of Genesis: The Long Ascent

“But it seems clear to me that academia now is not as it was advertised a decade ago when I started down this path. It is no longer a refuge for outspoken, free-thinking intellectuals. Instead, it seems one must now choose between living a zipper-lipped life as an academic scientist, or living a life as a fulfilled intellectual. Currently, one cannot do both.”

So evidently, shutting down Christians was “outspoken, free-thinking” but shutting down evolutionary biologists “a zipper-lipped life”. Or that Darwinism is a good “universal acid”, but the post-modern products of Darwinism are “a kind of anti-universal acid”, (whatever that might be, he doesn’t seem to know his pH scale.) Despite the pain they feel, they don’t seem to realize it is their own hands that have torn down the edifice of knowledge. They still think that discrimination is valid when they are in charge, that courtesy is only for friends, that objectivity is their personal possession.

The mere argumentation used in this article reveals that the academic battles for truth were lost a generation earlier, and today we are simply sweeping up the shards.

The Chinese have a saying: He who rides a tiger can never dismount. Wright tells us, “And biologists like myself often sit quietly, afraid to defend our own field out of fear that our decade of education followed by continued research, job searches, and the quest for tenure might be made obsolete overnight if the mob decides to target one of us for speaking up.” It’s tough. People who question Darwinism go through it routinely. If the axe falls, maybe Gunter Bechly could help Wright get used to it.

Note: At The Scientist, Ashley P. Taylor  updates us on Neil deGrasse Tyson’s woes:

Tyson published a response to the allegations in a Facebook post Saturday night. He says that he did not recognize, in the moments of the alleged misconduct, how uncomfortable Allers and Watson were and that he regrets having made them uneasy. While he did not realize that his behavior had bothered Allers until last week, he says that Watson confronted him about the wine-and-cheese evening on her last day at work and that he then “apologized profusely.” He also says that he made the hug-related comments to Watson “on a few occasions” in the context of refusing her hugs and offering a handshake instead. In his statement, Tyson rejects Amet’s accusation of assault. Tyson also states that he welcomes the investigation by Fox and National Geographic. More.

Once all these guys are replaced by the SJW’s hand picks, the unchallengeable bumf we hear will be different, until those hand picks get slaughtered in the next wave of persecutions. Progressivism is like that.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

See also: Larry Krauss? Francisco Ayala? And now Neil deGrasse Tyson?

and

Bret Weinstein, the Evergreen prof who got SJW-d? It’s partly the fault of creationists!

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

Jonathan Bartlett: AI and the Future of Murder

Jonathan Bartlett

He wonders: If I kill you but upload your mind into an android, did I murder you or just modify you?

Is it even possible to upload your consciousness to a computer and, if so, is it still really you?

The sci-fi TV series Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (2013– ) tackled this question in an episode titled “Self Control”.  Scientist Holden Radcliffe has an android assistant appropriately named Aida (Artificial Intelligence Digital Assistant). Together, they build a virtual world that people could be plugged into and uploaded into, called The Framework. “More.” at Mind Matters

See also: McDonald’s, meet McPathogen Robert J. Marks: What happens when the drive to automate everything meets the Law of Unintended Consequences?: I have a wager with a good friend that the self-order touch screen kiosks at McDonald’s will not last. The kiosks not only take longer to use, but are annoying. The idea of the kiosk may sound good on paper, but is a hassle in practice. And besides…

Did AI show that we are a “peaceful species” triggered by religion?

Also re the mind uploading claims, check the following sources out before you make that bank transfer:

Darwinsplaining the kids who get mitochondrial DNA from their dads

It was hardly heard of before and hardly widely predicted; now the Darwinian question is, why isn’t it more common?

Why? Because there are two conflicting evolutionary forces at work. In the short-term, mixing mitochondria can be beneficial to individuals because the father’s mitochondria, say, can compensate for a harmful mutation in the mother’s mitochondria. But in the long-term, this can impair evolution’s ability to eliminate bad mutations as they are hidden from view.

Lane thinks this is why organisms have an astonishingly wide variety of mechanisms for ensuring mitochondria are only inherited from the mother. During the course of evolution, species have repeatedly evolved such mechanisms, lost them and then evolved similar mechanisms again, his team has proposed.Michael Le Page, “Some rare fathers pass on an extra kind of DNA to their children” at New Scientist

Post-diction has a way of being eerily accurate.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

See also: Researcher shocked: Human mitochondrial DNA can be inherited from dads

Rewrite the Textbooks (Again), Origin of Mitochondria Blown Up

and

Researchers: Mechanism may exist in all animals for filtering out mitochondrial DNA mutations

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

CRISPR Babies and the Genetic Code

A  software developer friend brought this article in The Atlantic to my attention:  The CRISPR Baby Scandal Gets Worse by the Day

And he writes:

I find it amusing that they keep referring to this kind of thing as “editing”.  They’re going to need to figure out if they’re going to keep using “editing” as the concept they want to convey and as such provide an opening for ID proponents to make the connection to the semiotic nature of genetic code (and thereby creating testimony against interest) or begin utilizing a different concept to bulwark their materialist approach.

Even the notion of DNA being “code” is going to require alteration.  Granted, DNA is an amazingly efficient data storage mechanism, but again referring to it as code strongly implies the notion that someone/something had to create the language the code is written in.  Again, they need a different metaphor or they will continue to provide an opening to ID adherents.

As a software developer, I envision the whole notion of editing genetic code as a process that could one day look very much like what I do.  Open an editor, delete the code you don’t want, insert the code you do want, save, compile/build, and run.  If that is the picture they want to paint, so be it, but doing so will undermine the notion then that DNA can be derived from purely materialistic terms.

Grabs popcorn and wonders if they’ll even notice.

 

 

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

New analysis: Siberian “unicorns” co-existed with people

E. sibiricum/ДиБгд (CC BY-SA 4.0)

According to a recent study dating the 23 available fragments of the bones of the giant, extinct rhinoceros, Elasmotherium sibericum (3.4 tonnes):

The results were surprising: they were dated to a range of times after the animals were thought to be extinct, with the most recent being between 35,000 to 36,000 years ago. By this time, humans had started populating the steppe of Russia, Kazakhstan, Mongolia and Northern China.

But the researchers don’t think humans wiped them out:

“If we look at timing, it’s during a period of climate change, which wasn’t extreme, but it did cause a whole bunch of much colder winters that we think really altered the extent of the grassland in the area,” Alan Cooper of the Australian Centre for Ancient DNA at the University of Adelaide explained to ScienceAlert.

…

We don’t know how big the animal’s horn grew, since no horn has ever been found. However, the part of the skull where the horn would have grown has been recovered, with an absolutely massive base. Based on comparisons with living horned animals, the Siberian unicorn’s horn could have been up to 1 metre (3.3 feet) in length. Michelle Starr, “DNA of The Mysterious ‘Siberian Unicorn’ Has Been Analysed For The First Time” at Science Alert

Abstract: Understanding extinction events requires an unbiased record of the chronology and ecology of victims and survivors. The rhinoceros Elasmotherium sibiricum, known as the ‘Siberian unicorn’, was believed to have gone extinct around 200,000 years ago—well before the late Quaternary megafaunal extinction event. However, no absolute dating, genetic analysis or quantitative ecological assessment of this species has been undertaken. Here, we show, by accelerator mass spectrometry radiocarbon dating of 23 individuals, including cross-validation by compound-specific analysis, that E. sibiricum survived in Eastern Europe and Central Asia until at least 39,000 years ago, corroborating a wave of megafaunal turnover before the Last Glacial Maximum in Eurasia, in addition to the better-known late-glacial event. Stable isotope data indicate a dry steppe niche for E. sibiricum and, together with morphology, a highly specialized diet that probably contributed to its extinction. We further demonstrate, with DNA sequencing data, a very deep phylogenetic split between the subfamilies Elasmotheriinae and Rhinocerotinae that includes all the living rhinoceroses, settling a debate based on fossil evidence and confirming that the two lineages had diverged by the Eocene. As the last surviving member of the Elasmotheriinae, the demise of the ‘Siberian unicorn’ marked the extinction of this subfamily.Abstract: (paywall) Evolution and extinction of the giant rhinoceros Elasmotherium sibiricum sheds light on late Quaternary megafaunal extinctions

Pavel Kosintsev, Kieren J. Mitchell, Thibaut Devièse, Johannes van der Plicht, Margot Kuitems, Ekaterina Petrova, Alexei Tikhonov, Thomas Higham, Daniel Comeskey, Chris Turney, Alan Cooper, Thijs van Kolfschoten, Anthony J. Stuart & Adrian M. Lister

Nature Ecology & Evolution (2018) More.

It would be interesting to know whether tales of this beast, handed down for millennia, resulted in the legend of the unicorn. True, the mythical unicorn was dainty by comparison but there was no hope of the giant Siberian rhino surviving to correct the picture. It’s also interesting that the more we know about extinct megafauna, the less likely researchers are to say humans must have done them in.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

See also: Humans “off the hook” for ancient African mammal extinction?

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

Previously unknown human brain region identified

Could be unique to humans:

It turns out we humans may have an extra type of thinky bit that isn’t found in other primates. A previously unknown brain structure was identified while scientists carefully imaged parts of the human brain for an upcoming atlas on brain anatomy.

Neuroscientist George Paxinos and his team at Neuroscience Research Australia (NeuRA) have named their discovery the endorestiform nucleus – because it is located within (endo) the inferior cerebellar peduncle (also called the restiform body). It’s found at the base of the brain, near where the brain meets the spinal cord.

This area is involved in receiving sensory and motor information from our bodies to refine our posture, balance and movements.Tessa Koumoundouros, “Neuroscientists Have Discovered a Previously Hidden Region in The Human Brain” at Science Alert

Paxinos is first author of Human Brainstem (2019)

One would think, given that we are still finding new regions and types of cell in the human brain, we’d hear less about it being just a meat computer.  Maybe that’s asking too much?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

See also: Unique type of cell found in human brain: Rosehip neurons

The brain is not a meat computer (Michael Egnor)

and

Boy loses large hunk of brain. And is “doing just fine.” When pundits talk glibly of creating artificial minds or claim that consciousness is an illusion, it might help to remember that few people predicted that cases like this could exist and few thought that high tech diagnostics would lead to their discovery.

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

Lots of Neanderthals in our family tree, says new report

Neanderthal/Photaro

Something you probably already suspect: It happened many times:

The presence of these chunks, making up 2%, on average, of the genome of anyone with roots in Europe, Asia, Australia or the Americas, pointed to a single period of intermingling – probably 50,000 to 60,000 years ago – not long after Homo sapiens emerged from Africa.

But that simple story was complicated by the discovery that people in East Asia have up to 20% higher Neanderthal ancestry than present-day Europeans.

…

Evidence for multiple matings already exists, in the form of a 40,000 year old human fossil from Romania with a recent Neanderthal ancestor, whose Neanderthal DNA nonetheless did not become part of modern-day human genomes.Dyani Lewis, “Humans and Neanderthals were frequent lovers, genetics reveals” at Cosmos Magazine

Follow UD News at Twitter!

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

and

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

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