Michael J. Behe's Blog, page 582

March 11, 2017

Redefining species: Nuclear vs. mitochondrial genes in birds

From Geoffrey E. Hill at The Scientist:

What defines a species? Because the boundaries between species can appear so fluid, pursuing such a question seems, at times, like academic esoterica—little different than discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. But accurate species definitions lie at the heart of biological investigations and management of natural resources (e.g., the US Endangered Species Act). It is troublesome, therefore, that new information on the genetic structure of long-recognized species of birds could jeopardize their status as full species.

The problem, in a nutshell, is that the DNA of many familiar species of birds holds signatures of substantial exchange of nuclear genes with other bird species. Such gene exchange matters because, by decades-old definitions, it is the isolation of gene pools that defines species. Substantial genetic exchange raises questions about whether these populations truly constitute species.

A case-in-point concerns the blue- and golden-winged warblers, two beautiful and very distinctive little songbirds that have long been regarded as separate species. A recent study, however, showed that these two “species” share more than 99 percent of their nuclear genes—much more gene sharing that we would expect between full species. More.

However, their mitochondrial genes are characteristic of separate species.

Idea! Use the money currently allotted to “Selling Darwinism to a Wary Public” to fund a re-examination of how we determine the boundaries of life forms instead.

See also: Big squawks over bird speciation?

and

Nothing says “Darwin snob” like indifference to the mess that the entire concept of speciation is in

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Copyright © 2017 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 March 11, 2017 10:54

Beetles evolved as ant mimics a dozen times in “an astonishingly predictable way”

beetle that eats the ants’ offspring in front, ant behind/Taku Shimada

From ScienceDaily:

Marauding across the tropical forest floor, aggressive army ant colonies harbor hidden enemies within their ranks. The impostors look and smell like army ants, march with the ants, and even groom the ants. But far from being altruistic nest-mates, these creatures are parasitic beetles, engaged in a game of deception. Through dramatic changes in body shape, behavior, and pheromone chemistry, the beetles gain their hostile hosts’ acceptance, duping the ants so they can feast on the colony brood.

This phenomenon did not evolve just once. Instead, these beetles arose at least a dozen separate times from non-ant-like ancestors. This discovery, published March 9 in Current Biology, provides evidence that evolution has the capacity to repeat itself in an astonishingly predictable way. Paper. (public access) – Maruyama and Parker. Deep-time convergence in rove beetle symbionts of army ants. Current Biology, 2017 DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2017.02.030 More.

Evolution repeats itself in an “astonishingly predictable way”? Whatever happened to “if the tape of life were rewound… Never mind, take a deep breath and keep reciting Darwin’s name…

See also: [Convergent evolution of crocodile and dolphin skull shapes The authors don’t mention this but the find means — according to Darwinian theory — that vast numbers of complexities evolved independently twice, by natural selection acting on random mutation. Take that in and we see why there is a problem with Darwinism as “evolution,” generally.

and

Evolution appears to converge on goals—but in Darwinian terms, is that possible?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on March 11, 2017 10:21

Convergent evolution of crocodile and dolphin skull shapes

From ScienceDaily:

Dolphins and crocodiles now live in rivers and oceans, but each evolved from land-based animals. Feeding in water has many new challenges. This new study shows that despite being separated by 300 million years, dolphins and crocodiles found comparable solutions to these problems, and evolved skull shapes that are remarkably similar.

“Our results suggest the remarkable similarity between some crocodilians and toothed whales is driven by what they eat rather than where they live,” said lead author Mr Matthew McCurry from the Monash School of Biological Sciences.

Previously no rigorous attempt had been made to show how similar the head shapes of dolphins and crocodiles really are. It had been thought that aspects such shallow seas or rivers contributed to the similarity of the skulls of crocodilians (crocodiles and alligators) and toothed whales (dolphins, orca and relatives). But a study published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences has debunked this long-held view.

Having a long, thin snout must have great advantages when trying to catch small fish, both for crocodilians and toothed whales. Paper. (paywall) – Matthew R. McCurry, Alistair R. Evans, Erich M. G. Fitzgerald, Justin W. Adams, Philip D. Clausen, Colin R. McHenry. The remarkable convergence of skull shape in crocodilians and toothed whales. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 2017; 284 (1850): 20162348 DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2016.2348 More.

The authors don’t mention this but the find means — according to Darwinian theory — that vast numbers of complexities evolved independently twice, by natural selection acting on random mutation. Take that in and we see why there is a problem with Darwinism as “evolution,” generally.

See also: Evolution appears to converge on goals—but in Darwinian terms, is that possible?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on March 11, 2017 08:25

March 10, 2017

Physics and the contemplation of nothing

In a review of Void: The Strange Physics of Nothing by James Owen Weatherall, Steven Poole writes at Spectator (UK):

In an action-packed epilogue, the author describes how the contested field of string theory posits a bogglingly large number of possible kinds of nothingness, and impresses upon the reader how much of physics still depends on intuition and battling ‘interpretations’. The book is not an exhaustive typology of scientific nothings: not directly addressed, for example, is the nothingness that supposedly obtained before the Big Bang. But to regret this is just to emphasise the success of this stylishly written and admirably concise book, at the end of which you will be inclined to agree, along with the author and Freddie Mercury both, that ‘Nothing really matters.’More.

String theory leads physics down the bramble patch of unacknowledged metaphysics.

See also: Multiverse explains why progress in fundamental physics is slow?

and

Must we understand “nothing” to understand physics?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on March 10, 2017 14:33

Did Neanderthals use penicillin?

From Colin Barras at New Scientist:

One of the two El Sidrón individuals – a teenage boy – is known to have had a large dental abscess. The new DNA analysis shows he had a diarrhoea-causing gut parasite in his system, too. “It’s likely he wasn’t a very happy individual,” says Weyrich.

Previous studies have suggested the teenager was eating plants with anti-inflammatory properties. The new study also finds DNA sequences of poplar plants, which are known to contain the natural pain killer salicylic acid (closely related to the active ingredient in aspirin).

That may not have been the only medication or self-medication he did: there was DNA from Penicillium fungus – the source of penicillin – in his dental calculus.

However, it is difficult to say for sure whether Neanderthals actively consumed the fungus for its medicinal properties. Penicillium grows naturally on plant material as it moulds, so they could have eaten it by coincidence. “It’s difficult to tell these specific moulds apart unless you have a hand lens,” says O’Regan.

But Weyrich points out that the Penicillium was only in the dental calculus of the sick teenager – none was found in the calculus of the second El Sidrón individual, who is thought to have led a healthy life. “They might have had some knowledge that mouldy grains could help them when they were sick – we just don’t really know,” she says. More.

But they’re still subhuman, see? We can think that for Darwin, can’t we?

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

Follow UD News at Twitter!

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on March 10, 2017 13:35

Stephen Hawking: World government needed to stop technology destroying us

From Aatif Sulleyman at Independent:

“Since civilisation began, aggression has been useful inasmuch as it has definite survival advantages,” he told The Times.

“It is hard-wired into our genes by Darwinian evolution. Now, however, technology has advanced at such a pace that this aggression may destroy us all by nuclear or biological war. We need to control this inherited instinct by our logic and reason.”

He suggests that “some form of world government” could be ideal for the job, but would itself create more problems.

“But that might become a tyranny,” he added. “All this may sound a bit doom-laden but I am an optimist. I think the human race will rise to meet these challenges.” More.

We didn’t realize that, under Darwinian evolution, we had free will or got to choose. In any event, from the way things are going, many will rise to meet the challenges without choosing the Mother of all Bureaucracies.

See also: Hawking: Our lease on Earth is up in 1000 years. Must colonize other planets

How can we believe in naturalism if we have no choice?

and

Richard Dawkins needs to lie down

Follow UD News at Twitter!

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on March 10, 2017 10:37

Language and the limits of reason

The Outer Limits of Reason From computer science prof Noson S. Yanofsky at Nautilus:

Rather than jumping headfirst into the limitations of reason, let us start by just getting our toes wet and examining the limitations of language. Language is a tool used to describe the world in which we live. However, don’t confuse the map with the territory! There is one major difference between the world we live in and language: Whereas the real world is free of contradictions, the man-made linguistic descriptions of that world can have contradictions. More.

And yet, despite the paradoxes, language has enabled us to make sense of the world, more or less.

See also: Can we talk? Language as the business end of consciousness

and

Evolution bred a sense of reality out of us (no)

Follow UD News at Twitter!

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on March 10, 2017 09:01

Fine tuning: Weirder quantum effects would be wilder than current ones

From Stuart Clark at :

Particles can become entangled when they interact, and once they do, no matter how far apart they are, measuring the properties of one automatically fixes the properties of the other – changes its socks, as it were.

Einstein decried this “spooky action at a distance”, yet many experiments have shown it is an essential ingredient of our world. “Without quantum entanglement, we could not have quantum theory as we know it, and quantum theory is the basis of chemistry, our semiconductor industry, even life,” says Caslav Brukner of the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information in Vienna, Austria.

But here’s the really weird thing. There’s nothing stopping the quantum world having different levels of underlying correlation. (paywall) More.

That’s probably where the fine-tuning comes in.

See also: Atheist cosmologist warns “deeply religious” people not to put their faith in “apparent” fine-tuning

and

Fine-tuning: Copernicus, you are not going to believe who is using your name. Or how.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on March 10, 2017 08:21

Tom Bethell and human exceptionalism: Only humans can be arrogant

From David Klinghoffer, noting Tom Bethell’s objection to one self-defeating complaint about “human exceptionalism,” that it involves the sin of hubris, or pride, at Evolution News and Views:

The accusation of arrogance is self-defeating on its face. Only humans are capable of arrogance or of seeing themselves as superior to other animals. Animals cannot rise to that level of abstraction. Do cats or dogs think themselves superior to humans? (Well, dogs don’t, but I’m not so sure about cats.) The criticism of arrogance itself rests on human exceptionalism.

Yes. The remark about cats is a joke, obviously. Some cats appear haughty to us because we read our own feelings into their way of carrying themselves. This is the error of anthropomorphizing: “to ascribe human form or attributes to (an animal, plant, material object, etc.).”More.

Bethell, author of Darwin’s House of Cards: A Journalist’s Odyssey Through the Darwin Debates, is right, of course. The cat in the accompanying photo is showing watchfulness, not arrogance (as a human reading its facial expression might suppose). A cat’s sense of hierarchy is devoid of abstractions like arrogance; it turns on defensible physical position and territory.

Note: A cat can stare at another cat from a given position for hours in such a way as to make a statement (something like: I am here in this spot and I am watching you, and I am not leaving… your next move might start a fight… ). Hierarchy can thus be established with few dangerous fights, leaving more time for the serious business of hunting and napping. It is one reason cats are hardly an endangered species.

Human exceptionalism in brief: We can see it from the cat’s point of view but no cat ever saw it from a human point of view.

See also: Nearly 50% Americans now think humans arenot special

and

Are humans driving new burst of evolution? Evidence cited is unclear Has it been decided that fluctuating, reversible changes are evolution in action? Then what do we call non-fluctuating, irreversible changes?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on March 10, 2017 07:24

Are humans driving new burst of evolution? Evidence cited is unclear

human cell vacuole where Q Fever bacterium is growing/NIAID

Including our own? From Darren Curnoe at the Conversation:

It’s well known among biologists that commercial fishing has had a profound impact on wild fish species. By targeting large animals, as commercial fisheries have typically done, some species have become smaller and an increasing proportion have reached maturity at a younger age and smaller size.

In urban areas, where human impact is most obvious, many studies have shown that plants and animals, native and introduced, are evolving in response to human transformation of the environment.

A famous example is so-called ‘industrial melanism’. It led to a dramatic drop in the numbers of light-coloured peppered moths in England during the 1800s when industrialisation led to pollution covering tree trunks, camouflaging dark-coloured individuals from bird predators. But when the pollution was finally cleaned up in the 1970s the situation reversed and dark-coloured moths began to be preyed upon in ever increasing numbers shifting the population accordingly. More.

But wait. The moths changed back again when the air cleared. How do we know the same sort of reverses would not occur if people ate more chicken or changed their urban gardening practices? Has it been decided that fluctuating, reversible changes are

Has it been decided that fluctuating, reversible changes are evolution in action? Then what do we call non-fluctuating, irreversible changes?

But antibiotic resistance stands as one of the clearest examples we have of evolution in action among contemporary species. It’s clearly also bad news for human health and our attempts to control infectious disease, with the race to discover new kinds of antibiotics to combat widespread microbial resistance faltering.

Wait, wait. We humans would be so much worse off without antibiotics. And the biota seem – from Curnoe’s telling – to get on okay anyway. Isn’t this all just an ongoing species war, with humans using intelligence as our weapon and bacteria using rapid numbers and stealth? Better a Cold War than a Hot War, if you ask me (O’Leary for News).

<em>Coffee</em> Tins All that said, humans definitely do influence evolution, at least in in minor ways. Ladies and Gentlemen, we present to you, Bank, the sea turtle who is recovering from having swallowed 915 coins:

In Thailand, there is a superstition that throwing loose change onto a turtle can bring a person longevity and good fortune. The swallowed coins formed an 11-pound (5 kilograms) mass in the sea turtle’s stomach, and the weight of the coin ball eventually cracked Bank’s ventral (underside) shell, leading to infection, the AP reported.

Bank, sorry. The woolly mammoth never did that to you. On the other hand, the woolly mammoth never invented surgery for reptiles either.

File under: Superstitions are dumb.

See also: The Science Fictions series at your fingertips: Human evolution

and

Furry, feathery, and finny animals speak their minds (how they adapt)

Follow UD News at Twitter!

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on March 10, 2017 06:50