“Evolution of cognition might be down to brain chemistry”, Andy Coghlan reports, (New Scientist, 28 March 2011): Philipp Khaitovich of the Partner Institute for Computational Biology in Shanghai, China, and colleagues analysed brain tissue from deceased humans, chimpanzees and rhesus macaques to study the concentrations of 100 chemicals linked with metabolism. In the human prefrontal cortex, the levels of 24 of these were drastically different from levels in the corresponding brain regions of the other primates. In the cerebellum, however, there were far fewer differences between humans and the other animals, with just six chemicals showing different concentrations. This suggests that, since our lineage split off from other primates, the evolution of metabolism in the thinking and learning parts of Read More ›

Here’s my latest Deprogram from Salvo, a magazine you should support. The stuff you are about to split a gut laughing while reading is all true: FIT FOR A ZOMBIE Evolutionary Brand Marketing for Your Survival[ … ] Hogshead is a brand marketing specialist; she helps executives persuade us to pay more for their brands. She has even formulated a theory, developed from the study of apes and neuroscience: to sell is to cast a spell, and the best strategy for casting a spell is to “fascinate” people. She has identified seven Darwinian triggers for successful sales spells. These triggers are not the fundamental reasons why we buy things, of course. We buy shoes to protect our feet, but brand Read More ›

From: Rabbi Moshe Averick

To: Dr. Jerry Coyne is a distinguished biologist at the University of Chicago and a self labeled “cultural Jew.”

Dear Dr. Coyne,

I’ve been contemplating the three attacks you launched against Rabbi Adam Jacobs and myself within a period of several weeks (3/7, 3/9, 3/27/11). They appeared on your website “Why Evolution is True”, and were, to a large extent, in response to a column that Rabbi Jacobs had written for the HuffPost religion section (3/6/11) called “A reasonable argument for God’s existence.” Rabbi Jacobs had mentioned that some of the material was drawn from my book, Nonsense of a High Order: The Confused and Illusory World of the Atheist. [# 7 in Jewish theology. – ed.] What I found most fascinating is that all these attacks were couched in terms of our Jewishness. Among the flowery gems that flowed from your highly enlightened, educated, and sophisticated pen:

“Evangelical Christians can be as moronic as they want, but when a rabbi says something dumb, well that sets my DNA on edge.”

“Frankly I’m weary of arguments like this one and deeply saddened that they come from Jews.”

And finally, “Jews can be just as willfully misguided about evolution as Christians like William Dembske and Michael Behe.”

Your first comment about setting “my DNA on edge” appears overtly racist. Do you actually believe there is such a thing as “Jewish DNA?” You say that you are “deeply saddened that they come from Jews.” Are Jews actually different than other human beings? Do you expect more from Jews? I guess you feel that we are superior to the gentiles. Has natural selection made us smarter than “moronic” Christians? What about non-Christian gentiles? Is there also such a thing as “Christian and non-Christian gentile DNA?” Gee, the next thing that might pop out of your Darwinian inspired view of reality is that there is also superior “Aryan DNA.” Hmmm, where have I heard that before? I’ll leave the analysis of your arguably racist views to some of the expert social scientists who inhabit your Hyde Park neighborhood. Let’s move on to the gist of the matter.

You stated that “Jews can be…willfully misguided about evolution.” What is so strange about this remark is that neither Rabbi Jacobs nor I ever discussed the theory of Darwinian evolution. The topic under discussion was the origin of life. When asked how life came from non-life, Rabbi Jacobs stated, “How? I have no idea. On the basis of all chemistry I know, it seems to me astonishingly improbable.” Oh, excuse me. That wasn’t Rabbi Jacobs, that was Read More ›

In “Traumatizing your DNA: Researcher warns that it isn’t ‘all in the genes’” (Physorg, March 23, 2011), we learn, Epigenetic research suggests that the effects of stress and environmental pollution can be passed on to future generations without any obvious change or mutation in our DNA. The problem, Prof. Jablonka points out, is that we have no idea of the extent these effects will have on the human genome of the future. “I am a story teller. I read a lot of information and develop theories about evolution. For the last 25 years, before it became a fad, I was interested in the transmission of information not dependent on DNA variations,” Dr. Jablonka says. “Epigenetic inheritance is information about us Read More ›

Someone reminded me of this: “Darwin Pushed to Margins: Why is resistance to evolution so strong among science teachers?” Rod Dreher wonders (Big Questions On Line, Templeton Foundation, February 22, 2011) Then he lobs this: More broadly, many people of faith are drawn to the study of evolution to explore God’s work, and find a spiritual connection in their study of nature. This perspective was common in the 19th and early 20th centuries, but is not often enough articulated in current debates about evolution. Sorry, Rod, but that’s just too rotten a chestnut. Fact is, 78% of evolutionary biologists are pure naturalists (no God and no free will). Only two of 149 eminent ones were clearly theists. Let’s start with Read More ›

The Internet Radio homeschooling show, “Leigh at Lunch “talks to Jonathan Bartlett, of the Blythe Institute which works on teaching new paradigms in biology. Interesting discussion of the most common attitudes to faith and science.  

Someone has noticed “a slew of anti-Darwin books published last fall”. Now, there are two ways of looking at that: 1. Sociologically, it is a quite predictable reaction to the two-year orgy of worshipping the beard. 2. Or, it’s a …conspiracy. Ring up Barbara Forrest, the world-renowned expert on ID and get the … trooth.

Dawkins book The Greatest Show on Earth has now been published in German, and as such is being interviewed by a German publication. The conversation centers mostly on why Dawkins thinks that believing the world and universe to be designed is unhelpful:

It is an attempt to disabuse people, especially in America, but also in other parts of the world, who have become influenced by fundamentalist religion into thinking that life can be and should be explained as all designed. I regard that as a lazy and unhelpful explanation as well as an untrue one.

As if people who think it’s designed just stop there with regards to describing the world and the universe with the philosophy called science. Ignore that fact that the history of the world has had folks investigating nature that believed and still believe it’s designed. This is one of Dawkins’ favorite arguments, and no one ever says it’s akin to saying that since we know that songs are composed by intelligence no one else will ever try to figure them out and learn to play them. Or since books are written no one will employ textual criticism and determine something along the lines of why it was written the way it was. As if anything thought to be designed is immediately uninteresting. I suppose that rules out an effort at understanding his book by the same logic. A designed book, that says that don’t look at things as designed if they are to have any merit, is an odd thing.

Read More ›

Here: Wednesday, March 30, 20117:00 PM EST William Lane Craig versus Lawrence Krauss Topic: Is There Evidence for God? http://www.thegreatdebatencsu.com/ https://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=192530664101598 The organizers say, due to limited seating, watch, don’t go. Write here and tell us what you think Also: Thursday, April 7, 2011 7:00 PM EST William Lane Craig versus Sam Harris Topic: Is the Foundation of Morality Natural or Supernatural? https://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=133604053378987 (the website for the event is forthcoming and the link to it will be placed on this Facebook page)

In “The Mark of Faith”, Harvard’s Robert E. Kingston (The Scientist, 2011-03-01) ponders the problem in science of belief precluding testing: The motivational issue is worrisome—on two levels. Even in flies, where the experiment is feasible, it will take a lot of work. But more to the point is the experience of one investigator who recently recounted that he was asked repeatedly why he would waste time doing an experiment that is so hard when everyone already knows the answer. The received wisdom is that of course methylation of lysine 27 is critical for epigenetic regulation: Isn’t it usually called an epigenetic mark? This reliance upon what is essentially an act of faith—methylation of histones makes sense as a mark Read More ›

In “Idle Chatter: This Is Your Brain on Art – Can neuroscience explain art? (The Smart Set , March 17, 2011), Morgan Meis recounts V. S. Ramachandran’s neuroscience theories that, he says, explains a lot about art: Ramachandran identifies what he calls nine laws of aesthetics. Let’s look at one of them — law number two, which he calls Peak Shift — to get a sense of what neuroscience brings to aesthetics. Peak Shift refers to a generally elevated response to exaggerated stimuli among many animals. Ramachandran refers to a study in which seagull chicks were made to beg for food (just as they do from their mothers) simply by waving a beak-like stick in front of their nests. Later, Read More ›

Here, der Spiegel gives Richard Dawkins the floor (03/02/2011), as his book, The Greatest Show on Earth is published in German:

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Has religion not been very successful in an evolutionary sense?Dawkins: The thought that human societies gained strength from religious memes in their competition with others is true to a certain extent. But it is more like an ecological struggle: It reminds me of the replacement of the red by the gray squirrel in Britain. That is not a natural selection process at all, it is an ecological succession. So when a tribe has a war-like god, when the young men are brought up with the thought that their destiny is to go out and fight as warriors and that a martyr’s death brings you straight to heaven, you see a set of powerful, mutually reinforcing memes at work. If the rival tribe has a peaceful god who believes in turning the other cheek, that might not prevail.

– “Interview with Scientist Richard Dawkins: ‘Religion? Reality Has a Grander Magic of its Own'”

It’s hard to tell exactly what Dawkins is trying to say here, but curiously, “a peaceful god who believes in turning the other cheek” was exactly what the early Christians preached and they went from being a persecuted people in the Roman empire to running the show in the course of about two and a half centuries. But your mileage may vary.

We also learn, Read More ›

From “No Two of Us Are Alike — Even Identical Twins: Pinpointing Genetic Determinants of Schizophrenia”, (ScienceDaily, March 28, 2011) we learn

Singh looked at about one million markers of identical twins (and their two parents) where only one twin had schizophrenia. “The most informative feature of schizophrenia is that it sometimes runs in the family. So, for example, the risk of developing schizophrenia is much higher if your brother, sister, mother or father have the disease,” says Singh, noting in the general population about one percent have schizophrenia. “We started with the belief that monozygotic twins are genetically identical, so if one member of identical twins has schizophrenia, then the risk for the other twin should be 100 percent, if it’s all due to genes. However, studies over the years have shown that the risk of the disease in both twins is only 50 percent.” That means either the twins are genetically not identical or the familial disease involves non-genetic (random) effects. 

Singh and his team have now demonstrated that the monozygotic twins are not genetically identical.

The part I find curious is, Read More ›

Jonathan Wells will publish The Myth of Junk DNA early in May, and offers answers to some questions posed by Denyse O’Leary:

So, for those who dropped science after Grade Ten, what is junk/non-coding DNA?

“Non-coding” in this context means “non-protein-coding.” An important function of our DNA is to specific the sequences of      subunits (amino acids) in the proteins that (along with other types of molecules) make up our bodies. When molecular  biologists discovered in the 1970s that about 98% of our DNA does not code for proteins, some biologists called non-protein-  coding DNA “junk.”

Why was it called “junk” in the first place? And why does all this remind me of one of those auction program episodes where  someone is storing leftover carpet nails in what turns out to be a Ming dynasty vase? My mom loves those.

According to Charles Darwin’s theory, all living things are descendants of common ancestors that have been modified solely  by unguided natural processes that include variation and selection. In the modern version of his theory—neo-Darwinism— genes control embryo development, variations are due to differences in genes, and new variations originate in genetic mutations. In the 1950s, neo-Darwinists equated genes with DNA sequences (Francis Crick called DNA “the secret of life”) and assumed that their biological significance lay in the proteins they encoded. The 98% of our DNA that does not code for proteins was attributed to molecular accidents that have accumulated in the course of evolution.

“The amount of DNA in organisms,” neo-Darwinist Richard Dawkins wrote in 1976, “is more than is strictly necessary for building them: A large fraction of the DNA is never translated into protein. From the point of view of the individual organism this seems paradoxical. If the ‘purpose’ of DNA is to supervise the building of bodies, it is surprising to find a large quantity of DNA which does no such thing. Biologists are racking their brains trying to think what useful task this apparently surplus DNA is doing. But from the point of view of the selfish genes themselves, there is no paradox. The true ‘purpose’ of DNA is to survive, no more and no less. The simplest way to explain the surplus DNA is to suppose that it is a parasite, or at best a harmless but useless passenger, hitching a ride in the survival machines created by the other DNA.” (The Selfish Gene, p. 47)

Since the 1980s, however, and especially after completion of the Human Genome Project in 2003, biologists have discovered many functions for non-protein-coding DNA. If the Ming vase is a living cell and the leftover carpet nails are “junk DNA,” it turns out that the nails are not only made of gold, but they also make an essential contribution to the beauty of the vase.

Interestingly, in the “nail dump is Ming vase” story, no one insists that nobody ever thought it was just another piece of junk. They almost always say, “Yes, we thought so but had no idea …”  So what’s behind the failure to admit an error in this case?  Read More ›

Amazing what people have tried to get out of it. In “Darwinism and the Quest to Cheat Death”(ABC Religion and Ethics | 28 Mar 2011), British pundit John Gray tells us Like so many others, then and later, Sidgwick looked to science for salvation from science. If science had brought about the disenchantment of the world, only science could re-enchant it.The result of scientific inquiry seemed to be that humankind was alone. Evolution would bring about the extinction of the species and eventually, as the sun cooled and the planet ceased to be habitable, life itself would die out. It was a desolate prospect, but one that could be accepted if science could also show that human personality would survive Read More ›