June 2011

… he said it was okay to believe in something beyond ‘Cratworld, as long as we let science types like him do whatever they want, sign the chit, and shut up (remember NOMA, or “non-overlapping magisteria”). Plus, he wasn’t exactly sure if he was a Darwinist. And he appeared on the Simpsons.

From PLOS Biology we learn (June 7, 2011):

1Stephen Jay Gould, the prominent evolutionary biologist and science historian, argued that “unconscious manipulation of data may be a scientific norm” because “scientists are human beings rooted in cultural contexts, not automatons directed toward external truth” [1], a view now popular in social studies of science [2]–[4]. In support of his argument Gould presented the case of Samuel George Morton, a 19th-century physician and physical anthropologist famous for his measurements of human skulls. Morton was considered the objectivist of his era, but Gould reanalyzed Morton’s data and in his prize-winning book The Mismeasure of Man [5] argued that Morton skewed his data to fit his preconceptions about human variation. Morton is now viewed as a canonical example of scientific misconduct. But did Morton really fudge his data? Are studies of human variation inevitably biased, as per Gould, or are objective accounts attainable, as Morton attempted? We investigated these questions by remeasuring Morton’s skulls and reexamining both Morton’s and Gould’s analyses. Our results resolve this historical controversy, demonstrating that Morton did not manipulate data to support his preconceptions, contra Gould. In fact, the Morton case provides an example of how the scientific method can shield results from cultural biases.

So this can be published now?

Here’s more: Read More ›

In 2010, University of California Distinguished Professor of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology John C. Avise published a book titled Inside the Human Genome: A Case for Non-Intelligent Design, in which he wrote that “noncoding repetitive sequences–‘ junk DNA’–comprise the vast bulk (at least 50%, and probably much more) of the human genome.” Avise argued that pseudogenes, in particular, are evidence against intelligent design. For example, “pseudogenes hardly seem like genomic features that would be designed by a wise engineer. Most of them lie scattered along the chromosomes like useless molecular cadavers.” To be sure, “several instances are known or suspected in which a pseudogene formerly assumed to be genomic ‘ junk’ was later deemed to have a functional role in Read More ›

At Evolution News & Views today, our JonathanM describes (June 16, 2011) an encounter with a true blue dyed-in-the-wool slam dunk total believing Darwinist (the Aristotle of Morris, Minnesota, US): Colliding With The Pharyngula: My Encounter With PZ MyersMyers did mention the questions at the beginning of his lecture (describing yours truly as a “flaming moron”). He did not, however, despite promising to do so, provide satisfactory rebuttals to the questions at all during the course of his presentation (though he did attempt a response to one of the ten questions). During the course of the Q&A, I raised a question concerning the lack of congruence between homology and developmental pathways, citing several papers to substantiate my claims (which I Read More ›

From Richard A. Kerr we learn “Enceladus Now Looks Wet, So It May Be ALIVE!” (Science, 0 June 2011): Liquid water—and the life it may permit—has been the goal of planetary exploration for decades, with not much of the sloshy stuff to show for the effort. Jupiter’s moon Europa has a global ocean, but unfortunately, it’s out of reach beneath many kilometers of ice. So the sight in 2005 of ice and water vapor jetting hundreds of kilometers above Saturn’s icy little moon Enceladus, like Yellowstone geysers gone ballistic, warmed the hearts of astrobiologists everywhere. But as terrestrial geologists soon pointed out, water plumes needn’t mean liquid water. Enceladus might be frozen solid and still be spouting water ice and Read More ›

Heck, it’s “science”, which is way better than being true, reasonable, or useful.

He tells us,

Recently, evolutionary psychologists have turned their sights on love and divorce. It didn’t take them long to notice that when people fall in love, there’s a period of up to three years during which the zeal and infatuation ride at a peak.

(Many parents of young adults, attempting to dissuade children from a predictably bad match, have noticed this.)

[ … ]

From this perspective, we are preprogrammed to lose interest in a sexual partner after the time required to raise a child has passed – which is, on average, about four years. Read More ›

In “When the multiverse and many-worlds collide” (New Scientist, 01 June 2011), Justin Mullins explains,

Two of the strangest ideas in modern physics – that the cosmos constantly splits into parallel universes in which every conceivable outcome of every event happens, and the notion that our universe is part of a larger multiverse – have been unified into a single theory. This solves a bizarre but fundamental problem in cosmology and has set physics circles buzzing with excitement, as well as some bewilderment. Read More ›

In “The Social Psychological Narrative — or — What Is Social Psychology, Anyway?
A Conversation With Timothy D. Wilson” (Edge (June 16, 2011), Wilson, a researcher into consciousness, comments on evolutionary psychology, taking on one of its most widely quoted exponents, Steve Pinker:

To be clear, evolutionary theory is obviously true and has added to our knowledge about social behavior, by suggesting novel hypotheses that could then be tested with the experimental method. But I believe the examples of this are far fewer than Steve suggests. He mentions a 2003 paper by David Buss that “listed fifty novel predictions about social behavior derived from evolutionary theory.” I went back and checked that list to see how novel those predictions were. Read More ›

Interesting timing if you consider the recent, controversial “simian Adam and Eve” article in Christianity Today (June 2011),which featured him: In the same quarter, process theologian Karl Giberson left from the Christian Darwinist think tank BioLogos and resigned from his teaching position at Eastern Nazarene (Boston). Neither move appears to have been announced. BioLogos issued a statement May 16, but this was some time after Darwinist blogger Jerry Coyne had noted Giberson’s disappearance from BioLogos (May 3, 2011).

Rumours certainly swirled, with Coyne suggesting “big trouble at BioLogos,” and wishing “good riddance to their science-polluting ways!” Another rumour drafted Uncommon Descent into the “despicable” role of wicked glee, for which there was no shred of evidence. Indeed, we’d always thought that Jerry’s “Uncle Karl” was better for us than for BioLogos …  after all, Southern Baptist point man Al Mohler had weeks earlier accused Giberson of “throwing the Bible under the bus.”

Giberson confirmed for us independently (June 4 2011) that, while writing books, he is looking for another position. Digging a bit, we also find that there has been some ferment in Giberson’s religious denomination, around the usual issues of the Word of God vs. the word of mod, and around him specifically. Some people are rejoicing at his departure: Read More ›

Here’s a story, “Leaky Genes Put Evolution on the Fast Track, Pitt and UW-Madison Researchers Find” (Eurekalert, Jun 15, 2011) where

The team traced the development of a unique feature in a species of fruit fly that began with low-level gene activity and became a distinct feature in a mere four mutations as an existing gene took on a new function, according to a report in PNAS 

Slight changes in DNA transcriptional enhancers can activate dormant genetic imperfections, causing “leakiness” or low level activity in developing tissue that is different from the genes’ typical location. A few more mutations can result in “a new function for an old gene.” One such gene found its way to becoming a permanent fixture in the ban of a species of fruit fly. However, Read More ›

  A good place to begin understanding why consciousness is not strictly reducible to the material is in looking at consciousness of material objects — that is, straightforward perception. Perception as it is experienced by human beings is the explicit sense of being aware of something material other than oneself. Consider your awareness of a glass sitting on a table near you. Light reflects from the glass, enters your eyes, and triggers activity in your visual pathways. The standard neuroscientific account says that your perception of the glass is the result of, or just is, this neural activity. There is a chain of causes and effects connecting the glass with the neural activity in your brain that is entirely compatible Read More ›

Well, they would, but … Once you’re thick in Science, you can question the paradigm. But if you want to get grants, if you want to be elected to high positions, if you want to get awards as a promoter of public education of Science, you can’t question the paradigm. ~  45.09 I interviewed dozens and dozens of scientists and, when they’re amongst each other or talking to a journalist who they trust, they’ll speak about ‘It’s incredibly complex’ or ‘Molecular Biology is in a crisis’, but, publicly, they can’t say that. ~  45.52 – from Expelled Witham is a veteran Washington area journalist and author.

Here, Caltech physicist Sean Carroll graciously responded here to UD’s Vincent Torley’s questions, explaining why he thinks God is not needed to explain the universe. It’s shaping up to be one of our most popular posts, besides which … Starting at 3, dark knight KD has certainly livened up the discussion, as have regulars like CannuckianYankee, BlakeG, uoflcard, donaldm, and a host of favourites. If you want to comment, with wit and polish, come on in, the water’s fine.

Here’s David Berlinski and Paul Nelson on Ricochet, interviewed by Berlinski’s daughter Claire Berlinski: I asked my father and Paul Nelson to reply to as many of your questions about the Great Expectations conference as they could–beginning with the obvious: “Is it true that Paul Nelson believes that the world is only 6,000 years old?” (I paraphrase, but that idea came up in the comments.) They’ve given their answers to a few more questions, including: “Do you guys believe in intelligent design?” and “Do you actually know anything about science?”

At ScienceDaily, we learn that while “the brains of all vertebrates display gender-related differences,”

Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Ornithology in Seewiesen have now demonstrated for the first time in the white-browed sparrow weaver, an African songbird, that the extent of these sex differences in the brain varies according to social status, and cannot be explained by singing behaviour as previously thought.

Essentially, only the dominant male in the small flock mates, and during the breeding season, “sings a long and complex solo song that it only performs at dawn.”

According to the hitherto accepted hypothesis, Read More ›

No. Good illustration of the “magic” of low rez? Yes.