2011

… it doesn’t evolve.

Remember when AVIDA proved Darwin right?

These results provide evidence that low-impact mutations can present a substantial barrier to progressive evolution by natural selection. Understanding mutation is of primary importance, as selection depends on the mutational production of new genotypes. Numerous changes that would be beneficial may nevertheless fail to occur because mutation cannot produce them in the time available.

Further, it is important for biologists to realistically appraise what selection can and cannot do under various circumstances. Selection may neither be necessary nor sufficient to explain numerous genomic or cellular features of complex organisms [2-4].

PDF and poster here:

Nelson CW, Sanford JC (2011) The effects of low-impact mutations in digital organisms. Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling 8:9.

Nelson CW (2011) Selection threshold constrains adaptive evolution in computational evolution experiments. Great Lakes Bioinformatics Conference. F1000 Research 2:A13. Read More ›

At MSNBC (5/25/20), Charles Q. Choi tells us “Bizarre shrimp-like predators grew larger and survived longer than thought”:

The creatures, known as anomalocaridids, were giant predators (ranging from 2 to possibly 6 feet in length) with soft-jointed bodies and toothy maws with spiny limbs in front to snag worms and other prey.

[ … ]

Past research showed they dominated the seas during the early and middle Cambrian period 542 million to 501 million years ago, a span of time known for the “Cambrian Explosion” that saw the appearance of all the major animal groups and the establishment of complex ecosystems. Read More ›

Here. This link works. Thanks Mung. Notes on the article here.

In my previous two articles (here and here), I explored some of the background information concerning the integration of retroviral elements into primate genomes and the various arguments for common descent which are based on them. I explored, in some detail, the evidence for common descent based on the shared placement of retroviral sequences. In this final article, I will discuss the two remaining points which are raised in the popular-level article which I have been examining. Read More>>>

There is an interesting item about Peter Singer, ethics and the environment in the Guardian ‘Comment is Free’ by Mark Vernon – Without belief in moral truths, how can we care about climate change? – Peter Singer admits his brand of utilitarianism struggles with the challenge of climate change in a way Christian ethics does not. Singer has previously argued that some animals have more rights than some human beings because of a lack of belief in objective morality. But now he comments that he ‘regrets’ he doesn’t believe in God and that his position is in a ‘state of flux’ because of ethical problems related to environental degradation. A Darwinian approach involving ‘survival of the fittest’ thinking doesn’t give us strong reasons Read More ›

Johnson meant that real Darwinists say what Darwinism entails (materialist atheism) and then Christian Darwinists rush in to announce that we can somehow harmonize it with Christianity by not taking seriously what Darwinists actually say. Explained in detail here. The analogy is to American football.

In The Moral Landscape, for example, new atheist and PhD neuroscientist Sam Harris tackles free will: In The Moral Landscape, for example, new atheist Sam Harris tackles free will:

Many scientists and philosophers realized log ago that free will could not be squared with our growing understanding of the physical world. Nevertheless, mny still deny this fact. … The problem is tat no account of causality leaves room for free will … Our belief in free will arises from our moment-to-mement ignorance of specific prior causes. (Pp. 103-5)

Are we clear about this yet? If not, dozens of examples from other Darwinists are available. And then
Read More ›

In The Language of Science and Faith, (IVP Books, 2011) explaining how microevolution can become macroevolution, they explain,

If a population of some species undergoes a substantial number of such changes [genetic mutations], it can eventually turn into a new species, a process called speciation. Usually speciation requires that the population be geographically isolated from other related populations so that the beneficial genes do not get diluted among the entire population. Mutations in the human species, for example, can easily spread among the entire population. But if everyone from, say, Canada, moved to the moon, then mutations in that population could eventually, over millions of yeas, lead to a new species that would be unable to breed with the parent species on earth. The new species would not necessarily be more advanced in any meaningful sense; it might even be less advanced according to some criteria. But it would be different.

Some sources don’t find this example a slam dunk. Thoughts? Note: It may already have happened. Read More ›

Reviewing Elena Mannes’ “The Power of Music: Pioneering Discoveries in the New Science of Song” (The Wall Street Journal, May 21, 2011), Tallis writes,

Ms. Mannes, an Emmy-winning granddaughter of the founders of New York’s Mannes School of Music, is inspired by the possibility that neuroscience may help us harness the potential of music to treat the sick and even to build more harmonious communities. Yet her investigation, based on a PBS documentary that Ms. Mannes produced, gives us little reason to expect that neuroscience will deliver on this promissory note. Read More ›

Forrest, a prof at Eastern Louisiana University, is considered a big expert on the intelligent design community and the dangers it poses. I put off explaining why she isn’t a  big expert, but can’t decently do so any longer. Read More ›

And many more! A friend writes to say, Today marks the 50th anniversary of the Nirenberg and Matthaei experiment , which was the first step in cracking the full 64-codon genetic code. The first codon that was cracked was that UUU=phenylalanine. And from The Scientist: On May 27, 1961, Heinrich Matthaei, a postdoc working with NIH scientist Marshal Nirenberg, placed synthetic polyuracil RNA into 20 test tubes to see what it would produce. Each tube contained cytoplasmic extract from Escherichia coli and a specific radiolabeled amino acid. Ribosomes from the tube containing labeled phenylalanine came back ‘hot,’ and the world was a step closer to understanding the genetic code. – Terry Sharrer, “Nirenberg’s Genetic Code Chart, 1961-66” (2007-06-01)

In his on-going criticism of Jonathan Wells’ new book, The Myth of Junk DNA, evolutionist Larry Moran now asserts that the much discussed vitamin C pseudogene is powerful evidence for evolution and common descent:  Read more

(This contest is now closed for judging. (The first award, for “Why do they do it?”, is announced here. The second award, for “What do you call a guy who reviews/trashes a book without reading it?”, is announced here.) ) I’ve suggested it’s a strategy on the part of people who trash ID-friendly books unread: The reviewer who fails to read the book is not, in a Darwin-obsessed community, held responsible for spreading misinformation. Indeed, the community wants him to do it, to avoid conflict between with their worldview and reality. The problem is, that only explains why he isn’t censured for his action. A more critical question is why would a scientist or scholar actually volunteer to do it? Read More ›

That’s a decision beleaguered governments must increasingly make.

U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., issued today’s 73-page report, “The National Science Foundation: Under the Microscope,” after months of signals from GOP leaders that the agency’s programs would be targeted. – Alan Boyle, “Funny science sparks serious spat” (MSNBC, May 26, 2011)

One hardly expects MSNBC’s Cosmic Log to defend research cuts, and – let’s face it – the silly “space aliens/multiverse/origin of life/Darwin explains tiddlywinks tournaments” projects make the easiest pop science news stories. Boyle knows that as well as anyone. Yethis protest that some silly-sounding projects are not in fact silly has a grain of truth:

The towel-folding robot, for example, is part of a project to see what it would take for robots to handle relatively unstructured tasks ranging from cooking to surgery.

It matters because aged seniors, for example, need inventions that enable them to live safely and comfortably in their homes.

That said, uncritical acceptance of the science lobby’s claim that – of all things, peer review – is the answer is pretty naive. That’s letting the dog decide how many cans of food he needs per day: “An answer,” surely not “the best answer.” So what is? Read More ›

Here’s the intro to the contest, riffing off the bewildering soap opera of claims about the relationship between modern humans and Neanderthals, followed by the question, for a free copy of The Nature of Nature , tell us: Do you think we understand the human-Neanderthal relationship better than we did twenty-five years ago? In what ways?

The responses here went down a range of paths, only some being on topic, perhaps due to the specificity of the question.

Two book prizes are awarded, Read More ›