Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

FYI-FTR: Communication system framework model . . . relevance to the cell

Andre just asked me: can you please embed a flowchart of how communication works for [XXXX] … You know the one that goes like this input encoder medium decoder output. I don’t think [XXXX] understands the problems such a system has with accidental processes nor does he understand IC. Please KF. With a little bit of luck a light bulb might go on for him. I don’t know how to embed an image in a comment here at UD, which — for cause — is quite restrictive as a WP blog. Here is my slightly expanded version of the classic diagram used by Shannon (a version of what I usually used in the classroom, sometimes with modulator/demodulator rather than encoder/decoder*): Read More ›

Shoddy science practice still matters?

One could hardly believe, reading this It now appears that LaCour, whose pending appointment at Princeton based on his work is in doubt, made up more than just his data. He appears to have claimed on his CV a UCLA teaching award that doesn’t exist. I’ll let New York magazine pick up the climax of the story from here: But why does the fact that stuff doesn’t exist in this universe  even matter?  Mustn’t it exist in another one? And isn’t it enough to just sign on to some agenda now? See also: Quick summary of origin of life problems Follow UD News at Twitter!

Stuart Newman: Non-linear evolution

Suzan Mazur continues to impress, as a science writer who is seriously trying to understand origin of life questions. Her recent book is The Origin of Life Circus, much recommended by Uncommon Descent News if you want to get up to speed on the questions. Here is her interview with Stuart Newman on non-linear evolution: It was Stuart Newman who was the first of the Altenberg 16 scientists I discussed developments with following the Extended Synthesis symposium in 2008 at Konrad Lorenz Institute, a meeting I was barred from attending for having gotten out in front of the event with a series of stories and an e-book — showcased on these pages — in which I interviewed evolutionary thinkers who Read More ›

Is someone actually trying to take out the trash in evolution studies?

Someone cares? Conceivably. Get this: Blind trust in unblinded observation in Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior We surveyed 492 recent studies in the fields of ecology, evolution, and behavior (EEB) to evaluate potential for observer bias and the need for blind experimentation in each study. While 248 articles included experiments that could have been influenced by observer bias, only 13.3% of these articles indicated that experiments were blinded. The use of blind observation therefore was either grossly underreported in the surveyed articles, or many EEB studies were not blinded. We hope that a concerted effort of the field of EEB—including researchers, peer-reviewers, and journal editors—will help promote and institute routine, blind observation as an essential standard that should be practiced by all sciences. – Melissa R. Kardish et al. Ecol. Evol., Read More ›

Human and yeast genes interchangeable after a billion years

From The Scientist : A large number of human genes can substitute for their defective counterparts in yeast and prevent the microorganisms from dying, according to a paper published today (May 21) in Science. Of more than 400 human-to-yeast gene replacements performed, almost 50 percent were effective at compensating for a missing vital function. “No one has carried out an evolutionary study of this kind before and certainly not of this scale,” said Nevan Krogan of the University of California, San Francisco, who was not involved in the work. “It’s rather satisfying to see that half of the genes could complement [the yeast function] because it justifies continuing working in yeast as a model . . . to help understand Read More ›

Apparently social science data are easy to fake

Could that be because humans are naturally deceitful? Stay tuned. It sounds as though the intelligent design view is right after all. Humans are not meat puppets, and anything one human thinks up can be trumped by another one. Not something one has to deal with much with cattle. See also: Why is it okay for tenured profs to be dumber than the rest of us? Follow UD News at Twitter!

Taking science by the throat

Further to: Slate has discovered why you shouldn’t use Wikipedia as a source (In other breaking news, pigs don’t really fly faster than light), we now read, once again, a story like: The sad tales of the Wikipedia gang war regarding WUWT This illustrates the most basic problem with the reliability of Wikipedia in any entry where human opinion is involved. There are roving gangs (and sometimes individuals who appear gang-like due to their output level, such as disgraced Wikipedia editor William Connolley, who will no doubt wail about this note, and then proceed to post the usual denigrating things on his “Stoat, taking science by the throat” blog) and individuals who act as gatekeepers of their own vision of “truth”, Read More ›

Real Clear Science slams Slate science reporting

“ … reportage that is mostly aimed at insulting Republicans and Christians.” But isn’t that what a pop science page would typically understand science reporting to be?  Oh yes, there are also a-crock-alypses to cover. Sorry, forgot. Here: Now, for some reason, Slate’s science page has partially abandoned its strong tradition of in-depth analysis to promote an angry, opinion-driven reportage that is mostly aimed at insulting Republicans and Christians. … This is counterproductive. Science journalism that forsakes its primary mission of science communication to engage in partisan culture wars does a grotesque disservice to the scientific endeavor and is doomed to fail. Just ask ScienceBlogs, which has become a shell of its former self … Yuh. I often send ScienceBlogs Read More ›

Predictions Darwin followers admit have failed

If they’re honest. Following on Darwin’s Predictions: A New Website Surveys Evolution’s Main Predictions Here: The predictions examined in this paper were selected according to several criteria. They cover a wide spectrum of evolutionary theory and are fundamental to the theory, reflecting major tenets of evolutionary thought. They were widely held by the consensus rather than reflecting one viewpoint of several competing viewpoints. Each prediction was a natural and fundamental expectation of the theory of evolution, and constituted mainstream evolutionary science. Furthermore, the selected predictions are not vague but rather are specific and can be objectively evaluated. They have been tested and evaluated and the outcome is not controversial or in question. And finally the predictions have implications for evolution’s capacity Read More ›

Darwin’s Predictions: A New Website Surveys Evolution’s Main Predictions

Ever wonder what the scientific evidence says about evolutionary theory? Have doubts about evolutionist’s claim that the data unequivocally support evolution, making if a fact beyond all reasonable doubt? Well have a look for yourself at the newDarwinsPredictions site and see how the objective science compares with evolution’s predictions.  Read more

Catholic Darwinist Ken Miller claims increasing information in life forms is easy

What’s needed to drive this increase? Just three things: selection, replication, and mutation.” – Kenneth Miller, Only a Theory, p. 77 Thoughts? See also: Wow. Catholic Darwinism goes nuts. A mass for Darwin. Or is this a joke? Open a window, someone, please. Follow UD News at Twitter!

Science is like hockey

It can be the greatest game on Earth. And it can be vastly more useful. But: Further to A growing serious interest in the science journal retraction problem?, this also landed in the In Bin yesterday: In the language of science, calling results “incredibly nice” is not a compliment—it’s tantamount to accusing a researcher of being cavalier, or even of fabricating findings. But rather than heed the warning, the journal, Anesthesia & Analgesia, punted. It published the letter to the editor, together with an explanation from Fujii, which asked, among other things, “how much evidence is required to provide adequate proof?” In other words, “Don’t believe me? Tough.” Anesthesia & Analgesia went on to publish 11 more of Fujii’s papers. Read More ›

A growing serious interest in the science journal retraction problem?

Maybe. It even penetrated as far as the New York Times: Retractions can be good things, since even scientists often fail to acknowledge their mistakes, preferring instead to allow erroneous findings simply to wither away in the back alleys of unreproducible literature. But they don’t surprise those of us who are familiar with how science works; we’re surprised only that retractions aren’t even more frequent. … Every day, on average, a scientific paper is retracted because of misconduct. Two percent of scientists admit to tinkering with their data in some kind of improper way. That number might appear small, but remember: Researchers publish some 2 million articles a year, often with taxpayer funding. In each of the last few years, Read More ›

Last religion post for the week: Jerry Coyne on religion

Drat, just when I (O’Leary for News) complained that the new atheists had given up threatening each other with legal action, raising cain about genome mapper Francis Collins, or starting hoo-haws in elevators, this item turned up in the In Bin: Jerry Coyne in The Scientist : But while science and religion both claim to discern what’s true, only science has a system for weeding out what’s false. In the end, that is the irreconcilable conflict between them. Science is not just a profession or a body of facts, but, more important, a set of cognitive and practical tools designed to understand brute reality while overcoming the human desire to believe what we like or what we find emotionally satisfying. Read More ›

Wow. Catholic Darwinism goes nuts.

We ran a bit late on our religion coverage yesterday. The new atheists have not produced as many interesting scandals and uproars recently. Besides it is gardening season in many places anyway. That said, catching up, here is something O’Leary for News certainly didn’t know: A few years ago, a Mass was composed titled “Missa Charles Darwin” (Missa means Mass). The piece is based on the five-movement structure of the traditional Mass. It sounds very much like Renaissance church music, but the texts from Scripture have been replaced by excerpts from Darwin’s writings, including On the Origin of Species and The Descent of Man.” Or is this a joke we didn’t get? No wonder News’s pastor can hardly stand to hear the Read More ›